Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7, 71509-71608 [2014-28064]
Download as PDF
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 231
December 2, 2014
Part II
Department of Commerce
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Part 635
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7; Final
Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71510
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 120328229–4949–02]
RIN 0648–BC09
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery
Management Plan; Amendment 7
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule implements
Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan (2006
Consolidated HMS FMP) to ensure
sustainable management of bluefin tuna
consistent with the 2006 HMS FMP and
address ongoing management challenges
in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries.
This final rule also implements minor
regulatory changes related to the
management of Atlantic HMS.
Amendment 7 management measures
were developed by NMFS under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA).
This final rule: Allocates U.S. bluefin
tuna quota among domestic fishing
categories; implements measures
applicable to the pelagic longline
fishery, including Individual Bluefin
Quotas (IBQs), two new Gear Restricted
Areas, closure of the pelagic longline
fishery when annual bluefin tuna quota
is reached, elimination of target catch
requirements associated with retention
of incidental bluefin tuna in the pelagic
longline fishery, mandatory retention of
legal-sized bluefin tuna caught as
bycatch, expanded monitoring
requirements, including electronic
monitoring via cameras and bluefin tuna
catch reporting via Vessel Monitoring
System (VMS), and transiting provisions
for pelagic and bottom longline vessels;
requires VMS use and reporting by the
Purse Seine category; changes the start
date of the Purse Seine category from
July 15 to a date within a range of June
1 to August 15, to be established by an
annual action; requires use of the
Automated Catch Reporting System by
the General and Harpoon categories;
provides additional flexibility for
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
inseason adjustment of the General
category quota and Harpoon category
retention limits; and changes the
allocation of the Angling category
Trophy South subquota for the Gulf of
Mexico. Finally, this rule implements
several measures not directly related to
bluefin tuna management, including a
U.S. North Atlantic albacore tuna quota;
modified rules regarding permit
category changes; and minor changes in
the HMS regulations for administrative
or clarification purposes.
DATES: Effective January 1, 2015, except
for § 635.9(b)(2)(ii), (e)(1), which are
effective June 1, 2015; and
§ 635.15(b)(3), (b)(4)(ii), and (b)(5)(i),
which are effective January 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 7 to
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP,
including the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS), and other
relevant documents are available from
the HMS Management Division Web site
at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Warren or Brad McHale at 978–
281–9260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.
Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed
under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP
and regulations at 50 CFR part 635,
pursuant to the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA.
Under ATCA, the Secretary shall
promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out
International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)
recommendations. The authority to
issue regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA has been
delegated from the Secretary to the
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
NOAA (AA). On October 2, 2006, NMFS
published in the Federal Register (71
FR 58058) final regulations, effective
November 1, 2006, implementing the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which
details the management measures for
Atlantic HMS fisheries, including the
incidental and directed Atlantic bluefin
tuna fisheries.
Background
A brief summary of the background of
this final action is provided below. A
more detailed history of the
development of these regulations, and
the alternatives considered, are
described in Amendment 7 to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(Amendment 7 FEIS, August, 2014),
which can be found online at the HMS
Web site noted above.
NMFS published a proposed rule on
August 21, 2013 (78 FR, 52032), which
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
proposed the ‘‘preferred alternatives’’
analyzed in the Draft Amendment 7
Environmental Impact Statement and
solicited public comments on the
measures, which were designed to
address the following objectives: (1)
Prevent overfishing of and rebuild
bluefin tuna stock, achieve on a
continuing basis optimum yield, and
minimize bluefin bycatch to the extent
practicable by ensuring that domestic
bluefin tuna fisheries continue to
operate within the overall total
allowable catch (TAC) set by ICCAT
consistent with the existing rebuilding
plan; (2) optimize the ability for all
permit categories to harvest their full
bluefin quota allocations, account for
mortality associated with discarded
bluefin in all categories, maintain
flexibility of the regulations to account
for the highly variable nature of the
bluefin fisheries, and maintain fairness
among permit/quota categories; (3)
reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna
and minimize reductions in target catch
in both directed and incidental bluefin
fisheries, to the extent practicable; (4)
improve the scope and quality of catch
data through enhanced reporting and
monitoring to ensure that landings and
dead discards do not exceed the quota
and to improve accounting for all
sources of fishing mortality; and (5)
adjust other aspects of the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary
and appropriate, including northern
albacore tuna quota implementation.
On August 22, 2013 (78 FR 52123),
NMFS published a notice in the Federal
Register informing the public of the date
and locations of public hearings on
Amendment 7. From August 2013 to
January 2014, NMFS conducted 11
public hearings, and consulted with the
New England Fishery Management
Council, the Gulf of Mexico
Management Council, and the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The hearings were held in diverse
locations in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
coastal states. On August 30, 2013, the
Environmental Protection Agency
published a Notice of Availability of the
draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS) (78 FR 53754; August 30, 2013).
The August 21, 2013, Amendment 7
proposed rule set the end of the public
comment period as October 23, 2013,
but given the length and complexity of
the rule, and to provide additional time
for consideration of public comments in
light of the November meeting of
ICCAT, the end of the comment period
was extended to December 10, 2013 (78
FR 57340; September 18, 2013).
Subsequently, due to the government
shutdown in October 2013, and NMFS’
inability to respond to constituents
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
during that time frame and based on
requests for an extension due to the
complexity of the measures covered in
the DEIS, NMFS again extended the end
of the public comment period until
January 10, 2014, to provide additional
opportunity for informed comment (78
FR 75327; December 11, 2013). On
December 26, 2013, NMFS published a
Federal Register notice announcing a
public hearing conference call and
webinar to provide additional
opportunity for the public from all
geographic areas to comment (78 FR
78322).
The comments received on Draft
Amendment 7 and its proposed rule,
and responses to those comments, are
summarized below in the section
labeled ‘‘Response to Comments.’’
The bluefin tuna fishery is managed
principally through a quota. Currently,
NMFS implements and codifies the
ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota
through rulemaking, annually or biannually depending on the length of the
relevant ICCAT recommendation. Also
through rulemaking (the ‘‘quota
specifications process’’) NMFS annually
adjusts the U.S. baseline bluefin quota
to account for any underharvest or
overharvest of the adjusted U.S. quota
from the prior year; specifies subquotas
that result from application of the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP allocations; and
adjusts subquotas as appropriate
following consideration of domestic
management needs. NMFS must
account not only for landings but for
bluefin tuna discarded dead. NMFS
estimates and accounts for dead
discards in the pelagic longline fishery,
which cannot target bluefin tuna but
catches them while targeting swordfish
and other tunas.
National Standard 1 requires that
‘‘conservation and management
measures shall prevent overfishing
while achieving, on a continuing basis,
the optimum yield from each fishery for
the United States fishing industry.’’ The
Magnuson-Stevens Act defines
‘‘optimum yield’’ as the amount of fish
that, among other things, provides for
rebuilding to a level consistent with
producing the maximum sustainable
yield from the fishery. In ATCA,
Congress also directed NMFS to manage
the bluefin fishery to ensure that NMFS
provides U.S. fishing vessels ‘‘with a
reasonable opportunity to harvest such
allocation, quota, or at such fishing
mortality level. . . .’’ This rule builds
upon an extensive regulatory framework
for management of the domestic bluefin
fishery pursuant to the 20-year
rebuilding program adopted in the 1999
FMP and continued under the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP. As described
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
below, the final rule measures were
designed to allow fishery participants to
fully harvest, but not exceed, the U.S.
bluefin quota by refining the existing
management tools. NMFS is
implementing a detailed, multi-level
approach to resolving challenges in
administering and carrying out the
current quota system, which, if left
unaddressed, may otherwise result in
overharvests of the U.S. quota in the
future. These final rule measures
directly support the goals of reducing
overfishing, rebuilding the western
bluefin stock, and achieving optimum
yield by ensuring that the fishery
continues to be managed within the
ICCAT-approved TAC, and consistent
with National Standard 1’s
requirements.
Northern Albacore Tuna
Amendment 7 also includes measures
for management of north Atlantic
albacore (or ‘‘northern albacore’’) tuna.
Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted
recommendations regarding the
northern albacore tuna fishery. A multiyear management measure for northern
albacore tuna was first adopted in 2003,
setting the TAC at 34,500 mt. ICCAT’s
Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics (SCRS) assessed the northern
albacore tuna stock in 2009 and
concluded that the stock continues to be
overfished with overfishing occurring,
recommending a level of catch of no
more than 28,000 mt to meet ICCAT
management objectives by 2020. In
response, in 2009 ICCAT established a
North Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding
program via Recommendation 09–05,
setting a 28,000mt TAC and including
several provisions to limit catches by
individual ICCAT parties (for major and
minor harvesters) and reduce the
amount of unharvested quota that could
be carried forward from one year to the
next, from 50 percent to 25 percent of
a party’s initial catch quota. The 2009
recommendation expired in 2011.
In 2011, ICCAT Recommendation 11–
04 again set a TAC of 28,000 mt for 2012
and for 2013 and contained specific
recommendations regarding the North
Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding
program, including an annual TAC for
2012 and 2013 allocated among the
European Union, Chinese Taipei, the
United States, and Venezuela. The U.S.
quota for 2012 and 2013 is 527 mt. The
recommendation limits Japanese
northern albacore tuna catches to 4
percent in weight of its total Atlantic
bigeye tuna longline catch, and limits
the catches of other ICCAT parties to
200 mt. The recommendation also
specifies that quota adjustments for a
given year’s underharvest or overharvest
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71511
may be made for either 2 or 3 years from
the subject year (i.e., adjustments based
on 2013 catches would be made in
either 2015 or 2016). Pursuant to ATCA
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in this
final rule NMFS implements the ICCATrecommended U.S. quota and
establishes provisions to adjust the base
quota for over or underharvests via
annual quota specifications.
Implemented Measures
The rule finalizes most of the
management measures that were
contained in the proposed rule for
Amendment 7 as they were proposed,
with several exceptions. This section
provides a summary of the final
management measures being
implemented by Amendment 7 and
notes certain changes from the proposed
rule to this final rule that may be of
particular interest to the regulated
community. These include changes to
the basis for annual purse seine quota
availability, changes to two Gear
Restricted Areas (GRAs), changes to the
range of years used in the performance
metrics and BFT quota allocations
formula, changes to VMS requirements,
and changed to effective dates.
Measures that are different from the
proposed rule, or measures that were
proposed but not implemented, are
described in detail in the section titled,
‘‘Changes from the Proposed Rule.’’
1. Quota Reallocation
Codified Quota Reallocation
The Longline category’s percentage of
the baseline U.S. bluefin tuna quota
remains at 8.1 percent, but each year the
Longline category quota will be
increased by a net amount of 62.5 mt
based on deductions from the other
quota categories, to more fully and
predictably account for Longline
category incidental bluefin catch,
including both dead discards and
landings. This measure does not modify
the previously-codified category quota
allocation percentages. Rather, NMFS
will calculate the bluefin quota for each
of the quota categories through the
following process: First, 68 mt will be
subtracted from the baseline annual U.S.
BFT quota for reallocation to the
Longline category quota. All quota
categories will be reduced consistent
with the allocation percentages codified
at 50 CFR 635.27. Second, the remaining
quota will be divided among the
categories according to those allocation
percentages. Third, the 68 mt derived in
Step One from all categories, including
the Longline category, will be added to
the Longline category quota. The net
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71512
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
amount of quota increase for the
Longline category will be 62.5 mt.
Thus, 32.0 mt will be deducted from
the General category (i.e., 47.1 percent
of 68 mt), 2.7 mt from the Harpoon
category (3.9 percent), 12.6 mt from the
Purse Seine category (18.6 percent), 5.5
mt from the Longline category (8.1
percent), 13.4 mt from the Angling
category (19.7 percent), and 1.7 mt from
the Reserve category (2.5 percent). This
equals 68 mt, which will be added to
the Longline category, resulting in a net
increase to the Longline category of 62.5
mt (68 mt minus the Longline category’s
contribution of 5.5 mt). If, for example,
the baseline annual U.S. quota is 923.7
mt in a given year, then 403.0 mt would
be allocated to the General category (i.e.,
47.1 percent of 855.7 mt), 33.4 mt to the
Harpoon category (3.9 percent), 159.1
mt to the Purse Seine category (18.6
percent), 137.3 mt for the Longline
category (8.1 percent plus the 62.5 mt),
168.6 mt for the Angling category (19.7
percent), and 21.4 mt for the Reserve
category (2.5 percent)
This measure provides additional
quota to the Longline category to
facilitate the ability to account for both
landings and dead discards within the
Longline category quota, consistent with
the historical separate dead discard
allocation, yet limits the amount of
reallocation to the Longline category if
the total U.S. quota increases. For more
information on the historical dead
discard allocation and the associated
rationale for the 68 mt augmentation of
the Longline category, see the Codified
Reallocation section (2.1.2) of the FEIS.
Annual Quota Reallocation
NMFS will annually adjust the Purse
Seine quota, using a formula based on
the weights of reported landings and
estimated weights of dead discards
(calculated from reported lengths) by
purse seine fishery participants in the
previous year. Twenty-five percent of
each Purse Seine category participant’s
base quota will be available as a
minimum to each Purse Seine fishery
participant annually. Beyond that
amount, quota will be available to such
participants based on the fishery
participant’s catch in the previous year.
Any quota not allocated to the Purse
Seine category participants will be
allocated to the Reserve category for
possible redistribution consistent with
specified regulatory criteria to other
quota categories, and to support other
objectives of the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP. By moving portions of the
unused Purse Seine quota to the Reserve
category annually, this measure will
give NMFS more flexibility in
administering the quota system.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Based on public comment, this
measure was modified from the
proposed rule so that the annual
formula for quota availability is based
on the previous year’s individual purse
seine participant’s catch, rather than
based on the catch of the Purse Seine
category as a whole. This modification
ties quota allocation more closely to the
individual participants catch and
creates incentive for fishery participants
to remain active in the fishery. Without
this modification, individual allocations
would be tied to the catch of the other
vessels in the fishery, which could have
unfair results if catch were to vary
greatly among the vessels. For example,
in a year where overall category catch
were low, an individual purse seine
participant could have a relatively low
amount of quota available for use, even
if that participant landed a substantial
portion of its allocation during the
previous year.
Annually, NMFS will make a
determination regarding the quota
available for each purse seine
participant for the year, based on the
bluefin catch by such participants in the
previous year. Purse Seine participants
will have available for use either 100
percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, or 25
percent of their base quota, according
the following allocation criteria: If the
individual catch is between 0 and 20
percent of the individual base quota in
year one, the Purse Seine fishery
participant will have available for use
25 percent of their base quota in year
two, and 75 percent of their quota will
be available to the Reserve Category for
that year. If the individual catch is
greater than 20 percent and up to 45
percent of their individual base quota in
year one, the Purse Seine fishery
participant will be allocated 50 percent
of their quota in year two, and 50
percent of their quota will be available
to the Reserve Category for that year. If
the individual catch is greater than 45
percent and up to 70 percent of their
base quota in year one, the Purse Seine
fishery participant will have available
for use 75 percent of their individual
base quota in year two, and 25 percent
of their quota will be available to the
Reserve Category for that year. If the
individual catch is greater than 70
percent of their base quota in year one,
the Purse Seine fishery participant will
have available for use 100 percent of
their baseline quota in year two, and no
quota will be available to the Reserve
Category for that year. These thresholds
(>20 percent, >45 percent, >70 percent)
will apply following the same pattern in
years beyond year two, with each year’s
quota reflecting the previous year’s
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
catch. In summary, if Purse Seine
fishery participants catch a large portion
of their individual allocated base quota
in one year, they have available for use
a large portion of their base quota in the
next year. If a Purse Seine fishery
participant’s catch is low in one year, a
larger portion of their Purse Seine base
quota becomes available for other
management purposes. The Purse Seine
quota available would not be ‘‘lockedin’’ at a low level because the criteria
are structured to enable increased
utilization of available quota. For
example, if the catch in year one is
between 0 and 20 percent of their
individual year one baseline Purse
Seine quota, the Purse Seine fishery
participant would have available for use
25 percent of their individual baseline
quota in year two. If, in year two, the
individual catch is greater than 20
percent of their individual baseline
quota, but still within their individual
annual allocation (i.e., catch is between
20 percent and 25percent), the Purse
Seine fishery participant would have
available for use 50% of their individual
baseline quota in year three. The Purse
Seine participants catch levels and
allocation levels have been staggered to
allow for an increase in allocation in the
following year, without causing the
Purse Seine fishery participant to
exceed the current year’s allocation to
do so.
This measure balances the need to
provide the Purse Seine category
participants a reasonable amount of
fishing opportunity in a predictable
manner, while making use of quota that
may otherwise be unused. As described
under ‘‘Modifications to the Reserve
Category,’’ quota that is available to the
Reserve Category may be utilized in a
variety of ways to meet multiple
objectives. NMFS will annually
calculate the Purse Seine catch for that
year and publish a notice in the Federal
Register regarding the amount of quota
that would be allocated to the Purse
Seine fishery participants, as well as the
corresponding amount allocated to the
Reserve category and any disposition of
the quota from the Reserve category for
the subsequent year made at that time.
After the initial adjustment, NMFS may
make additional modifications to the
Purse Seine quota inseason in
accordance with the criteria for inseason
adjustments specified at § 635.27(a), or
make subsequent use of quota from the
Reserve category.
Modifications to the Reserve Category
This measure gives NMFS
management flexibility by augmenting
the amount of quota in the Reserve
category under certain circumstances
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and adds new criteria to the list of
determination criteria NMFS considers
in redistributing quota to or from the
Reserve category, to be responsive to the
current conditions in the fisheries and
facilitate adaptation to future changes in
the fisheries. The potential sources of
quota for the Reserve category on top of
its baseline allocation of 2.5 percent are:
(1) Available underharvest of the U.S.
quota that is allowed to be carried
forward; and (2) unused Purse Seine
quota, under the Annual Quota
Reallocation measure described above.
For example, under the Annual Quota
Reallocation, NMFS will annually
adjust the purse seine quota, using a
formula based on the weights of
reported landings and estimated weights
of dead discards (calculated from
reported lengths) by each Purse Seine
fishery participants in the previous year.
Any remaining amount of Purse Seine
quota will then be reallocated to the
Reserve category for that subsequent
year. NMFS could utilize quota from the
Reserve category inseason after
considering defined criteria and
objectives. NMFS adds five criteria to
the existing nine criteria to consider
when making inseason or annual quota
adjustments. The five new criteria,
added to § 635.27(a)(8)(1)–(9) are: (10)
Optimize fishing opportunity; (11)
account for dead discards; (12) facilitate
quota accounting; (13) support other
fishing monitoring programs through
quota allocations and/or generation of
revenue; and (14) support research
through quota allocations andr
generation of revenue.
These modifications to the Reserve
category will increase management
flexibility in administering the quota
system in a way that takes into account
fluctuations in the characteristics of the
fishery.
2. Gear Restricted Areas
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Modified Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted
Area, With Conditional Access
This final rule establishes a GRA off
Cape Hatteras, NC, and limits access to
this area for vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear during the 5-month period
from December through April. The
shape of the GRA has been modified
from the proposed rule to remove the
southeastern corner of the defined
geographic area. This change was to
avoid unintended effects on fishing
outside the closed area that would have
occurred if the action were
implemented as proposed because it did
not account for the effect of the
prevailing currents on how pelagic
longline gear drifts in that area.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Under this management measure,
NMFS annually will grant qualified
vessels conditional access to this GRA
to fish with pelagic longline gear.
Access will be granted based on a
formula consisting of the following
metrics: Ratio of bluefin tuna
interactions to designated species catch,
compliance with the Pelagic Observer
Program requirements, and compliance
with HMS logbook reporting
requirements. Vessels will not qualify to
fish in the area with pelagic longline
gear if they have not demonstrated their
ability to avoid bluefin tuna and/or
comply with reporting and monitoring
(observer) requirements. Non-qualifying
vessels will be allowed to use other gear
types to fish for non-bluefin HMS
species authorized for use by pelagic
longline vessels, such as buoy gear,
green-stick gear, or rod and reel, in the
area during the months of the restriction
(December through April), but they may
not fish with pelagic longline gear in
during those months. Although
originally proposed in the Proposed
Rule, the final rule does not allow nonqualifying vessels access to the GRA to
fish under the General category
regulations and target bluefin (discussed
further in the Comments and
Responses). The principal objective of
conditional access to the GRA is to
balance the objective of reducing dead
discards with the objective of providing
reasonable fishing opportunity. The
second objective is to provide strong
incentives to modify fishing behavior to
avoid bluefin tuna and reduce dead
discards, as well as improve compliance
with the logbook reporting and observer
requirements. This regulatory approach
is based on the fact that, historically,
relatively few vessels have consistently
been responsible for the majority of the
bluefin tuna dead discards within the
Longline category. Conditioning access
on compliance with reporting and
monitoring requirements reflects the
critical importance of fishery data to the
successful management of the fisheries.
The initial evaluation of performance
metrics will be based upon data from
2006 through 2012, and subsequent
‘‘performance scores’’ will be based
upon the most recent complete threeconsecutive-year period for which data
are available. In a situation where an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit has
been transferred from one vessel to
another, or there has been an ownership
change of a permitted vessel, the
relevant vessel fishing history used for
the calculation of the performance score
regarding access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA remains with the vessel. As further
explained in the Response to Comments
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71513
below (Comment 26), NMFS modified
the relevant historical time period from
the proposed rule (which was 2006–
2011). Atlantic Tuna Longline permit
holders will be notified annually of the
status of their relevant vessel, and only
aggregated information regarding the
vessel status will be made public.
Atlantic Tuna Longline permit holders
will be able to appeal their relevant
vessel performance scores to NMFS by
submitting a written request to appeal,
indicating the reason for the appeal and
providing supporting documentation for
the appeal (e.g., copies of landings
records and/or permit ownership,
Pelagic Observer Program information,
logbook data, etc.). NMFS will evaluate
the appeal based upon the following
criteria: (1) The accuracy of NMFS
records regarding the relevant
information; and (2) correct assignment
of historical data to the vessel owner/
permit holder. Such permit holders may
also appeal on the basis of changes in
vessel ownership or permit transfers.
Appeals based on hardship factors will
not be considered. See below for more
information on appeals.
NMFS will have the authority to
terminate access for all pelagic longline
vessels or individual pelagic longline
vessels to the GRA via inseason action
to address issues including: (1) Failure
to achieve or effectively balance the
objective of reducing dead discards with
the objective of providing fishing
opportunity; (2) bycatch of bluefin tuna
or other HMS species that may be
inconsistent with the objectives or
regulations or the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP, or ICCAT recommendations;
or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or
protected species that is inconsistent
with the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA), Pelagic Longline Take
Reduction Plan (PLTRP), or the 2004
Biological Opinion (BiOP).
The performance metric formula will
enable qualified vessels to continue to
fish in the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA,
yet will substantially reduce bluefin
tuna dead discards by precluding
fishing in the GRA by those with a
history of high bluefin tuna interaction
in relation to other designated species
catch. In order to characterize vessel
performance in a manner that is fair,
consistent, and feasible to administer,
the performance metric formula is based
on relatively simple, objective, and
quantifiable information. For each of the
three performance metrics, a vessel will
be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5
reflecting better performance. Vessels
with a ratio of bluefin tuna interactions
to designated species catch of 1 will not
be allowed to fish in the Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA using pelagic longline
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71514
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
gear. If a vessel’s Pelagic Observer
Program Compliance score is 2 or less,
that vessel will not be allowed to access
the area and fish with pelagic longline
gear, unless the vessel’s logbook
compliance score is 4 or 5.
The performance metric formula will
reflect bluefin tuna interactions as
measured by the ratio of the number of
bluefin tuna interactions (landings, dead
discards, and live discards, in number
of fish) to the weight of designated
species landings (in pounds). These
designated species will consist of the
more common marketable catch
harvested by pelagic longline vessels:
Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, albacore,
and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and
porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher
sharks. The use of a ratio incorporating
both designated species landings and
bluefin tuna interactions provides a
metric that is intended to eliminate bias
resulting from the differences among
vessels in size or fishing effort.
The Pelagic Observer Program metric
reflects compliance with requirements
regarding communications, and other
aspects of observer deployment. The
scoring system is designed to be neutral
with respect to valid reasons that a
vessel was selected by the observer
program but did not take an observer,
and designed to weigh trips that were
not observed due to noncompliance
with the communication requirements
more heavily than those that were not
observed due to noncompliance with
the safety and accommodation
requirements. The logbook reporting
metric reflects compliance with the
requirement that the vessel owner/
operator must submit the logbook forms
postmarked within 7 days of offloading
the catch, and, if no fishing occurred
during a month, must submit a nofishing form postmarked no later than 7
days after the end of that month.
Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline
Gear Restricted Areas
This final rule establishes two GRAs
in the Gulf of Mexico and limits access
to these areas for vessels fishing with
pelagic longline gear during the 2month period from April through May
to reduce dead discards and protect
bluefin tuna on their spawning grounds,
while maintaining fishing opportunities
for pelagic longline vessels as
appropriate. As described in the
Response to Comments below
(Comments 52 and 53), the size and
location of the geographic area of the
GRA has been modified from the
proposed rule to take into account the
best available information about the
location of bluefin interactions
(eastward trend), the high variability of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
bluefin tuna distribution, the economic
importance of the fishery, and other
factors.
Other gear types authorized for use by
pelagic longline vessels such as buoy
gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel are
allowed in these areas, provided the
vessel abides by any rules/regulations
that apply to those gear types
Transiting Closed Areas
This final rule allows vessels with an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit,
Swordfish Incidental or Directed
Limited Access permit, or a Shark
Limited Access permit fishing with
bottom or pelagic longline gear to transit
areas that are closed or restricted to
such gear, if they remove and stow the
gangions, hooks, and buoys from the
mainline and drum. No baited hooks are
allowed. The specific closed and
restricted areas to which this transiting
provision applies include those
established by this rule (Spring Gulf of
Mexico GRAs and Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA), as well as the following
pelagic longline closed areas in effect:
Northeastern U.S. Closure, Northeast
Distant Restricted Fishing Area,
Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast
Closed Area, and DeSoto Canyon Closed
Area. This measure will allow vessels to
transit the following bottom longline
closed areas in effect: Mid-Atlantic
Shark, Snowy Grouper Wreck, Northern
South Carolina, Edisto, Charleston Deep
Artificial Reef, Georgia, North Florida,
St Lucie Hump, East Hump, MadisonSwanson, Steamboat Lumps, and Edges
40 Fathom Contour.
This regulatory provision reduces
travel costs by allowing more direct
routes of travel, and addresses the
safety-at-sea concern associated with the
requirement to steam around restricted
areas.
3. Quota Controls
NMFS Closure of the Pelagic Longline
Fishery
Under measures adopted in the final
rule, the pelagic longline fishery will
close (i.e., use of pelagic longline gear is
prohibited) when the total Longline
category quota is reached, projected to
be reached or exceeded, or when there
is high uncertainty regarding the
estimated or documented levels of
bluefin tuna catch. These closures will
help prevent overharvest of the Longline
category quota and prevent further
discards of bluefin tuna. When NMFS
projects that the quota will be reached,
it will file a closure action with the
Office of the Federal Register for
publication. Vessels will be required to
offload all bluefin tuna prior to the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
closure date/time. Criteria NMFS will
consider include those listed under
§ 635.27(a)(8) as well as: Total estimated
bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead
discards) in relation to the quota;
estimated amount by which the bluefin
tuna quota might be exceeded;
usefulness of data relevant to
monitoring the quota; uncertainty in the
documented or estimated dead discards
or landings of bluefin tuna; amount of
bluefin tuna landings or dead discards
within a short time; effects of continued
fishing on bluefin tuna rebuilding and
overfishing; provision of reasonable
opportunity for pelagic longline vessels
to pursue the target species; variations
in seasonal distribution, abundance or
migration patterns of bluefin tuna; and
other relevant factors. NMFS will use
the best available data to calculate the
most recent, complete, and available
estimate of dead discards on a fisherywide basis consistent with current
regulations. Best available data may
include, among other things, vesselbased reports, electronic monitoring
data, and observer data, as appropriate.
Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQs)
This final rule implements an IBQ
management system, which is
summarized and then described in
further detail below.
Summary of the IBQ Program
NMFS is implementing an IBQ
Program pursuant to section 303A of the
MSA, which authorizes development of
limited access privilege programs
(LAPP). A LAPP creates permits, which
are issued for a period of not more than
10 years, to harvest a quantity of fish
expressed by a unit(s) representing a
portion of the total allowable catch that
may be received or held for exclusive
use by a person. Section 303A(c), 16
U.S.C. 1853a, identifies the
requirements for such a program (note
that the referendum requirements of
section 303A(c)(6)(D) are inapplicable to
this program for the Atlantic HMS
fisheries). This final rule implements
IBQs for vessels permitted in the
Atlantic Tunas Longline category
(provided they also hold necessary
limited access swordfish and shark
permits). Specifically, the IBQ Program
requires vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear to account for bluefin tuna
landings and dead discards using IBQ
allocation (obtained through shares or
leases of allocation), and prohibits the
use of pelagic longline gear when the
vessel’s IBQ allocation has been caught.
An IBQ share is a percentage of the total
available Longline quota. Thus, if the
total available Longline quota is
modified as a result of an ICCAT
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
recommendation and the Longline quota
is changed as a result, the share (specific
percentage) associated with an eligible
permit would not change, but would
result in a modified amount of IBQ
allocation (mt or equivalent pounds).
The Northeast Distant Area (NED) is
a distinctly managed geographic area
due to the specification of a separate
ICCAT quota relative to the rest of the
pelagic longline fishery and is not
managed under the full IBQ Program
restrictions. However, there are
provisions of the IBQ Program that will
apply to vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear in the NED. For example,
vessels will be required to have the
minimum IBQ allocation to operate in
the NED starting in 2016 and when NED
bluefin quota has been exhausted,
permitted vessels must abide by all the
requirements of the IBQ Program.
The IBQ Program is a suite of
management measures intended to work
together. An IBQ share is the percentage
of the Longline category quota that is
associated with an eligible vessel, based
upon the IBQ share formula and the
relevant vessel history, and an IBQ
allocation is the amount (mt) of bluefin
tuna quota that is distributed to a
permitted vessel, based upon the
relevant IBQ share, and the annual
Longline category quota. Eligible pelagic
longline vessels will receive one of three
IBQ share percentages (1.2%, 0.6%, or
0.37%), which must be used by
individual vessels to account for all
their bluefin tuna landings and dead
discards. Shares and allocations are
designated as either Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) or Atlantic (ATL). Vessels are
prohibited from using Atlantic
allocation to account for bluefin tuna
catch in the Gulf of Mexico, thereby
limiting potential shifts in effort.
Specifically, a vessel with bluefin catch
in the Gulf of Mexico may not use
Atlantic allocation to account for such
catch. However, vessels may use Gulf of
Mexico allocation to account for bluefin
catch in both the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic. Allocations may be leased
annually by Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit holders or Purse Seine
category participants, and a minimum
amount of allocation is required for a
pelagic longline vessel to depart on a
trip in the Atlantic (0.125 mt) using
pelagic longline gear. A higher
minimum amount of quota (allocation)
is required for a pelagic longline vessel
to depart on a fishing trip in the Gulf of
Mexico (0.25 mt). A pelagic longline
vessel may not use Atlantic allocation to
satisfy the minimum share requirement
for a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico.
If a vessel retains legal sized bluefin
tuna in excess of its allocation (‘‘quota
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
debt’’), it may land the fish, but must
lease additional IBQ allocation from
another vessel to account for the excess
catch, and is not allowed to fish with
pelagic longline gear until the quota
debt is balanced in the system (is
accounted for) and the minimum
allocation required for a vessel to depart
on a trip is acquired. A vessel’s IBQ
allocation cannot carry-over from one
year to the next, but if a vessel is unable
to satisfy its quota ‘debt’ in a particular
fishing year, quota will be deducted
from the vessel’s allocation during the
subsequent year.
Although temporary leasing of IBQ
allocation can occur, no permanent sale
of IBQ shares is allowed at this time, to
reduce risks for permit holders during
the initial stages of the IBQ Program,
when the market for bluefin tuna quota
shares is new and uncertain. Measures
to allow permanent sale of bluefin tuna
quota shares may be implemented in the
future through separate proposed and
final rulemaking. This will allow time
for IBQ fishermen to familiarize
themselves with the IBQ Program and
market for bluefin tuna shares.
As described in more detail below,
NMFS is implementing an internetbased system to track bluefin tuna catch
(pelagic longline and purse seine), and
the use and leases of IBQ allocation.
VMS must be used by vessel operators
to report bluefin tuna catches to
increase the timeliness of dead discard
data; and electronic monitoring
(cameras and associated equipment) are
required on pelagic longline vessels as
one element of the monitoring program.
The IBQ Program will be evaluated
after 3 years, and NMFS will implement
a cost recovery program through
separate rulemaking.
What vessels are eligible to receive
initial bluefin tuna quota shares?
Vessels must meet two requirements
to be eligible to receive IBQ shares:
(1) Vessels must have a valid Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit; and (2)
vessel must be deemed to be ‘‘active’’.
Vessels that made at least one set using
pelagic longline gear between 2006 and
2012 (based on pelagic longline logbook
data) are defined as ‘‘active’’ This date
range includes 2012, and therefore is
one year longer than that proposed to
ensure that recent participants in the
fishery are defined as ‘‘active.’’ For the
purpose of IBQ share eligibility, a ‘‘valid
Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit’’ is one held as of the date the
proposed rule was published, which
was August 21, 2013.
Vessels with valid Atlantic Tunas
Longline permits that do not meet the
initial eligibility criteria may lease
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71515
bluefin tuna IBQ allocation from IBQ
allocation holders. Permits that are not
associated with a vessel, such as a
permit characterized as ‘‘No Vessel ID,’’
are not eligible for an initial IBQ share
but would be eligible to receive IBQ
allocation (through a lease) if and when
the permit is reassociated with a vessel.
Such a vessel would be required to lease
IBQ allocation before fishing with
pelagic longline gear. New entrants to
the fishery must either obtain an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit with
associated quota share, or if the valid
permit did not have quota share, obtain
bluefin tuna quota through lease/sale to
fish.
How much bluefin tuna quota does
each eligible vessel get?
A vessel’s IBQ share of the Longline
quota is based upon two elements: The
amount of bluefin tuna caught between
2006 and 2012, and the amount of
designated species landings (i.e.,
swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, albacore,
and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and
porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher
sharks). As discussed below in the
‘‘Response to Comments’’ (Comment
76), this date range includes 2012, and
therefore is one year longer than that
proposed to consider the most recent
fishing activity of vessels, and to be
inclusive regarding the important
elements. More specifically, the two
factors that are the basis of the
allocation formula are: (1) Historical
bluefin tuna catch (from vessel logbook
data) expressed as ratio of the number
of bluefin tuna interactions to
‘designated species’ landings; and (2)
‘designated species’ landings (from the
NMFS dealer data (weigh-out slips) and
logbook information). The use of these
two factors in the quota share allocation
formula is intended to acknowledge past
bluefin tuna avoidance, ensure a fair
initial allocation, and consider the
diversity in vessel fishing patterns and
harvest characteristics. Past fishing that
resulted in fewer bluefin tuna
interactions will result in larger IBQ
shares of bluefin tuna. Landings of
designated species are an indicator of
both the level of fishing effort and
activity as well as vessel success at
targeting those species and minimizing
bluefin bycatch interactions. This
method incorporates the rate of
historical bluefin tuna interactions but
also includes the amount of designated
species landings, recognizing that
greater levels of fishing activity are
likely to be correlated with a greater
number of bluefin tuna interactions.
The specific IBQ allocation formula is
as follows: Because the bluefin tuna
interactions to designated species
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71516
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
landings ratio is very small, designated
species landings were multiplied by
10,000 in order to derive a ratio that is
more practical (i.e., 0.95 instead of
0.000095). In order to combine the two
metrics, scores were assigned to each
metric (the bluefin tuna catch to
designated species landings ratio and
historical designated species landings)
as described below. Active vessels were
sorted into three categories, using total
designated species landings from 2006
through 2011, based on percentiles of
landings from lowest to highest (low,
medium, and high, 0 to <33 percent; 33
to <66 percent and 66 to 100 percent,
respectively). Similarly, the active
vessels were sorted according to the
ratio of bluefin interactions to HMS
landings, from lowest to highest. For
example, a vessel with a 2006–2011
weight of designated species landings of
greater than or equal to 367,609 lb (the
66 to 100th percentile of landings)
would be placed in the ‘‘High’’ category
and assigned a score of 3 (the highest
score). In contrast, a vessel with a total
designated species landing of only
95,000 pounds for 2006 through 2011
would receive a designated species
landings score of 1. A vessel with a
bluefin to designated species landings
ratio of less than 0.2884 (66 to 100th
percentile of bluefin to designated
species landings ratios), would place in
the top category and receive a bluefin to
designated species landings ratio score
of 3. A low ratio indicates relatively few
bluefin interactions and therefore
receives a high score.
Finally, the two scores were
combined to form the basis of the
allocation. For each vessel, the score for
designated species landings was added
to the score for bluefin to designated
species ratio. For example, if a vessel
scored in the ‘‘High’’ category for both
designated species landings and bluefin
to designated species landings its
combined score would be 6 (3 + 3). If
a vessel scored High for bluefin ratio,
but Low for designated landings, it
would be scored a 4 (1 + 3) and it would
be placed in the Medium rating score
category. Vessels assigned to a
particular category will be allocated the
same percentage share.
Vessels are allocated shares of 1.2%,
0.6%, or 0.37% of the Longline category
quota. For 2015 (unless the U.S. quota
is modified by ICCAT in 2014), based on
a revised baseline Longline category
bluefin tuna quota of 137 mt (baseline
plus 62.5 mt), vessels will be allocated
1.64 mt, 0.82 mt, or 0.51 mt of bluefin
tuna, respectively. These specific
allocations are larger than those
proposed because the actual number of
eligible vessels was less than the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
number of eligible vessels analyzed at
the proposed rule stage. The number of
eligible vessels determined by the
proposed rule was higher because the
proposed rule analysis included permits
that were not associated with vessels at
the time of the publication of the
proposed rule (August 21, 2013), and
did not reflect both eligibility criteria.
Allocation among fewer eligible vessels
increases the allocation amount per
vessel. The rationale for this measure is
to implement criteria that reflect
participation in the fishery. By
allocating only to ‘‘active’’ vessels, the
measure will facilitate continued
participation in the fishery by vessels
that have made past investments in the
fishery. Permitted vessels that do not
meet the initial eligibility criteria
necessary to receive bluefin quota share
allocation will still be eligible to obtain
quota through a lease of IBQ allocation.
The criteria did not include 2013 or
2014 because the DEIS and FEIS,
respectively, were being written, during
those years, and there were limitations
on the availability of finalized data.
Availability of finalized logbook and
dealer data during 2013 and 2014 was
limited to 2011 and 2012 data,
respectively.
As described below, under ‘‘Appeal of
Initial IBQ Shares,’’ when NMFS
determines that all requests for appeal
have been resolved, NMFS may adjust
all IBQ shares as necessary to
accommodate permitted holders that
have been deemed eligible or provided
an increased IBQ share through the
appeals process.
All bluefin tuna quota allocated to
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine participants
is also designated as ‘‘Atlantic,’’ subject
to the restriction that it may only be
used in the Atlantic (by either a Purse
Seine vessel or via a lease to a pelagic
longline vessel).
If a vessel has fishing history in both
the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, it may
receive quota shares of both the Gulf of
Mexico and Atlantic, depending upon
the amount of quota share and the
proportion of fishing history in the two
areas. A relatively small percentage of
sets in one area will not be reflected in
the quota share. If a vessel would be
allocated less than a minimum share
amount for a particular area (i.e., less
than 0.125 mt for the Atlantic or less
than 0.25 mt for the Gulf of Mexico),
then no allocation will be designated for
that area and all of the permit holder’s
share would be designated to the other
area (Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico). For
example, if a vessel is eligible for an
allocation of 0.51 mt, and historically
landed 10 percent of their catch in the
Gulf of Mexico, the vessel would receive
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
an allocation of 100 percent ‘‘Atlantic’’
quota (and none designated as ‘‘Gulf of
Mexico’’) because 10 percent of 0.51 mt
(.005 mt) is less than the minimum
share required to fish in the Gulf of
Mexico (0.25 mt). Owners of vessels
with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit will be sent certified
letters informing them of their IBQ share
and resultant allocation. In determining
initial quota share eligibility and
calculating the initial quota share NMFS
used data associated with a vessel’s
history. In the future, the IBQ share will
be associated with the permit, not the
vessel. For example, if a permitted
vessel has IBQ shares, and the owner of
the permitted vessel decides to sell the
permit but keep the vessel, the seller of
the permit (the vessel owner) would no
longer have any quota share or
privileges with respect to the IBQ
Program because IBQ shares would be
associated with the permit that was
sold. In contrast, the buyer of the permit
would receive IBQ shares and allocation
associated with that permit once the
permit is associated with a vessel.
Appeals of Initial IBQ Shares and GRA
Access Determinations
This final rule implements a two-step
appeals process for review of the
Secretary’s decisions regarding initial
assignment of IBQ shares. This rule also
adds an opportunity for HMS
Management Division to initially review
a request for a quota share adjustment
or access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, in
order to facilitate possible expedited
resolution of such requests without a
requestor needing to go through a full
National Appeals Office process.
Specifically, the final rule describes an
initial review step by the HMS
Management Division through which
the appellant must first submit a written
request to appeal their initial IBQ share
or access the Cape Hatteras GRA prior
to submitting any appeals to the
National Appeals Office. It also adds
administrative details about the process
(i.e., on acceptable supporting
documentation, and the specific timing
of the steps). This modification was
made in response to public comment
requesting clarification of the process.
Although this final rule adds
administrative details regarding the
appeals process, the range of criteria
that permit holders may base an appeal
on did not change from the proposed to
the final rule. Additional discussion of
these changes is in the section of this
preamble called ‘‘Changes to the
Proposed Rule.’’
Upon publication of this final rule,
NMFS will notify all permit holders by
certified letter of their initial IBQ share
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and resultant allocation and whether
they have granted access to the Cape
Hatteras GRA. If permit holders wish to
appeal their IBQ share determination or
GRA access determination, they must
first submit a written request for
adjustment of their initial IBQ share or
GRA access determination to the HMS
Management Division, indicating the
reason for the requested change and
providing supporting documentation as
detailed below. All requests for
adjustment to initial IBQ shares or GRA
access determination must be submitted
to the HMS Management Division
within 90 days of publication of the
final rule. HMS Management Division
staff will evaluate all such requests and
supporting documentation, then notify
the appellant by letter signed by the
HMS Management Division Chief of
NMFS’ decision to approve or deny the
request. If the request is approved, then
NMFS will appropriately adjust the
appellant’s initial IBQ share and
resultant allocation and/or grant access
to the Cape Hatteras GRA. If denied, the
permit holder may appeal the decision
to the NMFS National Appeals Office
within 90 days of receipt of the notice
of denial by submitting a written
petition of appeal. Appeals will be
governed by the regulations and policy
of the National Appeals Office at 15 CFR
part 906. National Appeals Office
regulations detail the procedure for
appealing the quota share decision (See
§ 906.3).
The decisions subject to a request for
appeal are: (1) Initial eligibility for IBQ
shares based on ownership of an active
vessel (as defined by this rule under
§ 635.15) with a valid Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit combined
with the shark and swordfish limited
access permits required under the
current permit regulations; (2) the
accuracy of NMFS records regarding a
vessel’s amount of designated species
landings and/or bluefin interactions;
and (3) correct assignment of target
species landings and bluefin
interactions to the vessel owner/permit
holder. As discussed under the IBQ
measures above, the IBQ share formula
is based upon historical data associated
with a permitted vessel. Because vessels
may have changed ownership, or
permits may have been transferred
during 2006 through 2012, the current
owner of a permitted vessel may also
appeal on the basis of historical changes
in vessel ownership or permit transfers,
if current owner believes that the data
used in the analysis were not accurate
because of such changes. NMFS will
consider only written requests for
appeals. When permit holders are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
informed of their initial IBQ shares and
resultant allocations and/or access
determination, they will be provided
instructions regarding the process to
appeal that decision. Landings
eligibility criteria require evidence of
documented legal landings during the
timeframe from January 1, 2006, through
December 31, 2012. Public comment on
the DEIS and proposed rule reflected a
need to clarify aspects of the appeals
process. Thus, NMFS is clarifying in
this final rule that, regarding what will
be considered ‘‘documented legal
landings,’’ NMFS will consider official
NMFS logbook records or weighout
slips for landings between January 1,
2006, through December 31, 2012, that
were submitted to NMFS prior to March
2, 2013 (60 days after the cutoff date for
eligible landings), and verifiable sales
slips, receipts from registered dealers,
state landings records, and permit
records as accompanying
documentation of an appeal. Landings
data are required to be submitted within
7 days of landing under the applicable
regulations. Recognizing that somewhatlate reporting could have occurred for a
variety of reasons, however, NMFS is
clarifying that it will consider
‘‘documented’’ landings for appeals
purposes to be those reported within 60
days. NMFS will count only those
designated species landings that were
landed legally when the vessel owner
had a valid permit. Appeals regarding
bluefin interactions may be based on
HMS logbook records as described,
observer data, or other NMFS data. No
other proof of catch history will be
considered. NMFS permit records will
be the sole basis for determining permit
transfers . Photocopies of the written
documents are acceptable in the original
application or appeal; NMFS may
request the originals at a later date.
NMFS may refer any submitted
materials that are of questionable
authenticity to the NMFS Office of
Enforcement for investigation. Appeals
based on hardship factors will not be
considered. Consistent with most
limited effort and catch share programs,
hardship is not a valid basis for appeal
due to the multitude of potential
definitions of hardship and the
difficulty and complexity of
administering such criteria in a fair
manner.
When NMFS determines that all
requests for IBQ share appeals have
been resolved, NMFS may adjust all IBQ
share percentages as appropriate to
accommodate permitted holders that are
deemed eligible or that are provided an
increased IBQ share through the appeals
process.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71517
Mandatory Retention of Legal-Sized
Bluefin Tuna
Pelagic longline vessels must retain
all legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna
that are dead at haul-back. Because
these fish must be retained, regulatory
discards and the waste of fish will be
decreased, and it will be more likely
that such fish are accurately accounted
for and have a positive use (e.g.,
marketed, used for scientific
information, etc.). Bluefin tuna, of all
size classes, that are live at haul-back
should be carefully removed from the
hooks and returned to the ocean to
ensure survivability. Legal-sized
commercial bluefin tuna that are alive at
haul-back may be retained; however
they will be accounted for under the
IBQ allocation.
Fishing Under the IBQ Program
This section provides a brief example
of how some of the Amendment 7
requirements applicable to a vessel
fishing with pelagic longline gear will
work together. Additional details
regarding the VMS and electronic
monitoring programs are provided
below in sections of this preamble titled
‘‘VMS’’: and ‘‘Electronic Monitoring.’’
As discussed in the proposed rule,
IBQ allocation leases would be executed
by the eligible vessel owners, or their
representatives, through the internet
and a NMFS database. Ownerperformed leases will provide the
quickest execution of leases because any
eligibility criteria will be verified
automatically based on information
loaded into that system, and will not
involve the submission or review of a
paper application, or any lag time
associated with NMFS staff being
directly involved in the lease approval
process. The online IBQ System used to
track and lease bluefin IBQ shares and
resultant allocations will be operated
out of NMFS’s Southeast Regional
Office (SERO). The administrative
functions associated with this IBQ
System (e.g., registration and account
setup, landing and dead discard
tracking, and leases of allocation) are
designed to be accomplished online;
therefore, a participant must have an
IBQ System account to participate.
NMFS will provide instructions to IBQ
participants about the required software,
how to use the IBQ System to lease IBQ
allocation and track IBQ use and
balances, how to perform the necessary
accounting actions that support
administration of the program, and how
to obtain assistance with using the
system. An eligible permit holder must
create an IBQ System account online,
and log into the password protected IBQ
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71518
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
System to execute an IBQ allocation
lease, to check the amount of IBQ in
their account, or perform other
functions, according to instructions
provided by NMFS. Similarly, a dealer
purchasing bluefin tuna caught from a
vessel fishing with pelagic longline or
Purse Seine gear must have an online
dealer account, computer access, and
internet access.
Before they may depart to fish with
pelagic longline gear vessels must have
the required minimum IBQ allocation
and must have balanced any
outstanding quota debt from previous
trips, and comply with the VMS and
electronic monitoring requirements.
Vessels are required to haul gear and
handle catch in accordance with the
electronic monitoring program
requirements (described below under
electronic monitoring requirements),
retain any legal sized dead bluefin, and
report bluefin catch and information on
sets through their VMS during the trip
(described below under VMS
Requirements). If a vessel retains legalsized bluefin tuna in excess of its IBQ
allocation, it may land and sell the fish,
but the permit holder must acquire
additional IBQ allocation to account for
the excess catch, and is not allowed to
fish with, or have onboard, pelagic
longline gear until the quota debt has
been resolved.
At the end of the trip, the permitted
dealer purchasing the landings must
enter all bluefin landing information
from the trip. The vessel owner or
operator, or their designee, must
coordinate with the dealer to enter their
dead discards, into the IBQ System. The
landing transaction completed by the
dealer must include the name and
permit number of the vessel that landed
the bluefin and any other information
regarding the landings, as instructed by
NMFS (such as the shareholder’s
account number, vessel account
number, individual tag number, weights
for landed bluefin tuna, and the number
of dead discarded bluefin tuna by
appropriate length bin). The permit
holder, or designee, must validate the
landings information and enter the dead
discard information (such as numbers of
fish by approximate size) before the
transaction is processed. If, by the end
of the fishing year a permit holder does
not have adequate allocation (obtained
either through leasing under paragraph
(c)), or additional allocation under
paragraph (f) to settle their vessel’s
quota debt, the vessel’s allocation will
be reduced in the amount equal to the
quota debt, in the subsequent year, or
years, until the quota debt is fully
accounted for. A vessel may not fish if
there is outstanding annual quota debt
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
from a previous year. For those permit
holders who own or operate multiple
vessels with allocation, if, at the end of
the year, one or more of the vessels has
an outstanding quota debt, yet the other
vessels still have allocation, the IBQ
system will apply any remaining
unused allocation associated with the
other vessels to account for the quota
debt of the other. This system
functionality has been added since the
proposed rule because unused
allocation does not carry over from one
year to the next, but quota debt does.
This addition will ease the regulatory
burden of resolving quota debt, and
reduces the possibility that a permit
holder of multiple vessels may
inadvertently fail to manually resolve an
existing quota debt with allocation
associated with one of their other
vessels at the end of the year and
otherwise miss the opportunity to
resolve the debt.
For example, if a permit holder owns
two vessels, Vessel A and Vessel B and
both have IBQ allocations but at the end
of the year Vessel A has a quota debt of
.20 mt, and Vessel B has remaining
unused IBQ allocation of .10 mt, the IBQ
System would automatically transfer .10
mt of Vessel B IBQ allocation to Vessel
A to count toward resolving Vessel A’s
quota debt. Vessel A would still have a
quota debt of .10 mt and, when annual
IBQ allocation occurs at the start of the
subsequent year, Vessel A’s annual IBQ
allocation would be reduced by .10 mt
to account for the previous year’s quota
debt.
This final rule clarifies the
relationship of accrued quota debt and
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
under the IBQ Program. If an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit holder
participated in the IBQ Program and has
a quota debt that remains unresolved at
the time of such permit’s sale or
transfer, then that quota debt remains
associated with the permit. This is
consistent with the IBQ share remaining
linked to the eligible permit itself and
further refines how IBQ shares, resultant
allocation, and quota debt will be
managed to ensure accountability under
the IBQ Program, even if permits are
sold or transferred.
To ensure that all IBQ Program
activity can be accounted for on an
annual basis, the IBQ System will
prohibit any and all online transactions,
such as catch transactions and IBQ
allocation leases, between December 31
at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m.
(Eastern Time). IBQ System functions
will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the
following year. No IBQ System
transactions will be allowed or available
during this 20 hour time period to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ
accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the
upcoming year, etc. If a vessel with the
required minimal IBQ allocation departs
on a trip prior to the end of a calendar
year and returns to port after the start of
the following year, any bluefin landings
or dead discards will be counted against
the new year’s allocation.
In this final rule, NMFS will maintain
the authority to ensure that the bluefin
catch by pelagic longline vessels does
not exceed the Longline quota. NMFS
may, under certain circumstances, such
as high uncertainty regarding the VMS
reported dead discards, utilize the
current methodology for generating and
using estimates of pelagic longline dead
discards. Prior to this final rule NMFS
has used previous years’ estimate as
proxy for anticipated dead discards, and
subtracted that estimate of dead
discards ‘‘off the top’’ of the entire
Longline quota. Although not
anticipated, NMFS will maintain this
ability until both methodologies can be
compared in parallel to verify accuracy.
The Northeast Distant Area (NED) and
the IBQ Program
Under current ICCAT
recommendations, the NED is a
distinctly managed geographic area
managed under a separate quota.
Because the NED is managed as a
distinct area with a relatively small
quota, and managing the NED under the
IBQ system would add additional
complexity to the IBQ system, the quota
associated with the NED (25 mt) is not
managed under the full IBQ Program
restrictions. However, there are
provisions of the IBQ Program that will
apply to vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear in the NED. For example,
vessels will be required to have the
minimum IBQ allocation to operate in
the NED starting in 2016 and when NED
bluefin quota has been exhausted,
permitted vessels must abide by all the
requirements of the IBQ Program.
Electronic monitoring systems, installed
by June 1, 2015, will be required in
order for vessels to fish with pelagic
longline gear including in the NED, and
data from the electronic monitoring
system may be used to ensure that
targeting fishing is not occurring. NMFS
reminds the regulated community that
the international separate allocation is
only for bycatch in the NED and of the
domestic prohibitions against targeting
bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear.
NMFS will re-visit this issue if
necessary if subsequent years’ data
indicate that additional controls are
needed.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Quota Leasing
This measure allows Longline and
Purse Seine category vessels to lease
allocation to or from other vessels in
these categories (provided they have
active accounts in the IBQ system), so
that allocations will become better
aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that
catch bluefin tuna may be able to obtain
quota from those that do not interact
with bluefin tuna, or that have not used
their full allocation of bluefin tuna).
Allocation may be leased annually by
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
holders from other Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit holders or
from Purse Seine category participants,
regardless of whether they are eligible
for their own quota share. Leasing of
IBQ allocations is allowed among all
Longline category vessels with valid
limited access permits, regardless of
whether they are eligible for their own
quota share. If a vessel catches bluefin
tuna using allocation that it has leased
from another vessel, the fishing history
associated with the catch of bluefin tuna
will be associated with the vessel that
catches the bluefin tuna (the lessee, not
the lessor vessel). In other words, the
lessee (vessel catching the fish) gets the
‘credit’ for the landings and dead
discards, and not the lessor (the vessel
that leased the allocation to the catching
vessel). The future catch of bluefin tuna
will not affect the quota shares, but will
affect the calculation of the performance
metric of each vessel. Sub-leasing of
quota is allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from
vessel A to vessel B, then re-leased by
vessel B to vessel C). For a particular
calendar year, an individual lease
transaction will be valid from the time
of the lease until December 31.
The initial limit on the amount of
allocation an individual Longline or
Purse Seine category participant may
lease annually will be the combined
Longline and Purse Seine category
allocations. This will provide flexibility
for vessels to purchase quota in a
manner that can accommodate various
levels of unintended catch of bluefin
tuna, and enable the development of an
unrestricted quota market.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Annual Individual Bluefin Quota
Allocation
Annual allocation of bluefin quota to
eligible vessels with IBQ shares will
occur January 1, based on the criteria
described above (‘‘What Vessels Are
Eligible to Receive Initial Bluefin Tuna
Quota Shares?’’ and ‘‘How Much
Bluefin Tuna Quota Does Each Eligible
Vessel Get?’’). For vessels that are not
eligible as of December 31 because they
have begun—but not completed—the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
process of permit renewal or permit
transfer, IBQ allocations will be made
when the eligible permit holder
completes the permit transaction(s).
Subsequent to the annual allocation of
quota, additional IBQ may be allocated
to the vessels with bluefin quota share
as a result of a U.S. baseline quota
increase or transfer of quota from the
Reserve category to the Longline
category, pursuant to criteria for quota
adjustments. Subsequent to the annual
allocation of quota, quota may be
deducted from vessels as a result of a
decrease in the U.S. baseline quota, or
to account for a quota debt (bluefin
catch by a vessel that must be accounted
for under the IBQ system, for which the
vessel has insufficient quota).
With respect to the relationship
between the Atlantic Tunas Longline
permit and the IBQ share, upon
implementation of Amendment 7, the
IBQ share is associated with the Atlantic
Tunas Longline permit, and is not
severable. If, in the future, NMFS allows
permanent sale of quota shares, NMFS
would also consider whether or not the
share is severable from the Atlantic
Tunas Longline permit. Under this final
rule, any quota debt associated with an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit will be
associated with (and accompany) the
permit upon sale/transfer of the permit.
Quota debts will be also be associated
with Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine
category participants.
Elimination of Target Catch
Requirement
This final rule eliminates the current
target catch requirements for pelagic
longline vessels (including those fishing
in the NED), which restricts the number
of incidentally caught bluefin tuna a
pelagic longline vessel may retain in
relation to the amount of target species
retained and sold. In the context of the
IBQ system being implemented by
Amendment 7, the current target catch
requirement is no longer be necessary.
Formal IBQ Program Evaluation
NMFS will formally evaluate the
success and performance of the IBQ
Program in achieving its objectives, after
three years of operation and provide the
HMS Advisory Panel with a publiclyavailable written document with its
findings. The review will describe and
analyze the changes that have taken
place in the fishery since
implementation of the IBQ Program.
NMFS will utilize its standardized
economic performance indicators,
developed by its Office of Science and
Technology, as part of its review. For
example, the standardized economic
performance indicators include catch
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71519
(landings and dead discards), effort,
revenues, and allocation leases and
accumulation. Other indicators include
the number of and distribution of
bluefin tuna interactions. The review
may also include analysis of data
collection, monitoring, and reporting;
enforcement; quota performance; quota
distribution among permit holders;
quota share and resultant allocation
transferability; other elements of the
IBQ Program; or aspects of the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP relevant to the
IBQ Program such as gear restricted
areas or purse seine measures.
Cost Recovery
Section 303A(e) of the MagnusonStevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a(e))
requires that, in establishing a LAPP, a
Council shall develop a methodology
and the means to identify and assess the
management, data collection and
analysis, and enforcement programs that
are directly related to and in support of
the LAPP; and provide for a program of
fees paid by LAPP holders that will
cover the costs of management, data
collection and analysis, and
enforcement activities. Such fees may
not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel
value of fish harvested under the LAPP.
While section 303A(e) requires
development of cost recovery in
establishing a LAPP, NMFS plans to
implement cost recovery after the IBQ
Program evaluation (after 3 years). This
step-wise approach is consistent with
the purpose of section 303A(e) and
appropriate given the nature of the
LAPP being proposed. The purpose of
section 303A(e) is to collect fees to
cover management, data collection and
analysis, and enforcement activities.
However, the cost of administering a
cost recovery program may be high
relative to the amount of money
recovered, because some active vessels
have very high fishing activity whereas
others have relatively low activity.
NMFS also notes that the underlying
objective of the IBQ is to reduce
incidental catch of bluefin tuna, which
will impact the amount and ex-vessel
value of fish harvested. Immediate
implementation of a cost recovery
program, without obtaining further
information about the operation of the
fishery with IBQs, would be very
difficult and would increase costs and
uncertainty for fishing vessels during a
time period when the fishery would be
bearing other new costs and sources of
uncertainty. For the above reasons,
NMFS is not implementing cost
recovery until after it conducts the
program evaluation. After the IBQ
Program is evaluated after 3 years,
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71520
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
NMFS will implement a cost recovery
program through separate rulemaking.
4. Reporting Measures
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
Requirements
This final rule implements VMS
reporting requirements for vessels
fishing with pelagic longline gear and
issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit. It also requires vessels
fishing with purse seine gear and issued
an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category
permit to install VMS and report
through VMS to support the inseason
monitoring of the pelagic longline and
purse seine fisheries, as proposed.
Additional detail is provided in this
final rule to explain application of the
requirements to the Purse Seine
category, in response to public comment
asking for clarification and because of
the need for additional administrative
detail.
Purse Seine Vessels
Vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse
Seine category permit must have an
approved Enhanced Mobile
Transmitting Unit (E–MTU) VMS unit
installed by a qualified marine
electrician to fish for Atlantic tunas
with purse seine gear. Vessels must
follow the procedures for installation
and activation provided by NMFS and
submit to NMFS the completed
checklist and compliance certification
statement. The VMS unit must submit
automatic position reports every hour,
24 hours a day, unless a valid power
down exemption has been granted by
NMFS law enforcement. Owners of
purse seine vessels may request a
documented power down exemption
from NMFS law enforcement if the
vessel will not be fishing for an
extended period of time. The request
must describe the reason an exemption
is being requested; the location of the
vessel during the time an exemption is
sought; the exact time period for which
an exemption is needed; and sufficient
information to determine that a power
down exemption is appropriate. Prior to
departing on a trip vessels that intend
to fish for Atlantic tunas with purse
seine gear must declare through E–MTU
VMS their intent to fish with such gear
and note their HMS target species), by
submitting a ‘‘Highly Migratory Species
Trip Declaration Form’’ (‘hail out’). If a
vessel operator is aware that
transmission of automatic position
reports has been interrupted, or is
notified by NMFS that such reports are
not being received, the vessel operatory
must contact NMFS and follow the
instructions given. After a fishing trip
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
during which interruption of automatic
position reports has occurred, the
vessel’s owner or operator must have a
qualified marine electrician replace or
repair the VMS unit prior to the vessel’s
next trip. Finally, as a condition of
obtaining an HMS limited access
permit, the vessel owners or operators
must allow NMFS, the United States
Coast Guard (USCG), or their designees
access to the vessel’s position data.
Vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas with
purse seine gear must submit, through
VMS, a ‘‘Highly Migratory Species
Bluefin Tuna Catch Report’’ for each set.
Specifically, such vessels must report
the number of sets within 12 hours of
the set; and report the length of all
bluefin discarded dead or retained (by
standardized size ranges) within 12
hours of completion of each the set
(including reporting zero bluefin on a
set). NMFS will provide vessel owners
with instructions regarding the detailed
methods of reporting such information
using their VMS units. At least three
hours prior to the end of a trip, the
vessel operator must provide advanced
notice of landing by submitted the
‘‘Highly Migratory Species Pre-Landing
Notification Form’’ with information on
the time and location of landing.
If a vessel operator decides not to fish
for or retain HMS for two or more trips,
the operator may choose to ‘‘declare
out’’ of the fishery, according to
instructions provided by NMFS, and not
be subject to the HMS hail in/hail out
requirements during trips for which
they are declared out of the HMS
fishery.
Vessels fishing with pelagic longline
gear must report through VMS the
number of hooks and sets within 12
hours of completion of each pelagic
longline haul-backs and, for pelagic
longline sets with bluefin tuna
interactions, must report the length of
all bluefin tuna retained or discarded
dead (by standardized size ranges)
within 12 hours of completion of the
pelagic longline haul-back.
NMFS will make specific VMS
reporting instructions available to the
purse seine and pelagic longline
fisheries to facilitate this reporting
requirement.
Electronic Monitoring
The final rule adopts electronic
monitoring requirements for all vessels
issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline
permit that fish with pelagic longline
gear. This final rule requires all such
vessels that are currently eligible to
have a NMFS-approved contractor
install a system and obtain certification
of such installation. They must then
properly maintain the video cameras
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
and associated data recording and
monitoring equipment, which will
record all longline catch and relevant
data regarding pelagic longline gear
retrieval and deployment. NMFS will
use the recorded data to verify the
accuracy of counts and identification of
bluefin tuna reported by the vessel
owner/operator, as well as observers.
Electronic monitoring will enable the
collection of video images and fishing
effort data that may be used in
conjunction with other sources of
information to estimate bluefin tuna
dead discards, and may augment the
ability of an observer to fulfill their
duties by providing a record of catch
during the time periods the observer
may be unable to observe the catch
directly.
In light of public comments
expressing concern about ensuring the
functionality of electronic monitoring
systems and the costs of such systems,
this final rule relieves certain purchase
and installation requirements that were
set out in the proposed rule. Rather than
requiring currently eligible vessel
owners to buy and install equipment
and make decisions about equipment
specifications and functionality, this
final rule instead requires the currently
eligible vessel owners to obtain
certification from a NMFS-approved
contractor stating that the contractor has
properly installed and verified the
functionality of the electronic
monitoring system in accordance with
more detailed equipment and system
requirements provided in the final rule.
As set out in the proposed rule, vessel
owners would have been responsible for
the costs of the equipment and for
installation for the electronic
monitoring systems. Since publication
of the proposed rule and the FEIS, and
in response to public comment and to
ease the regulated community’s burden
associated with the new monitoring
requirements, NMFS has identified
funds to pay for the equipment and its
installation for those currently eligible
vessels (eligible for initial quota shares).
For all vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas
Longline permit that fish with pelagic
longline gear, vessel owners (or their
representatives) must coordinate with
the NMFS-approved contractor to install
and test electronic monitoring
equipment, and the contractor will then
provide certification that the equipment
has been properly installed. Vessel
owners will be required to make their
vessel accessible to designated
personnel on a specific date, or range of
dates, to allow installation and testing of
electronic monitoring equipment, and
may be required to steam to a
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
designated port within their geographic
region to enable such installation and
training. This is consistent with the
proposed rule’s requirement that vessels
be available for inspection, as it will not
result in any additional absence from
fishing time than was analyzed and
proposed in the proposed rule or
impose additional financial costs or
regulatory burden.
To fish using pelagic longline gear, a
vessel must have a valid certification
form from the NMFS-approved
contractor certifying that it has a fully
functioning electronic monitoring
system on board. Because the pelagic
longline fleet is diverse with respect to
vessel size, mechanical infrastructure,
and operation, and the technology
supporting electronic monitoring is
changing and improving, NMFS is
implementing detailed regulations that
include some technical specifications
regarding the necessary equipment that
constitutes an electronic monitoring
system to respond to public comment
that more details are needed while still
providing flexibility to allow vessels to
install equipment that performs well in
a cost effective manner. NMFS will
utilize both third party experts and
NMFS staff to provide vessel owners
instructions regarding the specific
required equipment and operational
features of the system. As explained in
more detail below, vessels must, in
accordance with instructions provided
by NMFS and/or NMFS-approved
contractor, coordinate installation and
maintain the following equipment, as
components of an electronic monitoring
system: Two to four video cameras, a
recording device, video monitor,
hydraulic pressure transducer, winch
drum rotation sensor, system control
box, GPS receiver, and related support
equipment needed to achieve the
objectives (e.g., power supply, camera
mounts, lighting). Slight modifications
to the equipment listed above may be
required to support the objectives of
electronic monitoring, adapt to unique
vessel characteristics, or achieve cost
savings or efficiencies. Vessel owners/
operators must coordinate installation
and subsequently maintain and operate
the system in accordance with
instructions provide by NMFS, and
allow inspection of the equipment by
NMFS. The electronic monitoring
system must include software to enable
a test function so that the vessel
operator may test the status of the
system (i.e., whether it is fully
functional) prior to each trip, and record
the outcome of the test. A vessel
operator may not depart on a pelagic
longline trip unless the pre-trip test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
indicates that the system is fully
functioning. Upon successful
installation and testing by the NMFSapproved contractor, the NMFSapproved contractor will provide vessel
owners with a certificate that the
equipment installed constitutes a ‘‘fully
functioning electronic monitoring
system’’ based on written instructions
and requirements that NMFS provided
the contractor. The vessel owner must
make the certificate available upon
request by NMFS OLE. The required
cameras must be installed to provide a
view of the area where the longline gear
is retrieved and catch is removed from
the hook (prior to placing in the hold or
discarding boatside) and such system
must be connected to the mechanical
hauling device so that recording is
initiated by gear retrieval. The specific
equipment functionality requirements
are as follows:
Video Cameras: Video data are
produced by digital IP (Internet
protocol) video cameras at a resolution
of no less than 720p (1280×720). The
individual vessel systems must include
no less than two cameras: At least one
camera to record close-up images of the
deck at the haul back station for species
identification/length estimation, and at
least one camera to record activity along
the side of the vessel at the water line
of the haul back station to document
animals that are caught and discarded
but not brought aboard, as well as the
disposition of that catch (released alive/
dead). The frame rates of the footage
will need to allow for easy of viewing.
The cameras are not required to record
audio.
GPS Receiver: A GPS receiver is
required to produce output, which
includes location coordinates, velocity,
and heading data, and is directly logged
continuously by the control box at a
minimum rate of 10 seconds. The GPS
receiver must be installed and remain in
a location that receives a strong signal
continuously.
Hydraulic & Drum Rotation Sensors:
A hydraulic sensor is required to
continuously monitor the hydraulic
pressure, and a drum rotation sensor
must continuously monitor drum
rotations in order to provide the data
necessary for the EM system to trigger
the video camera to record. The
combination of these two sensors
provide a mechanism to ensure that
specific periods of time are captured on
video, such as when gear is being
retrieved and catch is removed from the
hooks.
EM Control Box & Monitor: The
system must include a ‘control box’ to
receive and store the raw data provided
by the sensors and cameras. The control
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71521
box must contain removable hard drives
and storage system adequate to store
data for the entire trip (e.g., adequate to
store the data associated with a trip
lasting approximately 30 days). A
wheelhouse monitor must provide a
graphical user interface for harvesters to
monitor the state and performance of
the control box and should include
information such as: Current date and
time synced via GPS, GPS coordinates,
current hydraulic pressure reading,
presence of a data disk, percentage used
of the data disk, and video recording
status.
Hydraulics: Prior to system
installation, vessel operators must
possess and install a fitting for the
pressure side of the line of the drum
hydraulic system. The fitting may be
either ‘‘T’’ or inline, with a female 1⁄4’’
threaded National Pipe Thread (NPT)
port to enable connection to the
pressure transducer.
Power: Electronic monitoring systems
are capable or being powered by both
alternating current (AC) and direct
current (DC) power. An EM system that
is to be powered by a DC circuit must
have free space on a 12-volt bus bar in
the wheelhouse and a dedicated DC
power switch. If the EM systems are to
be powered by AC circuits, vessels must
provide an Uninterrupted Power Supply
(UPS) in the wheelhouse.
Camera Mounts: During installation of
the EM system, cameras must be
mounted so that the camera may be
positioned to view the waterline
outboard of the vessel rail. If determined
during the vessel assessment that there
is not suitable mounting structure
onboard, vessels may be required to
provide a mount that allows a camera to
be positioned to view the waterline
outboard of the vessel rail. Before each
scheduled installation of an EM system,
NMFS-approved contractors will
discuss mounting alternatives with the
vessel’s owner or operator.
Lighting: Vessels must provide
sufficient lighting for cameras to clearly
illuminate individual fish on deck at the
haul back station and along the vessel
rail at the waterline, at all times.
Lighting will be evaluated by NMFSapproved contractors during the vessel
assessment/EM installation. After
installation, if NMFS-approved
contractors review video footage and
determine that lighting is insufficient,
the vessel owner must adjust the
lighting to ensure it is sufficient before
the EM system can be recertified.
Upon completion of a fishing trip, the
vessel operator must mail the removable
EM system hard drive containing all
data to NMFS or the NMFS-approved
contractor, within 48 hours of the
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71522
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
completion of the trip, according to
instructions provided by NMFS. Prior to
departing on a subsequent trip, the
vessel owner or operator must install a
replacement EM system hard drive to
enable data and video recording. The
vessel owner or operator is responsible
for contacting NMFS, or NMFSapproved contractors, if they have not
received a replacement hard drive(s).
The vessel operator is responsible to
ensure that all bluefin tuna are handled
in a manner that enables the electronic
monitoring system to record such fish,
and must identify a crew person or
employee responsible for ensuring that
all handling, retention, and sorting of
bluefin tuna occurs in accordance with
the regulations. NMFS or the NMFSapproved contractor, with the vessel
owner or operators’’ input, will develop
and provide a written Vessel Monitoring
Plan, to document the standardized
procedures relating to electronic
monitoring and facilitate
communication of such procedures to
the vessel crew. The vessel owner or
operator is responsible for ensuring that
the EM system remains powered for the
duration of each trip; that cameras are
cleaned routinely to ensure
unobstructed views, and the EM system
components are not tampered with.
NMFS will communicate
instructional information in writing, via
permit holder letters, to the vessel
owners during all phases of the program
to provide direction and assistance to
vessel owners, and facilitate the
provision of technical assistance.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Electronic Catch Reporting
This final rule requires Atlantic Tunas
General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/
Headboat categories to report the length
of all bluefin tuna retained or dead
discards through an online catch
reporting system (either through a Web
site designated by NMFS or calling a
phone number) within 24 hours of the
landings or end of each trip.
Specifically, vessels must report the
number of bluefin tuna retained, and the
number of bluefin tuna discarded dead,
according to instructions that will be
provided by NMFS. NMFS also operates
a similar automated landings reporting
system (ALRS) for recreational bluefin
tuna catch in the HMS Angling and
Charter/Headboat category (when
fishing recreationally). This discard
information will enhance NMFS’s
ability to more fully and accurately
account for all sources of fishing
mortality, consistent with ICCAT
recommendations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
5. General Category Flexibility for
Quota Adjustment
This final rule allows NMFS to
proactively transfer General category
quota from one or more of the timeperiods that follow the January timeperiod to the January or other preceding
sub-quota time periods within a fishing
year, either through annual
specifications or through inseason
action. In other words, under this rule,
NMFS may transfer subquota from one
time period to another time period,
earlier in the same calendar year. As
described in more detail under
Response to Comments (Comment 98),
NMFS may transfer quota from the
December sub-quota time period to the
January sub-quota time period to
address the unique characteristics of the
January sub-quota period. For example,
for an upcoming year (i.e., prior to
January), NMFS may transfer quota from
the December to the January sub-quota
period. NMFS may also conduct lower
priority transfers of sub-quota between
time periods, for example, subquota
could be transferred from the October 1
through November 30 time period to the
September time period.
This final rule adds a new objective
called ‘‘quota adjustment’’ to the current
list of criteria and relevant factors
NMFS considers when making inseason
or annual quota adjustments.
6. Harpoon Category NMFS Authority
To Adjust Retention Limits
To optimize fishing opportunity for
the Harpoon category participants
within the available quota, NMFS may
increase or decrease the daily retention
limit of large medium bluefin tuna
(greater than 73″ CFL and less than 81″
CFL) within a range from two to four
fish. Any adjustment will be based upon
the regulatory determination criteria
under § 635.27(a)(8) (as revised by this
final rule) that apply to inseason bluefin
tuna adjustments including: The
usefulness of information obtained from
catches in the particular category for
biological sampling and monitoring of
the status of the stock; effects of the
adjustment on bluefin tuna rebuilding
and overfishing; effects of the
adjustment on accomplishing the
objectives of the fishery management
plan; variations in seasonal distribution,
abundance, or migration patterns of
bluefin tuna; effects of catch rates in one
area precluding vessels in another area
from having a reasonable opportunity to
harvest a portion of the category’s quota;
and review of dealer reports, daily
landing trends, and the availability of
the bluefin tuna on the fishing grounds,
as well as any other relevant factors.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
The default Harpoon category daily
retention limit of large medium bluefin
tuna will be two fish per vessel (the
large medium bluefin tuna daily
retention limit that applied prior to the
2011 regulatory change). The retention
limit of giant bluefin tuna will remain
unlimited. The objective of this measure
is to optimize fishing opportunity for
the Harpoon category participants
within the available quota. This
management measure enhances NMFS’s
ability to more precisely manage the
landing rate of large medium bluefin
tuna by the Harpoon category, thereby
optimizing opportunities while
preventing landings from exceeding the
subquota.
7. Angling Category Trophy Subquota
Distribution
This final rule allocates one third of
the Angling category trophy subquota
specifically to account for those bluefin
tuna caught incidentally while pursuing
other species in Gulf of Mexico. The
trophy subquota would be divided as
follows: 33 percent to each of the
northern area, the southern area outside
the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf of
Mexico. Based upon the recent average
trophy fish weight, this would allow up
to 8 trophy bluefin tuna to be landed
annually in each of the three respective
areas. To distinguish bluefin tuna
incidentally caught in the Gulf of
Mexico from those caught in the
Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico region
includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west
and north of the boundary stipulated at
§ 600.105(c), which is essentially west
of 83° 00′ West longitude but also
includes the waters off southwestern
Florida and north of the Florida Keys.
The objective of this measure is to
reduce discards for recreational vessels
in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and
account for incidentally caught bluefin
tuna by converting a small number of
potential dead discards in the Gulf of
Mexico to potential landings. A separate
subquota allocation for the Gulf of
Mexico increases the likelihood that
there will be trophy quota available to
account for any potential incidental
catch of bluefin tuna in that area, while
still providing incentives not to target
bluefin tuna.
8. Purse Seine Category Fishing Year
Start Date
NMFS considered two alternatives at
the proposed rule stage. The No Action
Alternative would have maintained the
current practice: The purse seine fishery
starts on the default start date of July 15
each year unless NMFS takes action to
delay the season start date to as late as
August 15. A second alternative, which
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
was preferred in the proposed rule and
in the FEIS, would change the default
start date to June 1 (instead of July 15),
unless NMFS takes action to delay the
start date to as late as August 15. In the
final rule, after considering public
comments after the FEIS was published,
HMS is choosing a third option that
removes the default start date altogether.
Instead, NMFS will establish the purse
season start date annually, within a
range from June 1 to August 15, based
on the already-existing criteria in the
regulations, which are unchanged in the
final rule text. Although the third option
was not directly analyzed as an
alternative in the FEIS, the range of
dates for possible opening (June 1–
August 15) remains within the range
analyzed in the FEIS (June 1–August 15
between the two alternatives), and the
regulated community was aware that
this range was being considered and
that NMFS intended to retain maximum
flexibility under any option to adjust the
date as necessary to be responsive to the
public and the fishery under the
regulatory provisions. By relieving the
default date, the new approach will
allow additional public input to the
start-date-setting process annually, is
responsive to public comment
(particularly from the harpoon category
fishermen), and substantively does not
result in effects different from those
already analyzed. The only change from
the current practice is that the fishery
can start earlier now (June 1 instead of
July 15), and the only change from the
proposed rule is that there will be no
default date.
9. Rules Regarding Permit Category
Changes
This final rule allows a vessel owner
to modify the category of an Atlantic
Tunas or HMS permit issued for up to
45 days from date of issuance, provided
the vessel has not landed bluefin tuna
as verified via landings data. The
previous restriction (10 calendar days)
was intended to preclude vessels from
fishing in more than one category
during a year and to discourage
speculative use of fishing permits.
However, based on feedback NMFS has
received over a number of years from
vessel owners affected by the 10 day
restriction, NMFS has concluded that
limiting the time period during which a
vessel may change permit categories to
10 calendar days is overly restrictive,
and does not allow the flexibility to
resolve the problems of a permit issued
by mistake. The 45 day restriction
achieves a better balance of allowing
flexibility for vessel owners, while still
preventing fishing in more than one
permit category during a fishing year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
71523
10. Northern Albacore Tuna Quota
12. Minor Regulatory Changes
This measure implements the U.S.
annual quota of northern albacore tuna
recommended by ICCAT and establishes
provisions for the accounting of
overharvest and underharvest of the
quota via annual specifications.
Specifically, the codified U.S. northern
albacore tuna quota will be adjusted as
appropriate for prior year catch (up or
down), including delayed adjustment
(that would skip a year) or adjustments
over several years. Consistent with the
ICCAT recommendation, carry-forward
of unused quota from one year to the
next will be limited to 25 percent of the
initial quota. NMFS will adjust and
implement the following via regulatory
framework adjustments: Actions to
implement ICCAT recommendations, as
appropriate; allocating and refining
domestic allocation of the U.S. quota;
establishing retention limits;
implementing effort restrictions, etc.
Although an FMP amendment is not
needed, framework adjustments still go
through extensive public and analytical
review and must be consistent with the
MSA and other applicable law.
Amendment 7 is implementing minor
regulatory changes (such as minor
corrections and clarifications; the
removal or modification of obsolete
cross-references; and minor changes to
definitions and prohibitions) to improve
the administration and enforcement of
HMS regulations. Several of these items
have been identified by constituents
over the past few years or were raised
during scoping hearings. The
corrections, clarifications, changes in
definitions, and modifications to
remove obsolete cross-references are
consistent with the intent of previously
analyzed and approved management
measures. Under § 635.5(c)(1), the
relevant internet address will be
updated. Under § 635.20(a), the method
of determining length of Atlantic tunas
will apply regardless of permit type.
Regulations at § 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B), will
refer to a ‘‘gear restricted area,’’ instead
of a ‘‘closed’’ area. Under
§ 635.27(a)(7)(i), the reference to
‘‘Fishery-independent research’’ is
changed to ‘‘research.’’ Under
§ 635.27(a)(1)(iii), the descriptor
‘‘coastwide’’ when referring to the
General category fishery, is deleted.
Under § 635.71(b)(13), the prohibition is
corrected to clarify that the relevant
amount of bluefin tuna is the
‘‘applicable limit’’ instead of ‘‘a’’ bluefin
tuna. These changes were not analyzed
because they do not make substantive
changes to the regulations.
This final rule notifies the public that
the collection-of-information
requirements contained in §§ 635.5,
635.9, 635.14, 635.15, and 635.69 have
been approved by OMB and are
effective. In addition this final rule will
update the table on NOAA information
collections approved by OMB that
appears under 15 CFR part 902.
11. Adjustment of Management
Measures
This final rule adds to the list of
management measures that NMFS may
modify or establish in accordance with
the framework procedures of the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP as amended,
and provides examples of Amendment 7
measures that are within the scope of
management measures currently listed
in the regulations. With exceptions as
noted under ‘‘Changes from Proposed
Rule,’’ these measures were contained
within the proposed rule. The
Amendment 7 measures not previously
contained in the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP are as follows: The quota
shares or allocations for bluefin tuna;
electronic monitoring requirements; and
administration of the IBQ Program
(including requirements pertaining to
leasing of IBQ allocations, regional or
minimum quota share requirements,
quota share caps (individual or by
category), permanent sale of shares,
NED IBQ rules, etc.). The Amendment 7
measures that are within the scope of
measures currently in the regulations
are Performance metrics (within the
scope of ‘‘time/area restrictions’’ in
current regulations) and Angling
category trophy south/north/Gulf of
Mexico percentages (within the scope of
‘‘allocations among user groups’’ in
current regulations).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Response to Comments
NMFS received over 188,000 written
comments from fishermen, states,
environmental groups, academia and
scientists, and other interested parties.
Comments included submissions of
large numbers of identical or similar
comments by organizations (or
facilitated by organizations), as well as
oral statements made at public hearings.
All written comments can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/. The
comments received resulted in changes,
as described below, and in the section
of this final rule called ‘‘Changes from
Proposed Rule’’. Significant comments
are summarized below by major topic
together with NMFS’ responses. There
are 29 major issues:
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71524
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
1. General Support for Proposed
Measures (Comment 1),
2. General Concerns (Comments 2–7),
3. Codified Reallocation (Comments
8–13),
4. Annual Reallocation (Comments
14–17),
5. Modification to Reserve Category
(Comments 18–19),
6. General Comments About Gear
Restricted Areas (Comments 20–42),
7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area
(Comments 43–49),
8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area
(Comments 50–62),
9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing
Under General Category Rules
(Comment 63),
10. Pelagic Longline Limited
Conditional Access to Closed Areas
(Comment 64),
11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline
Transiting Closed Areas (Comment 65),
12. Gear-Based Measures (Comments
66–67),
13. General Comments About
Individual Bluefin Quotas (Comments
68–75),
14. IBQ Eligibility (Comments 76–85),
15. IBQ Leasing (Comments 86–88),
16. Measures Associated with the IBQ
Program (Comments 89–90),
17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline
Fishery (Comment 91),
18. VMS Requirements (Comment 92),
19. Electronic Monitoring
Requirements (Comment 93),
20. Automated Catch Reporting
(Comment 94),
21. Expand the Scope of the Large
Pelagics Survey (Comment 95),
22. Deployment of Observers
(Comment 96),
23. General Category Subquota
Management (Comments 97–98),
24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit
(Comment 99),
25. Angling Category Trophy SubQuota (Comments 100–101),
26. Purse Seine Start Date (Comments
102–103),
27. Permit Category Changes
(Comment 104),
28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna
Quota (Comment 105), and
29. Other Concerns (Comments 106–
107).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
1. General Support for Proposed
Measures
Comment 1: NMFS received a wide
range of comments expressing general
support for the proposed conservation
and management measures.
Commenters stated that the proposed
measures are a step in the correct
direction for the future management of
bluefin tuna, many noting support for
Amendment 7 due to the inclusion of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
‘‘strong’’ management measures, and
others supporting the measures
generally but urging NMFS to adopt
stronger management measures than
those proposed. Commenters’ support
was based upon their concerns about
the current status of the bluefin stock
and the desire to ensure long-term
sustainability of bluefin for future
generations of people. Some
commenters urged NMFS to implement
the preferred alternatives to ‘‘Save the
Bluefin,’’ based on their perception that
bluefin tuna are at imminent risk of
going extinct. Commenters expressed
concerns about the impacts of pelagic
longline gear on bluefin tuna, noting the
waste associated with discarding
bluefin, especially in the Gulf of Mexico
(GOM), and supported changes to the
management of the pelagic longline
fishery to reduce dead discards of
bluefin tuna, as well as other highly
migratory species, marine mammals, sea
turtles, and other species. Commenters
noted that many coastal communities
depend upon healthy stocks of fish to
contribute to their economic well-being
and to that of individuals supported by
commercial and recreational fisheries.
Response: The need for management
action and the specific objectives of
Amendment 7 are described in detail in
Chapter 1 of the FEIS, and the proposed
rule. This final rule implements a suite
of management measures that will
achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in
a balanced manner. Amendment 7
enhances long-term sustainability of
bluefin tuna through reduced dead
discards; improved monitoring;
increased flexibility in the quota system
to both account for dead discards and
optimize allocation of quota among the
diverse bluefin fisheries; and increased
accountability in the pelagic longline
fishery.
Based upon the advice of ICCAT’s
Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics, continued management with
catch levels that comport with ICCAT
recommendations should support
further stock growth of the Western
Atlantic stock of bluefin and is
consistent with the ICCAT rebuilding
plan given the current state of the
science regarding the stock status. The
MSA requires consideration of both the
biological and economic impacts of
conservation and management
measures, and NMFS has determined
that Amendment 7 measures will
achieve a balance that will support the
broader objectives of both stock
rebuilding and continued viability of
the commercial and recreational
fisheries that depend upon bluefin tuna.
The GOM has an important function
in the ecology of the Western Atlantic
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
stock of bluefin. The responses to
comments 50 through 62 address
measures specific to the GOM. NMFS
acknowledges that pelagic longline gear
affects other species in addition to
bluefin tuna and therefore, Amendment
7 measures may indirectly affect other
species. As described in the FEIS
analyses, the cumulative impacts on
other species are likely to be neutral or
positive.
2. General Concerns
Comment 2: Many commenters,
particularly those with small businesses
involved in the pelagic longline fishery
expressed concern regarding the
potential for negative economic impacts
of Amendment 7 on jobs, families, and
communities, and noted the importance
of pelagic longline-caught fish in
supplying high quality seafood to the
nation. These commenters were
concerned about the potential for the
Amendment 7 measures to put people
out of business, and ‘‘destroy the pelagic
longline fishery.’’ Commenters stated
that vessels that are currently only
marginally economically viable would
be at particular risk of going out of
business, but were also concerned about
any secondary impacts on related
businesses such seafood dealers, gear
manufacturers, etc. They urged NMFS to
use a balanced regulatory approach to
address the Amendment 7 objectives,
and stated that Amendment 7 measures
would increase uncertainty in the
pelagic longline fishery.
Response: The seafood supplied to the
Nation by the pelagic longline fleet is
valuable as both a source of food, and
for the generation of income supporting
local jobs, communities, and the broader
economy. NMFS designed management
measures to minimize economic
impacts by relying on the combined
effects of multiple management tools
and incorporating flexibility into the
system. Amendment 7 measures will
affect all permit/quota categories and
reflect the balance of addressing the
issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock
and management of the fishery while
maintaining the viability of the pelagic
longline and other fisheries dependent
upon bluefin tuna. For example,
reductions in dead discards will be
achieved through the use of multiple
measures, including gear restricted
areas, the IBQ system, and IBQ
allocation measures. This final rule will
modify the quota system to increase
management flexibility to allocate quota
among categories and maximize
opportunities to catch available quota,
account for dead discards, and respond
to changing conditions in the fishery. As
the pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the suite of new measures, NMFS will
have the flexibility to allocate a limited
amount of additional quota to the
pelagic longline vessels if necessary to
prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a
result of the gear restricted areas, and
IBQ system, reduce the net amount of
bluefin catch from the levels recently
caught. The Amendment 7 management
measures work together to reduce dead
discards and otherwise reduce bycatch
to the extent practicable, increase
accountability, enhance reporting and
monitoring, and optimize quota
allocation, in a predictable but flexible
manner. The potential economic
impacts of the measures affecting the
pelagic longline fleet are analyzed in
Chapters 5 and 7, of the FEIS, and the
economic rationale is summarized in
the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. Public comments that address
specific measures are addressed below
in the responses to more specific
comments.
Comment 3: Commenters stated that
when determining whether the pelagic
longline fleet should be subject to
additional restrictions, NMFS should
consider the current and past regulatory
environment and other factors as
context. Commenters stated the pelagic
longline fishery is already heavily
regulated to minimize its environmental
impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g.,
closures, weak hook requirement,
observer deployment, bait
requirements), and that progress is being
made. Furthermore, increases in fuel
costs strain fishers’ ability to make a
living, and events such as the 2010 oil
spill in the GOM continue to be
relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin
tuna is managed at the international
level and believe that the United States
manages its citizens in a more effective
and responsible way than other
countries, and that NMFS should not
further regulate bluefin tuna and
increase the management disparity
between the United States and other
countries.
Response: The context in which
vessels operate, including current
regulations and other factors was a
relevant factor NMFS considered in
determining whether new regulations
were needed. NMFS took into
consideration many factors in selecting
preferred measures which address the
diverse objectives of Amendment 7 in a
balanced manner. Chapter 6 of the FEIS
contains a cumulative impacts analysis
which is broad in scope and takes into
consideration past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable factors. In
addition, Chapter 2 in the FEIS contains
a description of measures and the
rationale for the preferred measures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
The Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis includes a description of the
steps taken to minimize the economic
impacts on small entities, and the
reasons for the preferred measures.
The United States manages its
exclusive economic zone in accordance
with applicable U.S. laws and in
response to the unique characteristics of
its fisheries, and therefore the U.S.
regulations regarding bluefin tuna are
different from the rules affecting
citizens of other countries, which
operate under different laws and
circumstances. Where U.S. regulations
are more restrictive than those abroad,
NMFS believes that the corresponding
ecological and socio-economic benefits
that result from such restrictions are
also likely to be greater than those
abroad.
Comment 4: Commenters stated that
the Amendment 7 DEIS contained too
much information, was too complex,
and was difficult to understand. Others
were concerned that the DEIS was
developed too quickly, leaving out too
many details such as those associated
with implementation of measures.
Response: The proposed rule clearly
described the proposed management
measures, and NMFS facilitated
communication with the public via the
internet and its Web site. The amount
and complexity of information in the
DEIS and the FEIS reflect primarily the
scope of the objectives of Amendment 7
and the number of alternatives
analyzed. The complexity of the DEIS
and FEIS also is due to the diversity of
the bluefin tuna fisheries, and the
number of applicable laws and
processes (both national and
international). The DEIS and FEIS
contain an Executive Summary which
provides a condensed version of the
relevant information including tables of
important information. NMFS
conducted public hearings (including a
language interpreter for one hearing)
that were designed to inform the public
of the proposed measures in a readily
understandable format, as well as
provide opportunities for the public to
comment and ask questions.
Significant time and opportunity for
public comment have gone into what
has been a very thorough rulemaking
process for this Amendment. The formal
development of Amendment 7 began
with the publication of the Notice of
Intent (April 23, 2012; 78 FR 24161),
which announced NMFS’ intent to hold
public scoping meetings to determine
the scope and significance of issues to
be analyzed in a DEIS and a potential
amendment to the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP. However, the informal
development began several years
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71525
previously. On June 1, 2009, NMFS
published an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR; 74 FR
26174) requesting specific comments on
regulatory changes that would
potentially increase opportunities for
U.S. bluefin tuna and swordfish
fisheries to fully harvest the U.S. quotas
recommended by ICCAT while
balancing continuing efforts to end BFT
overfishing by 2010 and rebuild the
stock by 2019 as set out in the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP, consistent
with the ICCAT rebuilding plan. The
ANPR was in response to various public
suggestions about bluefin tuna
management during the previous two
years, precipitated by declines in the
total volume of bluefin tuna landings,
which were well below the available
U.S. quota, and a reduction in the
overall allowable western Atlantic
bluefin TAC recommended by ICCAT.
In the ANPR, NMFS also requested
public comment regarding the potential
implementation of catch shares, LAPPs,
and individual bycatch caps (IBCs) in
highly migratory species fisheries. In
response, NMFS received a wide range
of suggestions for changes to the
management of the U.S. bluefin tuna
fisheries.
While the DEIS and proposed
regulations contained sufficient detail
for the public to understand the
measures and their potential impacts,
including implementation, the FEIS and
this final rule provide additional details
to clarify certain aspects of
implementation. These are not new
measures but clarification of measures
within the scope of the impacts
analyzed by the DEIS. The regulatory
process of proposed and final
rulemaking allows for such flexibility to
respond to public comments and
implement regulations that address the
regulatory objectives. The changes made
from the proposed rule are summarized
in the section of this final rule called
‘‘Changes from Proposed Rule’’. The
comment period was extended to allow
maximum public participation in this
process.
Comment 5: Some commenters asked
why the focus of Amendment 7 is the
pelagic longline fishery, perceived the
Amendment as an ‘‘unfair attack’’ on
this fishery, and asked why no
additional restrictions were proposed
for the General, Harpoon, or Angling
categories. Other commenters did not
want one user group in the fishery to
bear the regulatory burden, but believed
that all should sacrifice for the good of
the fishery as a whole.
Response: The focus of Amendment 7
is the list of stated objectives, including
reducing and accounting for dead
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71526
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
discards, optimizing quota allocations,
and enhancing reporting and
monitoring. Although many of the
measures being implemented will apply
to vessels fishing with pelagic longline
gear, all user groups will be subject to
new regulations as appropriate and
necessary, to contribute to the
sustainability of the bluefin fisheries.
Amendment 7 fundamentally alters the
pelagic longline bluefin tuna
management structure in order to
decrease dead discards and increase
accountability, yet it also implements
new restrictions for vessels fishing
under the other permit categories.
Although the components of the
regulated bluefin fisheries are very
different and therefore have been
subject to different restrictions in the
past, NMFS developed the Amendment
7 management measures based upon a
common set of objectives.
Comment 6: NMFS should exempt
pelagic longline fishery participants that
have never interacted with bluefin tuna
from the programs proposed in
Amendment 7.
Response: Amendment 7 enhances
long-term sustainability of bluefin tuna
through reduced dead discards,
improved monitoring, increased
flexibility in the quota system to both
account for dead discards and optimize
allocation of quota among the diverse
bluefin fisheries, and increased
accountability in the pelagic longline
fishery. NMFS acknowledges that some
pelagic longline vessels may not
encounter bluefin tuna as a function of
where and how those individuals fish.
However, the effective implementation
of the management measures requires
consistent treatment and participation
of all of the participating vessels. NMFS
cannot exclude individual HMS pelagic
longline fishermen from the provisions
of Amendment 7 given the mobility of
the pelagic longline fleet and
uncertainty about bluefin interactions
by individual vessels in the future.
Through this Amendment 7 final rule,
NMFS is redesigning many operational
aspects of the entire pelagic longline
fleet. Exclusion of a small pool of
individuals would create an inequitable
management environment across the
fleet. The measures implemented by this
final rule do, however, include specific
provisions that are based on the data
that indicate that some participants
have few or no interactions with
bluefin. For example, under the IBQ
program, eligible permitted vessels will
receive a percentage share of the overall
pelagic longline bluefin quota. The
amount of quota share, either ‘‘high’’,
‘‘medium’’, or ‘‘low’’ will depend in
part upon the vessel’s historical rate of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
bluefin interactions. Vessels with a
relatively low rate of bluefin
interactions will qualify for a higher
share of the total bluefin quota than
vessels with a higher rate of
interactions, and have access to the
Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear
Restricted Area.
Comment 7: Several commenters
stated that the solution to the challenge
of how to account for all catch (landings
and dead discards) in the context of a
limited quota is to increase the amount
of quota allocated to the United States
through ICCAT (instead of the measures
proposed under Amendment 7).
Response: Although a larger U.S.
quota would facilitate easier quota
accounting (i.e., ensure that the total
bluefin landings and dead discards do
not exceed the total bluefin quota), a
larger quota, without concurrent
changes to the 2006 Consolidated HMS
FMP is a short-term solution and would
not achieve the broader objectives of
Amendment 7 or the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP. For example, a larger quota
would not reduce the relative amount of
dead discards of bluefin by the pelagic
longline fishery, increase accountability
for the pelagic longline fishery, optimize
and provide additional flexibility to the
quota system, or enhance reporting and
monitoring. Furthermore, the United
States does not independently set the
quota at ICCAT and any quota
established must be based on the best
available scientific information ICCAT
members (including U.S. delegates) vote
to recommend an appropriate bluefin
quota, based on the recommendation of
the ICCAT scientists (which include
U.S. scientists).
3. Codified Reallocation
Comment 8: Many commenters did
not support reallocation of additional
quota to the Longline category as a
means to achieve the Amendment 7
objectives. They stated that shifting
quota would not reduce interactions
with bluefin or dead discards and that
providing additional quota would
undercut the benefits of a ‘‘catch cap’’
(i.e., setting a strict maximum/cap on
the amount of bluefin that could be
caught, including dead discards and
landings), would discourage the use of
alternative gears, and would reward a
‘‘destructive fishery’’ by moving quota
from quota categories that fish with
more selective gear to the Longline
category, which fishes with less
selective gear and has more bycatch.
Many commenters supported the
codified reallocation for the reasons
NMFS stated in the proposed rule, as
well as other reasons including the
statement that the Longline category
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
may have a smaller ‘carbon footprint’
than the other quota categories; the
other categories are frequently underharvested; the Longline category
provides the U.S consumer access to
important food sources; the General
category exports much of the bluefin
tuna it catches; and all user groups
should bear the regulatory burden.
Response: Amendment 7 implements
systematic management and operational
changes to reduce bluefin bycatch and
maintain the pelagic longline directed
fishery and the other bluefin tuna
fisheries. The combined measures of
this final rule, which include modified
quota allocations, gear restricted areas,
and individual bluefin quotas, will
reduce bluefin catch and provide
incentives to utilize alternative, more
selective gear types. To achieve the
Amendment 7 objectives of reducing
dead discards while minimizing
associated reductions in target catch,
NMFS will allocate bluefin quota to the
Longline category in amounts that
exceed its current allocation of 8.1
percent, but will reduce levels of
incidental bluefin catch by the Longline
category. NMFS anticipates that the
catch of bluefin by pelagic longline gear
will be reduced by between 17 and 42
percent, depending upon the amount of
quota allocated and leased, and fishery
conditions. Some flexibility in the
amount of quota allocated to the
Longline and other quota categories is
needed to accommodate the highly
variable bluefin fisheries, as well as to
mitigate some of the uncertainty and
negative impacts associated with a brief
transitional period in the pelagic
longline fishery as it adjusts to the
preferred Amendment measures.
As explained in the FEIS, there are
several reasons why additional quota
should be provided to the Longline
category, as one element of a more
comprehensive strategy to resolve the
challenge of accounting for bluefin
catch and reducing dead discards. The
pelagic longline fishery interacts with
bluefin tuna when it targets swordfish,
yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and other
species, because the occurrence of those
species overlap as a result of their
similar biology and ecology. The
Longline category is required to account
for dead discards and landings, yet the
historical basis for the relative size of
the Longline category’s quota allocation
(8.1 percent) was only landings, and did
not consider the amount of quota that
could be necessary to account for dead
discards in addition to those landings
within the total allowable catch.
Based on the best available
information, an allocation of 8.1 percent
has been inadequate to account for both
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
landings and dead discards since ICCAT
adopted a requirement to account for
dead discards within the existing quota.
In recent years, NMFS has accounted for
pelagic longline bluefin dead discards
by relying in part upon under harvest of
quota by other quota categories. The
merits of allocating additional quota to
the Longline category must be
considered in the context of all of the
other management measures being
implemented by Amendment 7. Because
the Amendment 7 measures
implemented by this final rule will
provide quota accountability on an
individual vessel and category-wide
basis for the Longline category, the
amount of quota allocated to the
category is of critical importance.
Specifically, when the quota allocated
to an individual vessel has been caught,
the use of pelagic longline gear by that
vessel will be prohibited. If the
category-wide quota has been caught
NMFS may prohibit all vessels in the
fleet from fishing with pelagic longline
gear. Based on current information
regarding the range of bluefin tuna
interactions that can be expected,
continuing to limit the Longline
category to a quota of 8.1 percent of the
available quota would result in a shutdown in the fishery relatively early in
the year. Notwithstanding the other
measures being implemented by this
final rule, which will result in
reductions in dead discards by vessels
fishing with pelagic longline gear, a
quota allocation of 8.1 percent quota
would result in a severely diminished or
eliminated fishery, contrary to the
objective of optimizing fishing
opportunities.
Comment 9: Commenters suggested
that the amount of bluefin quota
allocated to the Longline category
should be reduced, or set at zero.
Response: As discussed in the
response to Comment 8 there are several
reasons why the Longline category
quota should be increased. Moreover,
reducing the Longline category quota
would not be consistent with the
Amendment 7 objectives and would
result in severe economic impacts that
can be avoided through the use of other
management tools. NMFS designed the
quota allocation measures to minimize
the economic impacts on the nonlongline categories. The amount of
quota being deducted from each of the
categories (for allocation to the Pelagic
Longline category under the ‘‘Codified
Reallocation Alternative’’) is
proportional to the size of each
category’s quota and is relatively small
(approximately 7 percent). Secondly,
the amount of quota that will be
deducted from the categories is fixed,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
therefore, if the U.S. bluefin quota
increases as a result of stock growth, the
amount deducted from the various
categories will not increase, but the total
quota allocated to each category would
increase. Furthermore, the other quota
allocation measures implemented by
this final rule (‘‘Annual Reallocation’’
and ‘‘Modifications to Reserve
Category’’) provide mechanisms to
reallocate quota back to these categories,
if quota is available. The ‘‘Annual
Reallocation Alternative’’ guarantees a
minimum amount of quota to the
participants in the Purse Seine fishery,
and enables increases in quota
allocations over time with increasing
levels of bluefin catch. Providing an
amount of bluefin quota to the pelagic
longline fishery that both reduces dead
discards, yet also accounts for a
reasonable amount of incidental catch
that can be anticipated (based on
historical catch rates and the effect of
Amendment 7 gear restricted areas) will
enable the continued generation of
revenue associated with the pelagic
longline fishery’s target catch.
Comment 10: One commenter stated
that providing 68 mt of ‘‘additional
quota’’ to the Longline category is not
appropriate, and that the amount should
be larger, because the discard estimation
methodology that the amount was based
on is no longer in use. Another
commenter stated that the amount of
additional quota should be smaller than
68 mt because the size of the U.S. quota
has been reduced since the time the 68
mt set-aside was established.
Response: Although the codified
reallocation measure is intended to
facilitate accounting for dead discards
by the Longline category, the specific
amount (68 mt) is not intended to serve
as an estimate of current dead discards
or establish a proportion of discards to
landings. NMFS prefers 68 mt as the
amount of quota to be contributed from
all categories, resulting in augmenting
the Longline category by 62.5 mt,
because the amount of additional quota
achieves an appropriate balance of costs
and benefits in the fishery and because
of its historical relevance as a set-aside
for dead discards, the inclusion of
which was a critical factor in first
establishing the formula under which
all categories received their current
allocations. No adjustment to those
allocations was made when ICCAT first
eliminated the dead discard allowance,
and such an adjustment clearly is
warranted given the resulting
management challenges in accounting
for both landings and dead discards
within the available quota. Furthermore,
providing a fixed amount of additional
quota to the Longline category
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71527
effectively limits the amount of
reallocation into the future. In contrast,
altering the base allocation percentages
associated with each quota category
would have had the potential effect of
increasing the amount reallocation to
the longline category if the total U.S.
quota increases. Although increasing the
amount of quota reallocated to the
Pelagic Longline category in association
with increases in total quota would
facilitate accounting for incidental catch
of bluefin and achieve one of the
objectives of this Amendment, it would
not effectively limit bycatch and reduce
dead discards, which are also key
objectives of Amendment 7.
Comment 11: Commentors suggested
that NMFS should, instead of the
‘‘Codified Reallocation’’ of quota from
all quota categories, reallocate quota
from only the Purse Seine category;
impose greater restrictions on the
pelagic longline fishery to reduce their
discards; or implement more restrictive
gear restricted areas in the Gulf of
Mexico and off Cape Hatteras in order
to further reduce incidental bluefin tuna
catch.
Response: NMFS prefers that all quota
categories contribute to addressing the
challenge of accounting for dead
discards, which, as explained in the
response to Comment 8 is a problem
which has multiple root causes, and is
integrally related to the operation and
management of the fishery as a whole.
This Amendment 7 final rule addresses
the issue of the recurring under-harvest
associated with the Purse Seine fishery
through the ‘‘Annual Reallocation’’
measure, which provides a predictable
method to optimize the use of Purse
Seine quota that might otherwise remain
unharvested. This final rule implements
new conservation and management
measures applicable only to the
Longline category, which will limit
bycatch, reduce dead discards, increase
incentives to avoid bluefin, and increase
accountability. NMFS disagrees that
greater restrictions on the Longline
category—instead of reallocating a
limited amount of quota— would
achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in
a manner that minimizes economic
impacts to the extent practicable. As
explained in the response to Comment
9 above, NMFS designed the quota
allocation measures to minimize the
economic impacts on the non-longline
categories. The alternatives take into
consideration the relative size of each
category quota (in the case of the
‘‘Codified Reallocation Alternative’’), or
the level of activity of vessels (‘‘Annual
Reallocation Alternative’’), and are
designed to consider changing levels of
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71528
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
quota or landings, respectively, in ways
that reduce economic impacts.
Comment 12: Many commenters
strongly opposed reallocating quota to
the Longline category because of
concerns about the economic impacts
on a particular geographic region (e.g.,
New England or mid-Atlantic), or quota
category (e.g., the General category or
the Angling category). Some
commenters urged NMFS to respect the
historical allocation percentages, and
noted that reallocation would have the
effect of pitting the different categories
against each other. Some commenters
suggested that NMFS consider other
regulatory and economic circumstances
facing vessels that may be impacted by
a reduced quota.
For example, Congressional
representatives from Massachusetts, and
the New England Fishery Management
Council (Council) stated that the
proposed reallocation would
disadvantage the New England Fishery,
the traditional Massachusetts fleet, and
shore-side infrastructure, and would
allow fleets from other regions to use a
disproportionate amount of quota. They
were concerned about the commercial
fleet that is experiencing economic
damage due to the decline in key stocks
in the groundfish fishery. The Council
suggested that NMFS assess the portspecific impacts of reallocation. A
commenter was concerned that
recreational vessels in the mid-Atlantic
region would be disproportionately
affected by quota reallocation because
the quota may not last until the time the
bluefin are off the mid-Atlantic coast.
Response: A reduction in quota may
impact the revenue associated with a
particular quota category or geographic
region, or result in secondary economic
impacts on a community. The FEIS
analysis estimates that reallocation of
quota to the Longline category could
reduce revenue for individual vessels
with a General category permit by $850
and result in total reduction in
maximum revenue of $542,000 for all
General category vessels. Although
thirty percent of the General category
permits are associated with the State of
Massachusetts (1,150 permits as of
October 2013), the total number of
active vessels is substantially lower. Of
the total number of General category
permits issued throughout the Atlantic
coast (3,783), the average number of
General category vessels landing at least
one bluefin between 2006 and 2012 was
474 vessels (total). Thus, the number of
active vessels in Massachusetts can be
presumed to be substantial fewer than
1,150.
When considering the social and
economic impacts of actions, different
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
communities and regions may be
impacted to different degrees due to
their unique regulatory and economic
circumstances. The FEIS contains an
analysis of the community impacts from
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil
Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents
social indicators of vulnerability and
resistance for 25 communities selected
for having a greater than average
number of HMS permits associated with
them. Those communities with
relatively higher dependence upon
commercial fishing included Dulac, LA;
Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; Gloucester,
MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC;
Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, NJ; Cape May,
NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are
principally at a fishery-wide, or permit
category level. The bluefin tuna
fisheries (and other HMS fisheries) are
widely distributed and highly variable
due to the diversity of participants
(location, gear types, commercial,
recreational), and because bluefin tuna
are highly migratory over thousands of
miles, with an annual distribution that
is highly variable. The specific ports
and communities that provide the goods
and services to support the fishery may
vary as well, as vessels travel over large
distances to pursue their target species.
Due to this variability, it is difficult to
predict potential revenue and secondary
impacts of preferred management
measures by port or by state. Vessels
fishing in any geographic area in the
Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are likely to
have only limited access to bluefin tuna,
unless they travel long distances within
the bluefin’s migratory range.
It is important to note that the actual
economic impacts of reallocation of
quota depend upon the total amount of
quota allocated to (and harvested from)
each of the quota categories, as a result
of the combined effect of all of the
measures that affect quota. For example,
in addition to the amount of quota
available as a result of the percentage
allocations, and deductions for the 68
mt Annual Reallocation, there may be
quota available for redistribution to
various quota categories. Specifically,
pursuant to the preferred ‘‘Annual
Reallocation’’ measure, as described in
Chapter 2 of the FEIS, if the Purse Seine
category has not caught 70 percent of its
quota during the previous year, quota
may be moved to the Reserve category
and subsequently reallocated across
multiple user groups. Furthermore, in
recent years, many categories have not
fully harvested their amount of quota
available to them. Thus, the actual
impacts of reallocation may be minor or
may be mitigated by future reallocation
when available.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Reallocation of quota may result in
frustration or negative attitudes among
fishery participants of different quota
categories, due to the changes to an
historically accepted quota allocation
system, or perceptions of unfairness.
However, the modifications to the quota
system are warranted for the reasons
described in the response to comments
8 through 13 and fair due to the fact that
all quota categories are affected in
proportion to their quota percentage.
As explained in the response to
Comment # 9 above, NMFS designed the
quota allocation measures to minimize
the economic impacts on the nonlongline categories. The management
measures take into consideration the
relative size of each category quota (in
the case of the ‘‘Codified Reallocation
Alternative’’, or the level of activity of
vessels (‘‘Annual Reallocation
Alternative’’), and are designed to
consider changing levels of quota or
landings, respectively, in ways that
reduce negative economic impacts.
Comment 13: Many recreational
anglers wanted to insulate the Angling
category from any potential effect of
quota reallocation to the Longline
category, citing the economic impacts
and high value of the recreational
bluefin fishery to the economy, as well
as the economic investments of the
participants and the current regulatory
burden such vessels face. Vessel owners
with General category commercial
permits expressed concern about the
potential impacts to the General
category. Commenters requested
additional quantitative analyses
comparing the different quota
categories, including primary and
secondary impacts.
Response: As stated above in the
response to the previous comment, a
reduction in quota may impact the
revenue associated with a particular
quota category or result in secondary
economic impacts on a community. The
objective of the allocation measures is
not to reallocate quota based on
economic optimization, but to: account
for bluefin dead discards within the
Longline category; reduce uncertainty in
annual quota allocation and accounting;
optimize fishing opportunity by
increasing flexibility in the current
bluefin quota allocation system; and
ensure that the various quota categories
are regulated fairly relative to one
another.
The reallocation measures of this final
rule will minimize adverse economic
impacts to the extent practicable
because the relative amount of quota
reallocated is small and proportional to
the size of the category quota, and the
overall quota system will be more
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
flexible and predictable and able to
offset some or all of the negative
economic impacts. This approach was
developed consistent with our
obligation under National Standard 6
(Conservation and management
measures shall take into account and
allow for variations among, and
contingencies in, fisheries, fishery
resources, and catches) and National
Standard 8 (Conservation and
management measures shall, consistent
with the conservation requirements of
this chapter (including the prevention of
overfishing and rebuilding of overfished
stocks), take into account the
importance of fishery resources to
fishing communities by utilizing
economic and social data that meet the
requirements of paragraph (2), in order
to (A) provide for the sustained
participation of such communities, and
(B) to the extent practicable, minimize
adverse economic impacts on such
communities.)
Although the FEIS includes estimates
of the value of bluefin tuna quota by
quota category for comparative
purposes, the codified reallocation
measure was not based on a specific
economic analysis, but the achievement
of the stated objectives.
An elaborate quantitative analysis that
compares the economic value of the
Angling, Longline, and General category
fisheries was not conducted in the FEIS
due to the different characteristics of the
Angling, Longline and General category
fisheries, the variable amount of data
associated with these fisheries, and the
large number of factors and assumptions
that contribute to estimating the value of
a fishery. For example, under the IBQ
system implemented by Amendment 7,
bluefin tuna quota may be a limiting
factor for a pelagic longline vessel, and
therefore the lack of adequate bluefin
quota, by even a small amount, could
result in a vessel being prohibited from
fishing with pelagic longline gear. In
that circumstance, the value of the
bluefin quota to the vessel owner may
be very high, and related to the value of
the target catch (e.g., swordfish or
yellowfin tuna). On the other hand, the
value of a bluefin tuna to a recreational
angler or to the recreational fishery atlarge may include the value of the
recreational experience to the angler, as
well as the associated goods and service
supporting the fishing trip. The FEIS
indicates that the Angling category
would potentially face unquantified
reductions in economic and social
activity associated with the 7.36 percent
reduction in available quota.
In contrast, for a vessel fishing
commercially in the General category, a
high quality bluefin tuna sold to Japan
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
may be extremely valuable and other
catch is far less important.
4. Annual Reallocation
Comment 14: Some commenters
supported the annual reallocation
measure as proposed, based on the
underlying concept of tying the Purse
Seine category annual allocation to the
level of fishing activity by Purse Seine
vessels (i.e., ‘‘use or lose’’), and the
strategy of making unused quota
available for use by other quota
categories.
Response: The Amendment 7 annual
reallocation measure represents an
improvement to the quota system by
implementing a predictable means to
utilize quota that may otherwise remain
unused. Because the reallocation of
quota from the Purse Seine category to
the Reserve will occur prior to the
beginning of the calendar year and prior
to the start of the Purse Seine fishery,
there will be increased predictability in
the quota system. In contrast, in the
past, there was uncertainty that resulted
from the fact that the amount of
unharvested quota associated with the
Purse Seine category which would be
available for quota accounting was
unknown until the end of the calendar
year. Because of that timing problem,
the ability for other users to catch any
unharvested quota was markedly
diminished.
Comment 15: Commenters suggested
various modifications to the proposed
annual reallocation measure. One
commenter suggested that the concept
be applied to the individual vessel
instead of at the scale of the whole
Purse Seine category in order to prevent
the situation where an individual vessel
may be disadvantaged. One commenter
suggested that only 25 percent of the
Purse Seine quota should be available
for reallocation, instead of 75 percent. A
commenter suggested that more than
one year of catch should be the basis of
the allocation, instead of a single year.
One commenter suggested that the
annual reallocation alternative be
combined with an alternative that was
not proposed, which would have
allocated 40 percent of the Purse Seine
category to the Longline category.
Response: In response to the comment
that the annual reallocation measure
should be implemented at the level of
the individual vessel in order to prevent
a situation where a vessel fishes its full
allocation but, due to inactivity by other
vessels, is only allocated a portion of its
base allocation for the subsequent year,
NMFS modified the preferred
alternative, and is implementing the
measure at a vessel level (as described
in detail in the preamble above, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71529
FEIS). Under the measure implemented
by this final rule, annual reallocation
will be based on the previous year’s
individual purse seine participants
catch rather than category-wide catch.
This management measure will tie quota
allocation more closely to individual
Purse Seine participants catch and
create incentive for fishery participants
to remain active in the fishery. Thus, the
individual allocation could either
increase or decrease. Without this
modification to the alternative (from
that proposed), individual allocations
would be tied to the catch of the other
participants in the fishery, which could
have unfair results if catch were to vary
greatly among the vessels. For example,
in a year where overall category
landings were low, an individual purse
seine participant could be allocated a
relatively low amount of quota, even if
they landed a substantial portion of
their allocation the previous year. As
such, the alternative would not tie the
allocation to individual catch and thus
would not encourage full use of the
category quota, which would be
inconsistent with the intent of this
alternative.
Regarding the comment that only 25
percent of the Purse Seine allocation be
available for reallocation (instead of 75
percent), if only a relatively small
percentage of the quota were available
for reallocation (and a relatively large
percentage of the quota guaranteed for
the Purse Seine allocation), there would
be the possibility that Purse Seine
participants remain inactive, yet only a
relatively small percentage of the quota
is transferred to the Reserve category.
Such a scenario, which increases the
likelihood that the Purse Seine quota as
a whole may not be utilized by any
category, would be inefficient and
would not optimize the quota system.
Making up to 75 percent of the quota
available to the Reserve category will
maximize the amount of quota that may
be reallocated, and will provide a
reasonable minimum amount for the
Purse Seine participants. The measure
implemented by this final rule
guarantees vessels 25 percent of their
base allocation, but makes up to 75
percent available for reallocation to the
Reserve category, while not precluding
Purse Seine participants from increasing
their catches over time (multiple years).
Regarding the comment that more
than one year of catch should be used
as the basis of the Purse Seine
allocation, a time scale of two years
would reduce the relative importance of
a single year’s catch in determining
subsequent quota allocations, but may
also decrease the availability of quota.
The method of annual reallocation being
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71530
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
implemented (i.e., based on one year)
will provide a better balance between
providing a fair allocation to the Purse
Seine category and providing a
predictable system for utilizing quota
among all categories that may otherwise
be unused, and is consistent with the
annual time scale applicable to quota
related management measures (i.e., the
relevant time scale for most aspects of
the quota system is annual).
Regarding the comment that the
annual reallocation alternative should
be combined with an annual allocation
of 40 percent of the Purse Seine category
to the Longline category, NMFS
determined that the annual reallocation
measure better meets the objectives of
reducing uncertainty in annual quota
allocation and accounting; optimizing
fishing opportunity by increasing
flexibility in the current bluefin quota
allocation system; and ensuring that the
various quota categories are regulated
fairly in relative to one another. Under
the annual reallocation measure
implemented by this final rule, the
amount of quota allocated to Purse
Seine participants and the Reserve
category is responsive to the level of
activity of Purse Seine participants, but
will not reduce the size of the Purse
Seine category percentage (18.6
percent), which is the foundation upon
which the allocations to Purse Seine
participants are based. In contrast,
combining this measure with an annual
allocation of 40 percent of the Purse
Seine category to the Longline category
would substantially reduce the size of
the Purse Seine allocation regardless of
the level of activity by Purse Seine
vessels. Such a reduction is not
consistent with the objective of the
measure. The objective of the
management measure is not to reduce
the size of the Purse Seine allocation,
but to make Purse Seine quota available
for use by other categories in a
predictable manner (reflecting a Purse
Seine vessel’s previous year level of
activity), as well as allow levels of
fishing activity of Purse Seine vessels to
increase within the scope of the
category’s allocation.
Comment 16: One commenter
supported annual reallocation, but
stated that the implementation of the
annual reallocation measure should be
linked to a Purse Seine fishery start date
of June 1, as well as elimination of the
provision limiting the relative amount
of 73 to 81 inch bluefin Purse Seine
vessels may retain. One commenter did
not support annual reallocation due to
the different retention rules applicable
to the Longline and Purse Seine
categories. One commenter did not
support annual reallocation because of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
the perception that the Purse Seine
category has not had the same fishing
opportunities as the other categories due
to low availability of giant (greater than
81 inch) bluefin, and the restriction on
retention of large medium bluefin.
Response: NMFS agrees that the
Annual Reallocation alternative should
be evaluated in the context of other
regulations applicable to the Purse
Seine category and Longline category.
Modification of the start date of the
Purse Seine category to June 1 is one of
the measures being implemented by this
Amendment 7 final rule. NMFS
considered but did not further analyze
an alternative that would modify or
relieve the tolerance limit for largemedium fish in the purse seine category.
Such an alternative was not further
considered for reasons explained in
Chapter 2 of the FEIS, including because
recent data was not available about
fishery operations that reflected to what
extent the purse seine fishery
experienced regulatory dead discards as
a result of the tolerance limit. In
furtherance of gathering such data and
in the interest of examining bycatch in
the fishery, on August 1, 2014, NMFS
issued an exempted fishing permit that
will exempt a Purse Seine vessel from
the annual incidental purse seine
retention limit on the harvest of large
medium Atlantic bluefin tuna, in order
to investigate and gather such data.
NMFS could consider changes to the
Purse Seine category size restrictions in
a future rulemaking after further datagathering and consideration. The
Annual Reallocation measure will not
result in a negative ecological impact
due to the different size restrictions
applicable to the Purse Seine category
and the Longline category as explained
in Chapter 4 of the FEIS (the potential
change in the amount of bluefin caught
of different size categories is relatively
small compared with the overall stock
size).
Comment 17: Commenters did not
support annual reallocation for a variety
of reasons. One stated that the Purse
Seine category should not have a
fluctuating quota; one was concerned
that the Longline category will take the
entire Purse Seine quota in the future,
and one was concerned that reallocation
to the Longline category would increase
discards.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
the Purse Seine quota may fluctuate
under the annual reallocation measure,
and that a fluctuating quota may have
some negative implications for the Purse
Seine fishery, such as challenges to
long-term business planning, and
fluctuating levels of revenue from the
Purse Seine fishery. However, in the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
context of the fishery as a whole, the
benefits of the annual reallocation
measure are expected to outweigh the
negative aspects, and the amount of
quota fluctuation may be reduced by a
consistent level of Purse Seine catches.
Under the annual reallocation measure
implemented by this final rule, Purse
Seine participants will have similar
fishing opportunities as the other
commercial categories that direct on
bluefin tuna, but if substantial portions
of the quota remain unused, there will
be a fair system to relocate quota in a
predictable and efficient way. The
annual reallocation system will also be
responsive to any future increased
levels of catch by Purse Seine
participants. If a Purse Seine participant
is allocated the minimum amount of
quota (25 percent of its base quota), with
increasing catch over time, the
individual participant could be
allocated 100 percent of their base quota
three years after being allocated the
minimum amount. For example if
during the first year of fishing the
participant caught 22 percent of their
baseline quota, for year two they would
be allocated 50 percent. During year two
if the participant caught 46 percent of
their baseline quota, for year three they
would be allocated 75 percent of its
baseline quota. If during year three they
caught 71 percent of their baseline quota
for year four they would be allocated
100 percent of its baseline quota.
Under the annual reallocation
measure, quota will be reallocated to the
Reserve category, and potentially then
to any or all quota categories. Transfers
of quota from the Reserve category may
include transfers to the Longline
category, but NMFS will consider and
balance the needs of the fishery as a
whole. Quota could also be allocated to
the other fishery categories as
appropriate, considering the relevant
factors in that year. Specifically, NMFS
will base such decisions on the criteria
described under the ‘‘Modifications to
the Reserve Category’’ measure, as well
as other applicable regulations and laws
(e.g., the MSA National Standards (NS)
such as the NS 9 requirement to
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality
to the extent practicable).
5. Modification to Reserve Category
Comment 18: Several commenters
supported the modifications to the
Reserve category regulations, which
would increase the amount of quota that
may be put into the Reserve category
and increase the potential uses of
Reserve category quota. One commenter
stated that NMFS should be authorized
to allocate from the Reserve category at
any time. A commenter suggested
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
splitting the Reserve category into quota
derived from under-harvest, and quota
transferred from the Purse Seine
category, to increase transparency. One
commenter suggested redistribution of
unused Reserve quota to active Longline
category vessels during the last quarter
of the year. A commenter stated that
NMFS should make up to 50 percent of
the Reserve quota available to the
Longline category during the first three
years of the IBQ Program.
Response: The management measure
regarding the Reserve category
implemented by this final rule will
provide additional management
flexibility in the quota system and
enable consideration of various quota
strategies such as those suggested by the
commenters. Although NMFS has the
authority to allocate bluefin quota from
the Reserve category at any time, the
regulations implemented by
Amendment 7 will enable NMFS to add
underharvest from the previous year
and any reallocated quota from the
Purse Seine category to the Reserve
category base allocation of 2.5 percent.
Secondly, Amendment 7 adds new
criteria to broaden and clarify the
potential uses of the Reserve quota. It is
not possible to evaluate the merits of the
commenters’ specific quota suggestions
without any context. There are many
potential uses of Reserve quota,
including transfer to the Longline
category in order to facilitate the
transition to IBQs, or transfer to the
General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Angling,
or Trap categories if warranted in order
to increase fishing opportunity (while
still preventing catch from exceeding
the overall U.S. quota, and abiding by
the other ICCAT restrictions). In order to
facilitate transparency and full
understanding of the quota system,
NMFS will communicate clearly about
how quota transfers are distributed
among all quota categories, including
descriptions of specific amount of quota
derived from various sources.
Comment 19: A commenter did not
support the addition of new criteria to
the existing criteria regarding in-season
transfer of quota among categories
because the criteria are long-standing
and provide adequate flexibility.
Commenters did not want to allow the
Reserve category to be ‘‘padded’’ to
cover Longline category dead discards,
and did not want most of the Reserve
quota to go to the Longline category.
Response: The addition of the new
criteria under Amendment 7 will not
change the overall scope of NMFS
authority to transfer quota among
categories, but includes specific criteria
that have the effect of clarifying
potential uses of quota. NMFS agrees
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
that an excessive amount of quota from
the Reserve category should not be used
to account for Longline category dead
discards and has structured the
alternatives to give management
flexibility to move available quota to
other categories as warranted. As stated
in the response to Comment 8, under
the Amendment 7 management
measures, NMFS will allocate quota to
the Longline category in amounts that
exceed its current allocation of 8.1
percent of the current annual quota, but
will not allow historic levels of bluefin
catch by the Longline category catch. In
evaluating the amount of quota to
reallocate to any category (including the
Longline category), NMFS will consider
the regulatory criteria for quota transfer,
which include broad biological and
economic considerations (e.g., ‘‘effects
of the adjustment on accomplishing the
objectives of the fishery management
plan’’). For example, with respect to
transfers of quota to the Longline
category, some important considerations
may include the amount of dead
discards by pelagic longline gear
relative to the size of the Longline
category quota, the overall trend in the
amount of dead discards and landings
in the Longline category, the
effectiveness of gear restricted areas, the
status of the bluefin stock, trends in
relevant data reporting, the amount of
uncertainty regarding dead discard
information, the level of accountability
for bluefin dead discards by vessels in
other quota categories, and the
economic benefits of quota transfers. For
transfers to other categories, important
considerations may include effects of
catch rates in one area precluding
vessels in another area from having a
reasonable opportunity to harvest a
portion of the category’s quota; the
projected ability of the vessels fishing
under the particular category quota to
harvest the additional amount of BFT
before the end of the fishing year; the
estimated amounts by which quotas for
other gear categories of the fishery might
be exceeded; effects of the adjustment
on bluefin rebuilding and overfishing;
and effects of the adjustment on
accomplishing the objectives of the
FMP.
6. General Comments About Gear
Restricted Areas
Comment 20: NMFS should avoid
closures to the pelagic longline fishery.
Any closure would disrupt markets.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
GRAs designed to reduce bluefin tuna
interactions and regulatory discards and
to thus decrease bycatch have costs
associated with them, and may have
disruptive effects on local markets.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71531
NMFS designed the gear restricted areas
(i.e., their timing and configuration)
after considering the amount of reduced
fishing opportunity as well as the
amount of reduced bluefin interactions,
in order to minimize potential
disruptions in markets. NMFS designed
the Cape Hatteras GRA to provide access
opportunities to fishermen that have a
proven ability to avoid bluefin, and are
compliant with the observer and
logbook requirements. As described in
the Response to Comments # 46 and 47,
NMFS specifically modified the Cape
Hatteras Gear Restricted Area that was
preferred in the DEIS, to reduce
disruption to ongoing fishing in an
adjacent area and therefore reduce
potential economic impacts of the
alternative. Evaluation of all alternatives
considered both economic and
ecological considerations (i.e., the
potential reductions in revenue
associated with estimated reductions in
bluefin interactions).
Comment 21: NMFS should not
implement GRAs. NMFS received
comments indicating that, due to a
variety of reasons, commercial
fishermen may be limited to certain
fishing locations by the size and
configuration of their vessels, insurance
requirements, or safety concerns, and
that some participants in the fishing
fleet have nowhere else to fish (except
in the location of the GRA) and they
would be ‘‘shut out’’ of the fishery.
Response: The underlying concept of
the Cape Hatteras GRA minimizes
economic impacts by providing
conditional access to the area, based on
performance criteria. The majority of the
pelagic longline fleet will be allowed to
fish in the area upon implementation of
this Amendment 7 final rule, and in the
future if conditions for access continue
to be met. In estimating ecological and
socio-economic impacts of the Cape
Hatteras GRA (called the ‘‘Modified’’
Cape Hatteras GRA in the FEIS), NMFS
determined that 14 vessels (of 135
vessels) would not have access to this
GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels
made over 75 percent of their sets in the
Cape Hatteras GRA. Based upon the
location of their historical catch, and to
ensure that NMFS did not
underestimate the potential economic
impacts, the analysis assumes that these
vessels would not redistribute effort
outside of the GRA. Although these four
vessels could redirect from fishing
grounds off Oregon Inlet, NC to fishing
grounds between Cape Fear and Cape
Hatteras, such a change in fishing
grounds may involve substantial costs
(fuel, longer trips, possible transfer and
dockage in a new port, etc.). However,
NMFS modified the Cape Hatteras GRA
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71532
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
in a way that NMFS believes will
achieve the reduction in bluefin
discards, but will also allow fishermen
to continue to deploy gear in regions
south and west of the GRA and thereby
reduce adverse impacts. With respect to
the potential negative impacts of the
Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA,
approximately 61 vessels that fish in the
Gulf of Mexico would be affected. Given
the consistent pattern of historical catch
of large numbers of bluefin tuna in
certain times and locations by pelagic
longline gear, NMFS determined that a
GRA area in both the Gulf of Mexico
and the Atlantic are necessary in order
to achieve reductions in bluefin tuna
dead discards, and that the potential
economic impacts are unavoidable in
order to achieve the necessary
reductions. The potential negative
socio-economic impacts were
minimized by using an iterative process
to design the gear restricted areas. The
Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline
GRAs were designed in order to achieve
a balance between a reduction in bluefin
dead discards, protection of the Gulf of
Mexico spawning stock, and continued
operation of the pelagic longline fleet in
the Gulf of Mexico. The specific
boundaries of the area were determined
by an iterative process that included
consideration of public comment and
input, by selecting areas of historical
pelagic longline interactions with
bluefin, and comparing both the
anticipated reduction in bluefin
interactions, and the estimated
reduction in revenue, of different
configurations. In addition, the time
period was selected due to its
occurrence during the peak bluefin
spawning period in the Gulf of Mexico.
The magnitude of the potential
economic impacts result from the
specific location and duration of the
GRA. The size of the Spring Gulf of
Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA is based
upon the historical location and number
of bluefin interactions, as well as the
recent persistent trend in fishing effort
shifting to the east of this area, and the
known variability in the fishery in
general. A smaller geographic area
would be unlikely to achieve
meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna
interactions. The duration of the GRA
encompasses the months with the
highest number of interactions during
the spawning period. An alternate, or
shorter time period would coincide with
neither the highest number of bluefin
interactions, nor the bluefin spawning
period peak.
Comment 22: NMFS should evaluate
the preferred alternatives for the Cape
Hatteras GRA in light of the difficulties
in implementing the Pelagic Longline
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Take Reduction Plan (a plan designed to
reduce the incidental interactions of
pelagic longline gear with marine
mammals in order to reduce serious
injury and mortality of long-finned and
short-finned pilot whales and Risso’s
dolphins in the Atlantic).
Response: Several comments received
suggested options similar to those
currently employed under the Pelagic
Longline Take Reduction Plan
(described below). One comment noted
the importance of developing a
communication protocol similar to what
is encouraged by the Pelagic Longline
Take Reduction Plan for marine
mammals. NMFS also encourages
captains to communicate the location of
bluefin to each other to aid fleet-wide
avoidance practices. However, NMFS
believes that this approach is best
employed on a voluntary basis, as is
done for marine mammals, given
potential confidentiality concerns.
Mandatory aspects of the Pelagic
Longline Take Reduction Plan include a
requirement to post the marine mammal
safe handling and release placard in the
wheelhouse and on the working deck, a
restriction of mainline length to no more
than 20 nmi when fishing within the
Mid-Atlantic Bight, and special observer
and research participation requirements
for vessels operating in the Cape
Hatteras Special Research Area
(CHSRA). Unlike the requirements for
operating in the CHSRA, Amendment 7
does not require fishermen fishing in
the Cape Hatteras GRA to notify the
agency between 48 to 96 hours prior to
making a trip in order to arrange for
observer coverage or research
participation, in part because
notifications of intent to fish are a
standard requirement through VMS.
Additionally, Amendment 7 does not
require fishermen to retain or post any
new placards, nor does it change the
requirements regarding mainline length
restrictions. It is important to note that
the provisions of Amendment 7 do not
replace the provisions of CHSRA or the
Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan;
pelagic longline fishermen are still
expected to fully comply with the
requirements outlined in the Pelagic
Longline Take Reduction Plan while
fishing with pelagic longline gear in any
part of the CHSRA that may overlap
with the Cape Hatteras GRA.
Comment 23: A commenter stated that
NOAA and ICCAT do not have
sufficient scientific information to be
able to predict where and when the
distribution of bluefin may overlap with
the pelagic longline fleet target species,
and thus fishermen are also highly
unlikely to be able to predictably avoid
BFT while targeting other HMS species
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(swordfish, bigeye and yellowfin) except
for certain times of year and in limited
locations. Any rigid management
framework that cannot adapt
management to real-time distributions
and availability of targeted and nontargeted HMS species will be unlikely to
optimize yield, support economic
viability, and eliminate discards.
Response: Bluefin tuna distribution is
highly variable; however, the scientific
literature as well as the data in the FEIS
(Chapters 3 and 4) support the
conclusion that there is sufficient
consistency in the patterns of
distribution to make GRAs an effective
management tool on a long-term basis.
If warranted by changes in the
characteristics of the fishery (e.g, longterm shifts in the distribution of bluefin
tuna and target species), NMFS can reevaluate whether GRAs continue to be
an effective management tool that
appropriately balances the associated
costs and benefits.
Comment 24: NMFS received
suggestions to consider dynamic timearea closures because the distribution of
bluefin is highly variable.
Response: In the Predraft of
Amendment 7, NMFS considered a realtime monitoring system that would
periodically close ‘‘hot spots’’ of bluefin
interactions with the pelagic longline
fleet. However, the Agency chose to not
further analyze this alternative in the
DEIS and the FEIS because a reporting
and monitoring system to support this
measure does not currently exist.
Furthermore, the development and
administration of such a system would
be highly complex, and would require
substantial resources to be able to fully
monitor the entire region across which
the pelagic longline fleet fishes, publish
a rule quickly enough to respond to
changing oceanic conditions, and
provide adequate notice to the pelagic
longline fleet. Instead of the dynamic
measures supported by the commenter,
which would respond to short-term
aggregations of bluefin, the measures
implemented by this final rule rely on
a different strategy of reducing bluefin
bycatch, based upon the long-term,
consistent special and temporal patterns
of bluefin distribution.
Comment 25: NMFS received
comments asserting that the Agency
lacks sufficient data to make a reliable
determination regarding true interaction
rates of any given vessel. Some
commenters felt that NMFS should
prohibit fishing in areas of concern until
more reliable data collection methods
are in place, whereas others felt that
NMFS should not prohibit fishing until
more reliable data collection methods
are in place. Several commenters cited
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
weaknesses in logbook data and asserted
that logbook data are not sufficient to
verify vessel behavior, count
interactions, or monitor bycatch.
Response: As indicated in the
Response to Comment # 82 NMFS
recognizes that some vessel operators
may have under-reported in their
logbooks the amount of bluefin tuna
they have caught. NMFS conducted an
analysis that compared logbook data to
observer data to get an indication of
how vessel-reported logbook data
compares with observer data, because
observer data can serve as a useful
validation tool. Compared to the
observer data, the logbook data showed
both over-reporting and under-reporting
of bluefin tuna, with the average amount
of under-reporting of bluefin discards of
28 percent at the aggregate level for all
vessels. Individual vessel data varied
substantially from being more than 90
percent accurate with observer data for
that trip to more than 75 percent
inaccurate compared to observer data
for that trip. These data indicate a wide
range in reporting accuracy at a vessel
level. Specific information on this
analysis is in the Appendix of the FEIS.
Notwithstanding potential underreporting by some vessels, logbook data
are the most complete source of
available data regarding vessel level
interactions with bluefin tuna because
100 percent of pelagic longline vessels
are required to submit logbook reports
for every set.
NMFS also analyzed observer data in
order to verify the spatial and temporal
patterns of bluefin interactions that
were noted in the logbook data (Chapter
3 of FEIS). Although the observer data
could not be compared directly to the
logbook data because it is collected with
lower frequency and at a different scale,
the observer data indicated similar
patterns of bluefin interactions as the
logbook data. The logbook data
represents the best available source of
fine-scale information on bluefin
interactions at this time. This final rule
also implements enhanced monitoring
and reporting requirements that will
improve information on bluefin
interactions in the pelagic longline
fishery (i.e., VMS and electronic
monitoring).
Comment 26: NMFS received
multiple comments regarding access to
the GRAs based on performance.
Comments 26–42 relate to specific
performance criteria. A commenter
stated that NMFS should include 2012
data in the IBQ Allocation calculations
and GRA area access calculations.
Response: NMFS agrees that 2012
data should be included in these data
calculations in order to reflect the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
characteristics of the fishery in the
recent past. The 2012 data set represents
the most recent calendar year for which
complete data was available at the time
the FIES analysis was begun. Therefore,
in the FEIS NMFS included sets made
in 2012 in the pool of data used to
calculate the bluefin-to-designated
target species ratios for allocation and
GRA access analyses. NMFS also
included 2012 data from the Pelagic
Observer Program and the Logbook
program to calculate the Observer and
Logbook Compliance scores. NMFS also
adjusted the historical qualification
period from 2006 to 2011, to 2006 to
2012, in order to better reflect the
variability in the fishery and account for
recent trends.
Comment 27: Commenters expressed
concern about access to the GRAs based
on performance criteria based on
logbook data, validity of which the
commenter stated was questionable,
given the possible incentives to
misreport bluefin interactions through
the logbook.
Response: As explained in Response
to Comments 25 and 82 NMFS
acknowledges that there are issues with
logbook data accuracy; however, it
offers the most comprehensive data on
the fishery and provides a means to
analyze individual vessel behavior.
HMS logbook data represents a census
of the fishery.
Comment 28: One commenter stated
that there was no regulation that vessels
must avoid bluefin tuna in the past, and
vessels should not be singled out now
for catching more bluefin by chance.
Response: Directed fishing on bluefin
tuna with pelagic gear is not permitted.
Any interactions with pelagic longline
are incidental to other directed fishing
and regulations have been designed to
discourage any such interactions and to
minimize bycatch to the extent
practicable. NMFS has managed the
pelagic longline fishery as an incidental
category for bluefin for many years and
has implemented a number of
regulations to limit the bluefin that can
be retained and to discourage
interactions with bluefin (e.g., limiting
the number of bluefin that can be
landed based on the weight of target
species, implementing a time-area
closure for bluefin in June in the
northeast, requiring weak hooks in the
Gulf of Mexico). The pelagic longline
category as a whole has traditionally
been allocated 8.1 percent of the total
U.S. quota to cover incidental catch
during directed fishing operations for
other species, but those catches
(including dead discards) have been
significantly over that subquota in
recent years.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71533
Through analysis of logbook data
between 2006 and 2012, NMFS noted
that a small number of vessels were
responsible for the majority of reported
bluefin interactions. In this and
previous rulemakings, members of the
pelagic longline fleet have repeatedly
asked for increased individual
accountability in the fishery.
Amendment 7 is implementing
management measures that will address
this situation, and will hold individuals
accountable for their bluefin
interactions.
Comment 29: NMFS should not
penalize small vessels because of their
inability of provide adequate space for
observers.
Response: NMFS designed the scoring
system for the Pelagic Observer Program
Performance metric being implemented
by this final rule such that valid reasons
for not carrying an observer will not be
penalized. Observer coverage is integral
to the management of the fishery as it
contributes important, objective data in
support of the management of protected
species and provides important
information on the pelagic longline
fishery utilized in the management of
bluefin and other HMS species. Due to
the importance of having enough
observed trips to meet the observer
coverage targets required by national
and international obligations, NMFS
also evaluated vessels on the number of
trips observed. The agency utilizes
observer data to develop estimates of
protected resources interactions and
estimates of discards of other species
including bluefin. These data are
essential for stock assessments and are
critical in meeting international
management obligations. Under ATCA
and as a contracting party of ICCAT, the
United States is required to take part in
the collection of biological, catch, and
effort statistics for research and
management purposes.
Comment 30: NMFS received
comments on the data used to calculate
scores for performance metrics and IBQ
allocations. NMFS received comments
indicating that dolphinfish and wahoo
from the HMS logbook needed to be
included in the performance metric
scoring. Several commenters requested
the Agency include landings of
designated target species (primarily
dolphinfish and wahoo) reported in the
coastal fisheries logbook in calculations
used to assess IBQ and performance.
Other commenters suggested that NMFS
should use all pelagic longline logbooks
in determining the Bluefin Avoidance
Score.
Response: Dolphinfish and wahoo
reported in the HMS logbook were used
to develop scores for performance
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71534
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
metrics. However, landings of these
species reported in the Coastal Fisheries
Logbook were not used in the
performance metrics for several reasons.
(1) The Coastal Fisheries Logbook
would not contain landings of the
primary target species of the HMS
pelagic longline fishery (swordfish and
BAYS tunas), and would not provide for
the reporting of bluefin tuna
interactions. Therefore, the actual ratio
of landings of designated target species
to bluefin interactions cannot be
accurately calculated for sets reported in
the Coastal Fisheries Logbook. (2)
Fishermen in the southeast Atlantic that
report in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook
could have an advantage over fishermen
in the Gulf of Mexico or New England
that do not have the same type of
reporting requirements and the same
mechanism to report retention of
dolphinfish. (3) The HMS logbook and
the Coastal Fisheries Logbook require
different types of data to be reported
which creates a mismatch in how the
data can be combined and collectively
analyzed, which in turn could result in
inconsistencies between the two data
sets. (4) Specific geographic data (i.e.,
latitude and longitude for each set) that
would were reported in the HMS
logbook and used to identify and
evaluate the ecological and economic
effects of gear restricted areas are
unavailable through the Coastal
Fisheries Logbook. Rather, fishermen
report location where the majority of all
catches of each species were made
through reference to a 1° latitude × 1°
longitude grid cell. If NMFS were to
incorporate data at the finest scale
available (1° latitude × 1° longitude),
NMFS would have to disregard the
overwhelming number of requests for
management (and visualization/
depiction of data) at a finer scale. (5)
The Coastal Fisheries Logbook requires
landings per trip to be reported by
weight whereas the HMS Logbook
requires all interactions per set to be
reported by number. Also, fishermen
reporting in the Coastal Fisheries
Logbook may report gutted or whole
weight. (6) A percentage (20%) of
fishermen reporting through the Coastal
Fisheries Logbook are selected to report
discarded fish through a Supplemental
Discard and Gear Trip Report form at
the trip level, whereas all fishermen
reporting in the HMS Logbook must
provide this information for every set,
which also creates a mismatch in how
data can be combined and collectively
analyzed. For these reasons NMFS used
dolphinfish and wahoo catch data from
the HMS logbooks to develop scores for
performance metrics, but did not use the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
landings data reported in the Coastal
Fisheries Logbook.
Comment 31: NMFS should not base
performance metrics on the Northeast
Distant (NED) Area.
Response: NMFS incorporated all data
reported through the HMS logbook in
the calculation of performance metrics,
regardless of where vessels fished.
Exclusion of the sets made in the NED
area could result in certain vessels that
had a lot of fishing effort in this region
receiving a competitive advantage or a
disadvantage in terms of performance
metric scores. Further, vessels that fish
in the NED are not exempt from
observer (if selected) or logbook
reporting requirements.
Comment 32: NMFS should consider
that, by allowing access based on the
performance of a vessel, the new owner
of a vessel may be evaluated based on
prior poor vessel performance under a
different owner.
Response: As explained below, NMFS
determined that the relevant historical
activity should be that associated with
the vessel (and not the permit), and
therefore, the preferred IBQ Program
would evaluate vessels based on all
activity attributed to that vessel through
the qualification time period (2006–
2012). In general, the use of historical
data as part of an individual quota share
(or a performance criteria) can be
complex due to historical transfers of
the limited access permit from one
vessel to another or changes in vessel
ownership. The quota share formula
implemented by Amendment 7 is based
upon historical data associated with a
permitted vessel. NMFS determined that
the historical ‘platform’ upon which to
base the quota share should be the
vessel history instead of the permit
history for the following reasons: (1)
Vessel history reflects current and
historical participation in the fishery;
(2) the regulations regarding the transfer
of Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permits do not address fishing history
(i.e., do not specify whether when an
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
is transferred from one vessel to
another, whether the fishing history also
transfers); and (3) the structure of the
databases in which the logbook data
resides uses the vessel as a key
organizing feature, and therefore the
compilation of data associated with a
particular vessel is simpler and less
prone to error (i.e., it is more complex
to compile data based on an individual
permit history). However, once the
initial allocations are established,
bluefin quota shares will be associated
with the permit for future vessel
transactions. For example, if a permitted
vessel has quota shares, and the owner
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of the permitted vessel decides to sell
the permit but keep the vessel, the seller
of the permit will no longer have any
privileges with respect to the IBQ
Program (they would only have fishing
both without a permit). In contrast, the
buyer of the permit would have the
eligibility for the IBQ associated with
that permit (although the permit buyer
would need to put that permit on a
vessel in order to receive quota
allocation).
Comment 33: One commenter asked
whether the public will know the
identity of vessels excluded from the
GRA.
Response: NMFS does not intend to
publicly release the identity of vessels
without access to the GRA.
Comment 34: NMFS received several
suggestions concerning changes to the
logbook performance metric, logbook
reporting requirements, and requests for
faster logbook submission methods.
Some commenters felt that NMFS
should not include a logbook
performance metric. Commenters noted
that logbook reports are usually late
because it takes time to collect the
required economic information, and
sometimes fishermen are out for
extended periods of time. Dealers
sometime take 2 or more weeks to get
a return done, which results in delays
in submitting data to the Logbook
Program. For offshore/distant water
fishermen, it sometimes takes more than
a week for the receipt of information
from dealers, especially if the catch is
offloaded in Canada. The commenters
felt that if NMFS wants to retain this
performance metric, the agency should
require that dealer tally sheets be
submitted separately from the logbooks.
NMFS received suggestions to transition
the logbook performance metric from
the date of opening the letter to the date
of receipt by the Agency to allow for
contingencies such as a government
shutdown (or other factors that may
delay Agency officials from opening
letters). A commenter felt that NMFS
should establish a tolerance for the
mailing of logbook reports from
different parts of the country to Miami,
FL, because fishermen in Florida have
an advantage over fishermen based in
more distant locations (e.g., Maine) due
to the length of time it takes to deliver
mail. NMFS was asked to establish a
process whereby fishermen can submit
logbooks by fax or online to minimize
delays due to the distance a letter has
to travel.
Response: Current regulations require
fishermen to submit logbooks within 7
days of offloading. Logbook reports
must include weighout slips showing
the dealer to whom fish were
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
transferred, the date of transferal, and
the carcass weight of fish for which
individual weights are recorded. Timely
logbook reporting is a critical
component of quota monitoring,
particularly for species like HMS that
have small annual or seasonal quotas.
Many pelagic longline fishermen are
able to comply with the requirement to
submit logbooks within seven days.
There are members of the fleet,
however, that take months to a full year
to submit logbook reports. These late
reports, either late due to logistics or
non-compliance, make quota
management of HMS very difficult,
especially if quotas are small.
Amendment 7 will require catch
reporting via VMS units to ensure
timely report of bluefin catches. NMFS
may pursue faster mechanisms to report
logbooks in the future, such electronic
logbooks.
Comment 35: NMFS should have
solicited feedback on performance
criteria from the industry. The
commenter felt that NMFS developed
the performance criteria in a ‘‘black
box’’ and did not provide ample
notification that the agency would be
evaluating individuals on these metrics.
Response: Significant time and
opportunity for public comment have
gone into what has been a very thorough
rulemaking process for this
Amendment. NMFS repeatedly solicited
public feedback and Advisory Panel
input on the alternatives in Amendment
7, including the development of the
performance criteria. NMFS has
discussed the management of bluefin
discards with the public and with the
Advisory Panel since a 2009 Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. NMFS
indicated in both the Predraft and the
DEIS that a small number of individuals
were responsible for the majority of
bluefin interactions. NMFS received
numerous public comments in
Amendment 5 to the Consolidated HMS
FMP indicating that the pelagic longline
fleet desired individual accountability
measures, instead of holding the entire
fleet responsible for high interactions of
a few vessels with dusky sharks. NMFS
developed the performance criteria as a
means to evaluate fishermen and hold
them individually accountable for
reduction of bluefin discards and
compliance with the reporting and
monitoring regulations. These
performance criteria offer an alternative
to fleet-wide time/area closures.
Furthermore, the multiple criteria offer
individuals who have moderate levels of
bluefin interactions to still access GRAs
provided that they comply with the
reporting and monitoring requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Reporting and observer requirements
have been in place for several years, and
NMFS regularly communicates with
constituents concerning the rules
pertaining to these programs. NMFS
notifies individuals selected for
reporting annually with letters that
detail reporting requirements.
Furthermore, NMFS produces outreach
materials, compliance guides, and a
Web site that clearly state reporting
requirements. With respect to the
observer program, NMFS also clearly
notifies individuals of vessel selection
for observer coverage. The Pelagic
Observer Program regularly
communicates with the points of
contact (captains and vessel owners)
regarding the organization and
scheduling of observed trips.
Commercial fishermen are therefore
provided ample notification of the
regulations concerning observer and
logbook reporting.
Comment 36: NMFS should not deny
access to individuals who are good
bluefin avoiders. The intent of the rule
is to reduce bluefin discards, not to
penalize fishermen for being out of
compliance with observer or reporting
requirements. NMFS Office of Law
Enforcement should be solely
responsible for penalizing fishermen
that are out of compliance.
Response: NMFS regulations that
require fishermen to submit logbooks or
to carry observers are designed to collect
information that NMFS uses to manage
HMS fisheries. When fishermen do not
comply with such regulations, they
jeopardize NMFS’ ability to develop
sound management strategies, conduct
stock assessments with the best
scientific information available,
estimate bycatch interactions and
bluefin discards, and comply with
international treaty requirements. As
such, under the Amendment 7
regulations, NMFS will consider a
fisherman’s compliance with current
logbook and observer requirements
when evaluating whether or not NMFS
will grant that fisherman access to the
Cape Hatteras GRA—an area where
interactions with bluefin tuna are likely.
NMFS wants to ensure that fishermen
allowed access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA will abide by all relevant
regulations to facilitate monitoring of
fishing activities in these areas.
Comment 37: NMFS should consider
vessels that have no history or are new
to the fishery as qualified to access the
closed areas (‘‘innocent until proven
guilty’’). Vessels should have a ‘‘clean
slate’’ at the start of each year and
access to the GRA. If they interact with
too many BFT, then they should be
closed out.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71535
Response: The GRAs are selected as
locations with relatively high numbers
of historical bluefin interactions. The
Bluefin Avoidance Score was designed
to evaluate a vessel’s ability to avoid
bluefin tuna, relative to its landings.
New entrants to the fishery will have
performance metrics associated with the
permit that the entrant purchased. All
vessels will have a new performance
score at the start of each year, based
upon the three most recent years of
available data, and therefore
performance scores may improve over
time.
Comment 38: Some commenters were
concerned about the incentives that a
conditional access program may
provide.
Response: The concept of providing
conditional access to a GRA (i.e., the
Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic
Longline GRA) is based on the historical
data, which indicate that a relatively
small number of vessels are responsible
for a large portion of the bluefin tuna
interactions. Because conditional access
will be based upon the rate of bluefin
tuna interactions (as well as reporting
metrics), the program rules provide
incentives to all pelagic longline vessels
with respect to bluefin tuna
interactions. Specifically, vessels with
historically high bluefin tuna
interactions that are not allowed access
will have an incentive to reduce their
rate of bluefin interactions if they desire
to fish in the GRA. Conversely, vessels
with a relatively low rate of bluefin
interactions that are allowed to fish in
the GRA will have an incentive to
continue to avoid bluefin in order to
maintain a low rate of bluefin
interactions. In contrast, if all vessels
were precluded from the Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount
of a vessel’s interactions with bluefin,
there would be no incentives with
respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and
the scale of potential economic impacts
would be disproportionate to the
estimated amount of reduction in
bluefin tuna interactions). No access to
the Gulf of Mexico GRAs was proposed
because the interactions with bluefin in
the Gulf of Mexico are more evenly
distributed among all of the vessels
fishing there (and not concentrated
among a few vessels as in the area off
Cape Hatteras).
Comment 39: NMFS should not count
bluefin interactions from sets made
while participating in NMFS programs
(e.g., shark research fishery) towards the
calculation of bluefin to designated
target species ratios because fishermen
fish differently on those trips.
Response: NMFS did not exclude
such trips because of the relatively few
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71536
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
vessels that might be affected;
participation in research programs
could have affected vessels in either a
positive or negative manner. In most
instances, minor differences in the
amounts of catch of either target species
or bluefin would not likely affect a
vessel’s allocation due to the three
tiered allocation system (i.e., a range of
catch values is designated to each of the
three tiers), and the performance metric
scoring system (based on a range of
values). Fishermen that believe they
have been disadvantaged through
participation in research may appeal
access and IBQ decisions through the
two-stage appeal process.
Comment 40: NMFS should calculate
performance metrics only on the most
recent data available. NMFS needs to
revisit criteria for inclusion—some
vessels have hardly fished over the last
few years.
Response: NMFS agrees that the
inclusion of newer data is important. In
the Predraft and the DEIS, NMFS
analyzed and developed alternatives
based on pelagic longline data from
2006 to 2011. NMFS included an
additional year of logbook data (2012) in
the FEIS analyses for each time-area
alternative. In the FEIS, the 2006–2012
time period was chosen because the last
significant bluefin fishery management
action was the 2006 Consolidated HMS
FMP, and therefore fishing behavior
from prior to 2006 would have been
based on previous management
measures and may not be representative
of the current fishery. The 2006 to 2012
time period is long enough to minimize
the influence of one-time events such as
natural or man-made disasters. NMFS
intentionally designed the GRAs to be
flexible and allow fishing vessels that
have been affected by short-term events
to participate in the pelagic longline
fishery.
The Agency will distribute letters
indicating the final performance metrics
and what members of the fishery could
expect by the start of the fishing year.
Initial performance metrics will be
calculated on the entire historical time
period considered for determining IBQ
allocations. However, in subsequent
years, the performance metrics will be
calculated on the previous three years of
available data.
Comment 41: NMFS should not base
access on history. High bluefin
interactions in one year do not
necessarily mean that there will be high
bluefin interactions the following year.
Response: As noted in the response to
Comment # 44 NMFS acknowledges that
past performance may not be a perfect
indicator of future performance.
However, one of the objectives of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
use of Performance Metrics is to provide
incentives for future fishing behavior
that will result in reduced rates of
interactions between pelagic longline
gear and bluefin. Although there is
variability in fish distribution and
activity from one year to the next, there
are certain vessels that consistently
report high interactions with bluefin
tuna through logbooks. As explained in
Response to Comment # 38 conditional
access based on past performance
provides continuing incentives to avoid
bluefin tuna and to comply with
relevant reporting and monitoring
requirements.
Comment 42: NMFS should evaluate
vessels on the number of interactions
with protected resources (e.g., pilot
whales) as part of the criteria for
accessing the Cape Hatteras GRA.
Response: Although Amendment 7
management measures are consistent
with the relevant laws and regulations
regarding protected species, the
objectives upon which it is based did
not include any specific objective
regarding protected species, and did not
include any specific management
measures regarding protected species.
Therefore the commenter’s suggestion to
incorporate criteria relating to protected
resources is outside of the scope of the
Amendment 7. The impacts of the
Amendment 7 measures on protected
species are analyzed in this FEIS.
7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area
Comment 43: NMFS received a large
number of comments supporting the
five-month Cape Hatteras Pelagic
Longline GRA as proposed (DEIS
preferred Alternative). NMFS also
received comments suggesting
modifications to the scope and duration
of the area, and commented on whether
or not conditional access to the area is
appropriate.
Response: The Cape Hatteras area has
consistently been a location where a
high number of bluefin interactions
with the pelagic longline fleet have
occurred, and was initially identified in
the Predraft to Amendment 7 as a
geographic area where a GRA may be
warranted. Responses to the specific
suggestions regarding the Cape Hatteras
GRA are below (see responses to
comments 43–49. As described in
comments 46 and 47, NMFS modified
the preferred alternative in the FEIS (the
‘‘Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic
Longline GRA’’).
Comment 44: Some commenters
supported the proposed GRA because
access would be granted to some
vessels, while other commenters stated
that NMFS should implement GRAs
without conditional access. Commenters
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
noted that the Agency would be
penalizing fishermen for bluefin
interactions (specifically, discards)
when there was not previously a
regulation that required bluefin
avoidance. Some commenters felt that
the implementation of performance
metrics is too severe a management
measure, and fishermen that might be
excluded from fishing in the Cape
Hatteras GRA noted that the proposed
measures would have severe economic
implications for their businesses. Some
commenters only supported the Cape
Hatteras GRA if pelagic longline vessels
are allowed to fish under General
category rules in the area.
Response: Analysis of logbook data
from 2006 through 2012 indicated that
a relatively low number of vessels were
responsible for the majority of bluefin
interactions in the Atlantic. NMFS
developed the concept of conditional
access to the GRA in light of this
pattern, in order to incentivize
individual fishermen to avoid bluefin
tuna, and to reduce economic impacts to
the extent practicable.
A system of conditional access will
hold fishermen individually
accountable for their interactions, as
opposed to holding the entire fleet
responsible for high interactions by a
small number of fishermen. Because
conditional access will be based upon
the rate of bluefin tuna interactions (as
well as reporting metrics), the program
rules will provide incentives to all
pelagic longline vessels with respect to
bluefin tuna interactions. Specifically,
vessels with historically high bluefin
tuna interactions that are not allowed
access will have an incentive to reduce
their rate of bluefin interactions if they
desire to fish in the GRA. Conversely,
vessels with a relatively low rate of
bluefin interactions that are allowed to
fish in the GRA will have an incentive
to continue to avoid bluefin in order to
maintain a low rate of bluefin
interactions. In contrast, if all vessels
were precluded from the Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount
of a vessel’s interactions with bluefin,
there would be no incentives with
respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and
the scale of potential economic impacts
would be disproportionate to the
estimated amount of reduction in
bluefin tuna interactions). No access to
the Gulf of Mexico GRAs was proposed
or implemented because the interactions
with bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are
more evenly distributed among all of the
vessels fishing there (and not
concentrated among a few vessels as in
the area off Cape Hatteras).
Regarding the comment that it is
unfair to use past interactions with
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
bluefin as part of the allocation formula
because in the past it was lawful to
interact with bluefin tuna: Pelagic
longline regulations were designed to
limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna
(e.g., target catch requirements, weak
hook requirements). Therefore, it is
appropriate that the IBQ Program
implemented by this final rule provide
some benefit in the form of IBQ
allocation for vessels that may have
fished in a manner that reduced
interactions with, or avoided bluefin
tuna, consistent with the regulations.
NMFS acknowledges that past
performance may not be a perfect
indicator of future performance. One of
the objectives of the Cape Hatteras
Pelagic Longline GRA measure
implemented by this final rule is to
provide incentives for future fishing
behavior that will result in reduced
rates of interactions between pelagic
longline gear and bluefin. As explained
in response to comment # 63 NMFS
proposed, but is not implementing a
measure that would have allowed
pelagic longline vessels to fish under
the General category rules.
NMFS acknowledges that some
vessels could experience economic
hardship due to not having access to the
Cape Hatteras GRA. However the data
indicate that there will also be
substantial reductions in the number of
bluefin tuna interactions associated
with the changes in fishing behavior
(i.e., 34 percent reduction in bluefin
discarded, and 6 percent reduction in
bluefin kept, fishery-wide) as a result of
this action. The performance metric
system is designed to incentivize
fishermen to avoid bluefin tuna and to
comply with observer and reporting
requirements. Based on the FEIS
analysis, 14 vessels of 135 would not
have access to the Cape Hatteras GRA
being implemented. NMFS determined
that, after redistribution of effort, there
was not a sizable difference in the
number of bluefin kept and discarded
between implementation of the Cape
Hatteras GRA without access for any
vessels (¥389 fish per year), and
implementation of the original Cape
Hatteras GRA with Access Based on
Performance (¥401 fish per year). The
total economic losses as a result of
implementing the proposed Cape
Hatteras GRA for all vessels, the
proposed Cape Hatteras GRA with
Access Based on Performance, and the
Modified Cape Hatteras GRA with
Access Based on Performance being
implemented, after redistribution of
effort are ¥$893,562; ¥$301,651; and
¥$210,956, respectively. NMFS
therefore is not implementing the GRA
without access because the measure
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
would result in a comparable reduction
in bluefin interactions, but at nearly
quadruple the cost in estimated
economic losses for the pelagic longline
fleet. The additional incentives that the
performance metrics regarding
compliance with logbook and observer
requirements were also determined to
be important to support the Amendment
7 objective regarding enhanced
reporting and monitoring.
Comment 45: Commenters suggested
that NMFS should modify the proposed
Cape Hatteras GRA to include the areas
north and east, as well as southwest of
the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, to
address possible redistribution of
fishing effort and other areas of
moderate to high bluefin interactions. A
commenter requested consideration of a
specific extension of the proposed GRA
northward to cover a region with
moderate bluefin interaction in order to
prevent increased fishing effort in the
area as a result of redistribution by
fishermen whose performance scores are
not high enough to fish in the Cape
Hatteras GRA. The commenter stated
that the area could further act as a buffer
to protect migrating bluefin tuna that
aggregate there. NMFS also received a
comment suggesting a GRA along the
continental shelf between the Delmarva
Peninsula and Georges Banks for the
time periods of June through July, and
November through December to
complement the preferred alternatives.
Response: NMFS analyzed the impact
of the suggested GRA to the north of the
proposed Cape Hatteras GRA (assuming
redistribution of fishing effort). The
suggested extension to the north would
result in a reduction of only 3 bluefin
tuna, after redistribution of effort.
Reductions in other species would be
minor. While the suggested GRA would
be small in both time and space, it is not
anticipated to contribute much to the
goal of reducing bluefin discards. For
these reasons, NMFS considered but did
not further analyze or otherwise include
this suggested modification as an
alternative in the FEIS.
NMFS also analyzed a GRA along the
continental shelf between the Delmarva
Peninsula and Georges Banks for the
time periods of June through July and
November through December and
determined that the reduction in effort
with redistribution would result in
notable reduction in bluefin interactions
(¥48 fish/year kept; ¥310 fish/year
discarded). However, the reductions in
target catch would be substantial (bigeye
tuna kept (¥977 fish/year); yellowfin
tuna kept (¥1,206 fish/year); and the
numbers of swordfish kept (¥1,118/
year)). That configuration, combined
with the Cape Hatteras GRA, would
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71537
close the majority of the continental
shelf to fishermen that do not meet
performance objectives. These suggested
modifications did not achieve as much
reduction in bluefin interactions
compared with the reduction in target
catch. Therefore, NMFS but did not
include the suggested GRAs as an
alternatives in the FEIS.
Comment 46: The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources and pelagic longline
fishermen commented that NMFS
should omit the southeast corner of the
proposed GRA (preferred alternative in
the DEIS) due to the prevailing direction
of currents in this area, and the fact that
gear set south or southwest of the Cape
Hatteras GRA would drift into the GRA.
Response: NMFS analyzed additional
spatial and temporal configurations of
the Cape Hatteras GRA and determined
that little conservation benefit could be
expected from limiting access to this
area and that the associated economic
costs were not warranted. NMFS agrees
that the prevailing currents would have
effectively closed productive fishing
grounds southwest of the GRA in federal
waters off the coast of central and
southern North Carolina. As a result of
these analyses, and considerations,
NMFS modified the measure from the
configuration which was proposed to a
gear restricted area during the same
months (December through April), but
with a slightly different configuration.
Comment 47: NMFS should consider
the potential negative economic impact
on fishermen in the area who do not
have access to other fishing grounds.
Response: The design of the Cape
Hatteras GRA being implemented by
this final rule was the result of an
iterative process. NMFS analyzed
multiple time periods and geographic
areas in order to take into consideration
both the potential reduction in the
number of bluefin interactions and the
potential reductions in target catch. The
analysis considered relevant fisheries
data, and also oceanographic trends. In
the DEIS, due to current patterns in the
Cape Hatteras area, the zone affected by
the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was
analyzed beyond itsexplicit boundaries.
Analysis of a buffer region was needed
because vessels to the south and west of
the GRA would be prevented from
fishing in these areas because their gear
would drift into the GRA (having the
effect of creating a larger affected
geographic area that the boundary of the
GRA). The DEIS analysis of impacts not
only considered the reduced fishing
effort within the GRA, but also the
reduced fishing effort in a buffer region
to the south and west of the area. NMFS
included sets made in this buffer region
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71538
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
into the redistribution analyses. Based
on public comment and additional
analyses, NMFS decided to implement
the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, which
will minimize the adverse impacts on
fishing opportunities while still
achieving comparable reductions of
bluefin discards and almost identical
conservation and management benefits
as the original proposal.
Comment 48: NMFS should
implement a GRA and have various
requirements including mandatory
observer coverage, electronic
monitoring, or the use of weak hooks in
order to fish the area. Several
commenters suggested that NMFS
implement the GRA and only allow
access with 100 percent observer
coverage.
Response: Observer coverage is an
important tool in monitoring the pelagic
longline fishery. Vessels with access to
the Cape Hatteras GRA will be subject
to the same level of observer coverage as
the rest of the pelagic longline fleet.
Electronic monitoring is an important
aspect of the new IBQ Program, which
includes the GRAs. Under Amendment
7 regulations, any vessel fishing with
pelagic longline gear will be required to
have an operational electronic
monitoring system onboard. NMFS did
not consider an alternative that would
implement new weak hook
requirements for the Atlantic, because
we do not presently have data
indicating that such measures would be
effective in meeting the objectives of
Amendment 7, given size differentials
between fish in the Gulf of Mexico and
the Atlantic and the current state of
research on the subject.
Comment 49: NMFS should establish
communication protocols designed to
help fishermen minimize interactions
for the regions of concern instead of
implementing GRAs. One commenter
suggested the establishment of
communication protocols, similar to
those designed for the Pelagic Longline
Take Reduction Plan, be required within
the boundaries of the Cape Hatteras
GRA.
Response: Communication protocols
can be valuable and could assist pelagic
longline vessels to avoid bluefin tuna.
Captains are already required to follow
a communication protocol for pilot
whales in this area. NMFS believes such
a system would work best for bluefin
avoidance if it were voluntary, and had
the full support of those involved.
However, in the interest of avoiding
bluefin and minimizing the risk of
shutting down the pelagic longline
fishery, NMFS strongly encourages
vessel captains to communicate the
location of bluefin tuna with each other.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area
Comment 50: A large number of
commenters expressed general support
for a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico, while
others stated that NMFS should not
implement a GOM GRA, due to the
severe economic impact it would have
on the fishery.
Response: Implementation of a GRA
in the Gulf of Mexico supports the
achievement of the Amendment 7
objectives. A GRA will, in conjunction
with the other management measures
implemented by this final rule, result in
the reduction of dead discards of bluefin
tuna by the pelagic longline fishery.
Although implementation of a GRA will
have a negative economic impact on the
pelagic longline fishery, the preferred
alternative will have less of an impact
than some of the other alternatives
considered and analyzed. As described
in more detail in the responses to
comments below, NMFS analyzed a
range of alternatives, and took into
account the importance of fishery
resources to fishing communities by
analyzing economic and social data.
Because GRAs may result in the
reduction and/or redistribution of
fishing effort by pelagic longline gear,
the preferred alternative represents a
balance between anticipated reductions
in dead discards of bluefin, and
potential negative economic impacts on
the pelagic longline fishery.
Furthermore, the preferred alternative
will support the broader objectives of
both stock rebuilding as well as the
continued viability of the commercial
and recreational fisheries that depend
upon bluefin tuna.
Comment 51: Some commenters
supported the Amendment 7 alternative
that would prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear throughout the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ), year-round, in
order to protect spawning bluefin, and
aggregations of bluefin. Some
commenters noted the potential for a
gulf-wide closure to reduce injuries and
deaths of protected species such as sea
turtles.
Response: NMFS analyzed the
biological and socio-economic impacts
of this Alternative, and although
prohibition of pelagic longline gear
would eliminate interactions between
pelagic longline gear and bluefin in the
Gulf of Mexico, such a prohibition
would not minimize the reductions in
target catch (e.g., yellowfin tuna,
swordfish) in the pelagic longline
fishery or the and negative economic
impacts on the fishery, both goals
consistent with Amendment objectives.
The prohibition of pelagic longline gear
in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ (year round)
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
would be expected to only result in a 14
percent decrease in the numbers of
bluefin tuna discarded, yet would
reduce revenue from pelagic longline
gear by approximately $7.63 million per
year, and affect up to 75 vessels.
NMFS also analyzed the possible
effects of the GRA alternatives on
multiple species, including sea turtles.
The FEIS contains the results of the
analyses that evaluated the GRA
alternatives using redistribution
analyses to ensure that the GRAs would
not substantially increase interactions
with sea turtles if fishermen were to
redistribute their effort into open waters
of the Atlantic Ocean. These analyses
showed that there would be no net
change in the average number of annual
interactions with leatherback or
loggerhead sea turtles for the Modified
Cape Hatteras GRA, and a reduction of
1 interaction for these turtles for the
Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA.
NMFS expects Amendment 7 measures
implemented will have a neutral or
minor beneficial impact on protected
species as a result of potential impacts
on fishing effort, especially fishing effort
associated with pelagic longline gear.
The fisheries managed under the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its
amendments have undergone formal
and/or informal Section 7 consultation
and collectively address the ongoing
Atlantic HMS fisheries. On August 15,
2013, NMFS determined that the
proposed measures in Amendment 7 to
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP would
not require reinitiation of formal
consultation. The environmental effects
of the preferred alternatives in this FEIS
are substantially the same as those
analyzed in the DEIS, although some
different alternatives are now preferred
and two of the alternatives have been
slightly modified. No additional or
substantively different effects on listed
species are expected as a result of these
changes. For detailed information on
reinitiation of formal Section 7
consultation on HMS fisheries, see the
Classification section.
Comment 52: Some commenters
supported the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA,
which would prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear from March through May,
while others supported expanding the
duration of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA
to include all the months during which
bluefin tuna may be present in the Gulf
of Mexico, or suggested specific ranges
of months (e.g., December through June,
March through May, March through
August). A large number of commenters
felt that a GRA that encompassed the
entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ would better
account for variability in bluefin
distribution and areas of spawning
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
activity and changing fishing patterns
within the fleet. Many commenters
believed that a larger GRA should be
implemented instead of any changes to
quota allocations, or felt that the
implementation of such a GRA would
eliminate the need for IBQs.
Response: In selecting the preferred
alternative, NMFS analyzed the time
and areas in which the highest number
of bluefin interactions have occurred, in
order to achieve meaningful reductions
in bluefin catch by pelagic longline gear,
but also to minimize the reductions in
target catch. A Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA
encompassing the entire Gulf of Mexico
EEZ for the suggested range of months
was not justified. First, there exists an
historical pattern of relatively high
number of interactions occurring in
particular locations and months.
Additionally, a GRA encompassing the
whole of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would
have included locations where there
have been relatively few interactions.
Similarly, inclusion of locations with
relatively few historical interactions in
the GRA would still preclude fishing
with pelagic longline gear in such
locations, increasing the likelihood of
additional lost revenue, with relatively
little reduction in bluefin interactions.
Inclusion of months during which
there have been relatively few
interactions would preclude fishing
opportunity, with relatively little
reduction in bluefin interactions. In
Chapter 3 of the FEIS, Table 3.29
presents a breakdown of all bluefin tuna
interactions reported in the HMS
Logbook, by month, in the Gulf of
Mexico EEZ. Although bluefin tuna
were noted year round in the Gulf of
Mexico, the data indicated distinct
spatial and temporal patterns. For
example, between 2006 and 2012, there
were 13, 3, 13, 16, and 13 total bluefin
tuna interactions reported in July,
August, September, October, and
November, respectively. In comparison,
the months that some comments
suggested for a GRA (March through
May) had 266, 498, and 496 total bluefin
interactions in March, April, and May,
respectively. NMFS does not believe
that a GRA is warranted at this time
during the late summer or early fall
based on the reported numbers of
bluefin tuna that occurred in this area.
There is variability in bluefin
distribution, and fishing patterns may
change over time. Due to this variability,
any specific GRA that does not cover the
whole EEZ year-round may be less
effective, or more effective, at reducing
dead discards than the historical data
would indicate. Notwithstanding this
variability, a specific GRA designed
using historic information, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
encompassing only a portion of the Gulf
of Mexico for specific months is likely
to reduce dead discards over a multiyear time scale. In other words over
time there are consistent patterns in
bluefin distribution that may not be
exhibited to the same extent each year.
Therefore, a GRA is not likely to achieve
the same level of effectiveness each
year, but over time is expected to
achieve reductions in dead discards
similar to that indicated by NMFS’
analysis.
In analyzing the Gulf of Mexico
closure alternatives in the FEIS, NMFS
also considered the need to gather
scientific data from the Gulf of Mexico
longline fishery data for the
development of effective conservation
and management measures. A larger
GRA for the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would
severely reduce the collection of
important data from the pelagic longline
fishery and would increase uncertainty
in the western Atlantic bluefin stock
assessment. Gulf of Mexico pelagic
longline data are critical to the
development of catch per unit effort
(CPUE) information, which is used as
the index of abundance for spawning
bluefin tuna, an important element of
the stock assessment for western
Atlantic bluefin tuna. Such uncertainty
would make it more difficult to assess
the status of stocks, to set the
appropriate optimum yield and define
overfishing levels, and to ensure that
optimum yield is attained and
overfishing levels are not exceeded.
NMFS conducted a ‘‘power analysis’’
to determine the number of pelagic
longline sets that would be required to
maintain the current level of precision
for the CPUE and found that
approximately 60 percent of the recent
number of pelagic longline sets in the
Gulf of Mexico would be required.
Although NMFS could transition from
using this fishery dependent data to
another data source (i.e., fishery
independent data), it would require
several years before a new fishery
independent data source could be used
for stock assessment purposes and an
abrupt cessation of the current CPUE
data would mean a break in the time
series and increase uncertainty in stock
assessment results. NMFS will continue
to explore alternative methods for the
collection of independent data. In
contrast to a GRA applicable to the full
EEZ, a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico with
a smaller area and short duration will
still be effective in reducing bycatch to
the extent practicable and protecting
spawning-sized bluefin while
permitting allowable fishing and the
collection of data needed for index of
abundance. The size and duration of the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71539
GOM GRA being implemented by this
final rule, will not preclude the
collection of the necessary data in
support of the stock assessments, and
will reduce bycatch during the
spawning season, as well as augment
the IBQ Program in ensuring that catch
does not exceed the quota.
With respect to the relationship
between the size of a GRA and other
Amendment 7 alternatives (i.e., IBQs
and quota allocation), the use of
multiple management tools will reduce
negative economic impacts on the
pelagic longline fishery, as well as
achieve the diverse Amendment 7
objectives in a balanced manner.
Comment 53: Several commenters
expressed support for the Small Gulf of
Mexico GRA in the DEIS, which was
proposed, but is not being implemented.
A number of comments indicated the
Small Gulf of Mexico GRA was the
minimum acceptable size for a GRA in
the Gulf of Mexico, while other
commenters did not support the
proposed Small Gulf of Mexico GRA,
feeling that NMFS ought to do more to
protect bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico. A
large number of commenters requested
that the agency re-evaluate the GRA and
identify other alternatives. One
commenter felt the DEIS lacked
compelling justification for choosing an
alternative that does not protect all
spawners and increases fishing pressure
in critical areas of the Gulf of Mexico.
Other commenters felt that the
boundaries encompassed by the Small
Gulf of Mexico GRA did not reflect the
best scientific knowledge available.
Specific suggestions included
modification of the duration (change,
shorten, lengthen, or include specific
months) to cover peak spawning periods
or provide a buffer due to variability in
the timing and area of bluefin spawning
activity and longline fishing patterns
from year to year. Some commenters
believed the months of the GRA should
cover the full bluefin spawning period.
Other commenters suggested that the
GRA be extended to the east or north to
encompassed additional known
spawning areas, or extended south to
cover areas where large numbers of
interactions have occurred.
Response: As stated in the response to
comments 50, 51, and 52, NMFS
analyzed a range of GRA alternatives
that encompass a range of biological and
socio-economic impacts, and would
achieve various amounts of reductions
in bluefin interactions and result in
different reductions in revenue. As
explained above in the response to
comments 51 and 52, a complete Gulf of
Mexico EEZ closure for a full year or
portion of the year is not warranted
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71540
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
because a smaller GRA is sufficient to
achieve the Amendment 7 objectives
and to minimize bycatch and bycatch
mortality to the extent practicable.
Based on public comment, NMFS
analyzed the impacts of additional areas
and times in the Gulf of Mexico, not
analyzed in the DEIS, and included
2012 data. As a result of these
additional analysis, and careful
consideration of both the biological and
socio-economic impacts, NMFS is
implementing the Spring Modified Gulf
of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs.
The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRAs include most of
the geographic area of the GRA that was
originally proposed, but are larger,
extending further to the east, and are
slightly reduced in size on the western
and northern borders. Additionally, the
Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic
Longline GRAs include a second area
that is adjacent to the southern border
of the Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s
northwestern ‘block.’
The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRAs encompass
additional areas of historic bluefin
interaction in the eastern-central Gulf of
Mexico, and address a recent shift in
pelagic longline fishing activity
eastward. Between 2009 and 2012, there
was a 10 to 20 percent shift from the
Mid-Gulf Louisiana region to the eastern
Gulf of Mexico region. The area defined
by the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRAs includes a larger
portion of the spawning areas
documented in the peer-reviewed
literature at this time, but does not
include all of the known bluefin
spawning areas in the GOM for reasons
previously explained. The Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic
Longline GRAs will occur during the
months of April and May, the same time
period as proposed for the original
Small Gulf of Mexico GRA.
NMFS previously regulated large
portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico
through implementation of the DeSoto
Canyon closed area, Madison-Swanson
and Steamboat Lumps Sites, and the
Edges closure. The pelagic longline fleet
fishes the continental shelf along the
west coast of Florida between the
southern DeSoto Canyon box and the
Florida Keys. However, bluefin
interactions in this area are relatively
few compared to the areas evaluated in
the FEIS.
Comment 54: One commenter noted
that the size of the fishable area in the
Gulf of Mexico is already small, given
the constraints on the locations where
they can fish, including existing pelagic
longline closed areas, as well as the
areas that must be avoided for other
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
reasons (e.g., activity range of
seismographic vessels, which can
operate for up to six months, and oils
rigs).
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRAs being
implemented by this final rule will
further reduce the amount of fishable
areas in the Gulf of Mexico available for
the use of pelagic longline gear, and that
vessels choosing to fish in the Gulf of
Mexico with pelagic longline gear will
need to work around other industrial
users of Gulf of Mexico resources.
NMFS selected the boundaries of the
Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs
with careful consideration of the
associated benefits and costs. NMFS
optimized the size of the GRAs being
implemented to achieve a meaningful
reduction in dead discards, and still
leave fishing grounds open for the
pelagic longline fleet. The Cumulative
Impacts Analysis in the FEIS (Chapter 6)
considers the impacts of the preferred
alternatives in the broader context of
other historical and current activities.
Comment 55: NMFS should consider
the impact on the yellowfin tuna and
swordfish fisheries, which are active in
the Gulf of Mexico and in the areas
covered by the GRAs. Specifically, the
commenter questioned whether the Gulf
of Mexico pelagic longline fleet would
be able to remain active.
Response: NMFS carefully considered
the impact of the Spring Modified Gulf
of Mexico GRAs on yellowfin and
swordfish fisheries, both of which are
robust and healthy fisheries in the Gulf
of Mexico. The Spring Modified Gulf of
Mexico GRAs achieve a balance
between conservation objectives and
providing continuing opportunity for
the swordfish and yellowfin tuna
fisheries. The primary conservation
objective of the GRAs is to reduce
bluefin interactions, and reduce bycatch
and bycatch mortality to the extent
practicable. NMFS compared among the
alternatives the amount of ‘savings’ of
bluefin tuna and the reduction in target
catch as part of its analysis of the GRAs.
Under the Spring Modified Gulf of
Mexico GRA being implemented, the
annual reductions in revenue associated
with the reduced catches of swordfish
and yellowfin tuna are estimated at
$41,504 and $207,110, respectively. The
annual reduction in total revenue is
estimated at $1,793,922. An example of
how the data was compared and
alternatives evaluated follows:
Comparing the Spring Modified Gulf of
Mexico GRA with the alternative that
would restrict the full EEZ for the
months of March through May, the
reduction in the weight of bluefin catch
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
would be a little more than twice as
much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt
versus 19.2 mt under the Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA), but the
reduction in total revenue associated
with the EEZ GRA would be more than
six times larger than the reduction in
total revenue associated with the Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA
($1,793,922 versus $281,614 under the
Preferred). In other words, compared to
the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico
GRA, the amount of additional costs
that would be associated with the EEZ
GRA would be disproportionately
greater than the additional conservation
benefits associated with the EEZ GRA.
The Amendment 7 measures are not
designed to target a particular amount of
reduction in dead discards, but rather to
reduce dead discards in a meaningful
way, provide strong incentives to avoid
and reduce bycatch, and take into
account the potential impacts on the
pelagic longline fishery. The combined
effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of
Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA and the
Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic
Longline GRA will reduce the number
of bluefin discarded by 40 percent, and
the number of bluefin kept by 10
percent (fishery-wide).
Comment 56: One commenter asked
why NMFS did not propose conditional
access to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs,
based on performance metrics, in
contrast to the Cape Hatteras GRA, for
which access was proposed. The
commenter suggested that performance
metrics should be applied to all GRAs.
Response: NMFS did not propose and
is not implementing conditional access
to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs (based on
performance metrics) in part because
they would not be as effective in
reducing discards of bluefin tuna in the
GOM as they would be in the Atlantic.
The fact that a relatively small number
of vessels are responsible for the
majority of bluefin interactions in the
Atlantic makes access to the Modified
Cape Hatteras GRA based on
performance metrics effective, in order
to reduce dead discards, provide
incentives for modifying fishing
behavior, and acknowledge past
performance. In contrast, the pattern of
interactions with bluefin tuna in the
GOM is different from that in the
Atlantic, with the interactions more
evenly distributed among all vessels
(i.e., more vessels responsible for the
interactions). NMFS evaluated the
Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA
using performance metrics, and
applying them, only three vessels out of
the 61 that fished in the Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would
not have had access to the GRAs.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, the savings from
implementing the performance metrics
would be very small, and the resulting
ecological impacts would have been
similar to not implementing a GRA at
all.
Comment 57: Some commenters felt
that NMFS should delineate a GRA
using the same boundaries as the
bluefin Habitat Area of Particular
Concern (HAPC).
Response: NMFS determined that the
reductions in bluefin tuna interactions
resulting from a Gulf of Mexico GRA
that encompasses the boundaries of the
bluefin HAPC would be very similar to
the savings incurred from a GRA drawn
encompassing the boundaries of the
Gulf of Mexico EEZ. NMFS therefore
did not further evaluate a GRA that was
designed to encompass the boundaries
of the HAPC or develop an alternative
around this proposed boundary.
Comment 58: A commenter indicated
that he could support a Gulf of Mexico
GRA alternative if the pelagic longline
fleet is provided flexibility through
some of the alternatives proposed such
as access to current closed areas, and
ability to fish under General Category
rules.
Response: As described under the
Response to Comments #63, and #64,
access to certain closed areas, and the
ability to fish under General Category
rules in certain closed area were
proposed but are not being finalized in
this final rule. The measures
implemented by Amendment 7 provide
flexibility and balance the Amendment
7 objectives to reduce dead discards, yet
also provide fishing opportunity.
Comment 59: The Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council
commented that NMFS should consider
potential impacts on vessels using
bottom longline gear. They were
concerned about the synergistic effects
of the pelagic longline and bottom
longline regulations on vessels.
Response: The Modified Spring Gulf
of Mexico GRAs are designed for the
pelagic longline fishery only. Vessels
that exclusively use bottom longline
gear would not be affected by the GRAs.
Vessels that use both bottom longline
gear and pelagic longline gear during
the year would be impacted, and would
likely modify their fishing behavior or
business plan. Bottom longline gear is
currently subject to regulations
including time and area restrictions, and
is not likely to capture bluefin tuna due
its deployment near the bottom of the
ocean.
Comment 60: NMFS should
compensate vessels for the time period
the Gulf of Mexico GRAs are in place.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Response: NMFS’ authority to assist
fishers in this way requires a
determination of a commercial fishery
failure due to a fishery resource disaster
under section 312(a) of the MSA or
section 308(b) of the Interjurisdictional
Fisheries Act, followed by an
appropriation from Congress. Neither of
these have occurred.
Comment 61: NMFS should not
distinguish between bluefin tuna in the
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic as they are
from the same breeding stock.
Response: For the purposes of
Amendment 7, NMFS differentiates
between bluefin tuna in the Gulf of
Mexico and bluefin tuna in the Atlantic
for the implementation of certain
management measures for a number of
reasons. As noted above, the
distribution of interactions across
vessels is different between the Gulf of
Mexico and the Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico
bluefin tuna that interact with pelagic
longline gear are often heavier and older
than tuna that interact with pelagic
longline gear in the Atlantic, and are
found in spawning condition during
certain months of the year. The pattern
of discarding in the Gulf of Mexico is
also very different from the discard
pattern documented in the Atlantic (i.e.,
larger fish discarded in the Gulf of
Mexico). NMFS does not make such a
distinction between Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic bluefin in the assessment of the
bluefin stock. Although Gulf of Mexico
bluefin often migrate up the east coast
to feeding grounds in the northwest
Atlantic Ocean, data suggest that some
proportion of fish in the Atlantic are
individuals from the eastern Atlantic
and Mediterranean stock, whereas
bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are
predominantly from the western
Atlantic stock.
Comment 62: NMFS should examine
observer data in addition to logbook
data to estimate bluefin tuna savings;
the estimate of savings in 2010 and 2011
is low because fishing effort was low in
those years.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
estimates of savings might be low in
2010 and 2011 as a result of depressed
effort due to the effects of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill. However, estimated
savings are presented as an average from
a 7-year period. Interannual variability
is therefore incorporated into the
estimation of ecological impacts of
different GRA alternatives. NMFS
developed GRA alternatives from HMS
Logbook data because every fisherman
must submit logbooks detailing activity
and interactions with all fish kept,
discarded alive, and discarded dead.
While extremely useful in estimating
dead discards, the observer program is
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71541
not a complete census survey of the
fishery, and the extent of observer
coverage is not necessarily useful in
assessing ecological or economic effects
of GRAs. Furthermore, there is a
percentage of vessels that have not been
observed and NMFS determined that
some of these vessels contributed
sizable numbers of bluefin interactions
in the Cape Hatteras GRA. NMFS,
therefore, decided to base the estimation
of impacts on HMS logbook data.
9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing
Under General Category Rules
Comment 63: Some commenters
supported the proposed measure to
allow vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear that are not authorized
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA, to fish under General category
rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this
type of fishing opportunity as mitigation
for the lost opportunity of fishing with
pelagic longline gear in the Cape
Hatteras GRA, from December through
April. Some commenters did not
support the proposed opportunity for
such vessels to fish under the General
category rules for various reasons. Some
asserted that the activity would be a
‘‘dangerous precedent,’’ because limited
access vessels would be allowed to fish
under the rules applicable to an open
access category, but General category
vessels would not be allowed to fish as
a pelagic longline vessel. Others were
concerned about the expansion of a
targeted bluefin fishery in the Cape
Hatteras GRA, an area that already has
large numbers of interactions with
bluefin. A commenter found it ironic
that vessels not allowed to fish with
pelagic longline gear in the Cape
Hatteras GRA (proposed in order to
reduce bluefin interactions with pelagic
longline gear) due to their low
performance criteria score would be
provided an opportunity to target
bluefin tuna. Some noted concern about
the potential impacts on the rate of
harvest of the General category quota,
which is limited, and the indirect
impacts on General category vessels.
Others noted that the replacement of
pelagic longline gear with handgear
(targeting bluefin) is not economically
viable due to the size of the pelagic
longline vessels and the associated trip
expenses. A commenter stated that the
proposed measure would facilitate
trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline
category to General category vessels. A
commenter suggested that all pelagic
longline vessels should be able to fish
under the General category rules, and
not only those affected by the GRA.
Response: Based upon public
comment and further consideration,
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71542
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
NMFS is not implementing the
management measure that would have
allowed vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear that are not authorized
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA to fish under General category
rules. While this measure would have
provided additional fishing
opportunities to pelagic longline vessels
without access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA, the differences in fishing costs
and productivity between pelagic
longline gear and handgear are great
enough that handgear fishing for bluefin
tuna would not be economically viable
for a pelagic longline vessel. Given the
unlikely -economic benefits as well as
public perceptions of unfairness, the
potential benefits of allowing vessels to
fish under the General category rules do
not outweigh the potential costs and
risks associated with this activity.
10. Pelagic Longline Limited
Conditional Access to Closed Areas
Comment 64: NMFS received a large
number of comments that did not
support the proposed limited
conditional access to closed areas for
vessels using pelagic longline gear, for
a variety of reasons. Commenters,
including the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, were
foremost concerned about potential
negative biological impacts on
swordfish, billfish, and other species, as
well as the indirect negative socioeconomic impacts on the recreational
fishing community if there were
negative biological impacts.
Specifically, commenters cited the
benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East
Florida Coast closed areas contributing
to the rebuilding of the swordfish stock,
and the stabilization of the blue and
white marlin stocks. Commenters stated
that the biological analysis of the
alternative was inadequate, and one
commenter was concerned about the
impacts on dusky sharks. Some
commenters supported access, noting
the importance of such access as a
means to provide flexibility to pelagic
longline vessels in the context of the
IBQ Program restrictions, while others
suggested modifications to the
alternative such as allowing the use of
electronic monitoring instead of human
observers.
Response: Based upon public
comment and further consideration of
potential administrative costs, NMFS is
not implementing this management
measure. The potential benefits of
allowing pelagic longline vessels
limited conditional access to the closed
areas would not outweigh the potential
costs and risks associated with this
activity. The objectives of the proposed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
measure were to maintain the relevant
conservation aspects of the closure,
balance the objectives of the closures,
provide commercial data from within
the closures, and provide additional
fishing opportunities for permitted
longline vessels (mitigating the potential
negative economic impacts of
Amendment 7). The East Florida Coast,
Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon
Closed Area were implemented as part
of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on
three objectives: (1) Maximize the
reduction in incidental catch of billfish
and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed
weight; (2) minimize the reduction in
the target catch of larger swordfish and
other marketable species; and (3) ensure
that the incidental catch of other species
(e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and
turtles) either remains unchanged or is
reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS
recognized that all three objectives
might not be met to the maximum
extent and that conflicting outcomes
would require some balancing of the
objectives. There are data that supports
the assertion that the closed areas have
contributed to the achievement of their
objectives, in concert with other
management measures. NMFS provides
an annual review of the potential
effectiveness of the current suite of
management measures, including closed
areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual
SAFE report for HMS. Although this
review does not isolate and quantify the
effectiveness of closed areas as a
separate management tool, the estimated
reductions in discards of swordfish,
blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, and
spearfish, as a result of all management
measures, have remained consistently
high (¥50 to ¥70 percent), suggesting
that the current suite of international
and domestic management measures
have played a significant role in
allowing the United States to reduce its
bycatch interactions. Given the likely
benefits of the closed areas, the
difficulty in determining the precise
magnitude of the benefits of the closed
areas in the context of other
management measures, as well as the
difficulty predicting the potential
impacts that access to closed areas
would have, NMFS believes that there is
uncertainty whether in fact the first
objective of the alternative (maintain
relevant conservation aspects of the
closure) would be met. The access to
closed areas alternative did not include
defined bycatch limits, but would have
relied upon the assumption that low
levels of fishing effort is sufficient to
prevent excessive bycatch. Furthermore,
there would be administrative costs
associated with the access program.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Therefore, the benefits associated with
providing additional fishing
opportunities (by providing access)
would not outweigh the costs in terms
of the risk of undermining the
conservation benefits of the closed
areas. With respect to providing
commercial data from within the
closures, as stated previously, NMFS
may obtain data from within the
closures through the use of exempted
fishing permits.
11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline
Transiting Closed Areas
Comment 65: The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources supported the preferred
alternative (Alternative E8) to allow
transiting of closed areas by vessels
possessing bottom or pelagic longline
gear.
Response: Allowing HMS vessels that
possess bottom or pelagic longline gear
on board to transit closed areas
provided they remove and stow the
gangions, hooks (unbaited), and buoys
from the mainline and drum would
reduce potential economic costs
associated with indirect routes of travel
(more time at sea and more fuel, etc.) as
well as reduce potential safety-at-sea
issues.
12. Gear-Based Measures
Comment 66: Authorizing buoy gear
to be used by Swordfish Incidental
permit holders to catch swordfish
(Alternative B2b) and authorizing the
harvest of bigeye, albacore, yellowfin
and skipjack tunas (‘BAYS’) with buoy
gear by Swordfish Directed and
Incidental permit holders (Alternative
B2c) would reduce dead discards in a
direct manner and should be supported.
Response: Buoy gear used in and near
the Florida Straits has been shown to be
efficient at catching swordfish with a
relatively low bycatch rate. However,
due to a lack of data, it is unknown
what the catch and bycatch of buoy gear
would be when used to target swordfish
at night in other areas of the Atlantic,
Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Caribbean, and
high seas or to target BAYS tunas in
these areas during daylight hours. This
lack of information makes assessing an
expansion in the use of buoy gear for
swordfish or tunas difficult, especially
considering the potential to interact
with adult bluefin tuna in the Gulf of
Mexico, other HMS such as billfishes, or
protected species in areas such as off the
Outer Banks of North Carolina (as an
example). NMFS is not implementing
alternatives B2b or B2c because of the
lack of available information needed to
assess the ecological impacts of
expanded buoy gear use when used to
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
target swordfish or BAYS tunas. NMFS
will continue to assess additional
information as it becomes available and
may re-evaluate buoy gear fishery
regulations in the future.
Comment 67: Pelagic longline
fishermen should use more selective
fishing gears such as greenstick gear and
buoy gear and part of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill restoration funds
should be used to help pelagic longline
fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico make
this transition. No financial hardship for
fishing gear transition conducted as part
of oil spill restoration efforts should fall
upon affected fishers.
Response: This final rule does not
implement a management measure that
would require vessels to transition from
pelagic longline to greenstick gear or
buoy gear. However, under specific
fishing permits, greenstick gear is
currently authorized to fish for Atlantic
tunas and buoy gear is authorized to fish
for swordfish. Fishermen may utilize
any legal fishing gear as authorized
under the valid permits that are on their
vessel when used in accordance with
applicable regulations. Fishermen may
change fishing gears in accordance with
applicable regulations. ‘‘Prohibition of
the Use of Pelagic Longline Gear in the
HMS Fishery’’ is an alternative in the
FEIS characterized as ‘‘Considered but
Not Analyzed Further’’, because it
would not provide a balanced approach
to achieving the Amendment 7
objectives or be consistent with the
provisions of the MSA. Amendment 7
management measures provide
incentives for vessels to transition from
pelagic longline gear to greenstick or
buoy gear, but do not mandate such a
transition.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
authorizes certain federal agencies,
states, and Native American tribes,
collectively known as the Natural
Resource Trustees (trustees), to evaluate
the impacts of oil spills on natural
resources and recreation, and to plan
restoration projects to fully offset those
impacts. In the case of the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, NOAA is one of the
nine trustees responsible for jointly
conducting this process, which is
known as a Natural Resource Damage
Assessment (NRDA). Throughout the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill NRDA
process, the trustees have conducted
multiple public comment periods and
dozens of public meetings throughout
the Gulf Coast states intended to gather
input on the public’s preferred
approaches to natural resource
restoration. The most recent public
comment period related to the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill restoration
planning concluded on February 19,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
2014. Throughout the NRDA process,
the trustees have invited comments on
broad types of restoration projects, as
well as specific projects. In addition to
accepting verbal comments at public
meetings, the trustees have accepted
comments and ideas by U.S. Mail, email
to nrda.projects@noaa.gov, and via the
Internet via
www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov. As
part of their ongoing commitment to
maximum transparency, the NRDA
trustees have posted input gathered
during these public comment periods
online at https://
www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/
restoration/give-us-your-ideas/viewsubmitted-projects/. The NRDA trustees
also continue to accept project ideas
from the public by mail and via https://
www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/
restoration/give-us-your-ideas/suggesta-restoration-project/. During the NRDA
process, the trustees have received
suggestions that restoration project
funds help pelagic longline fishermen
transition to greenstick and buoy gear.
13. General Comments About
Individual Bluefin Quotas
Comment 68: Commenters supported
implementation of the IBQ system in
order to hold vessels accountable and
provide incentives to reduce discards.
Commenters noted that NMFS should
provide some flexibility in the IBQ
system, particularly in the short-term, to
ensure that vessels, and especially small
vessels, are able to adapt to the new
restrictions and the overall program is
successful. Commenters urged NMFS to
continue to support the pelagic longline
swordfish fishery, which is important
for multiple reasons.
Response: Implementation of the IBQ
system will increase the responsibility
and accountability of individual vessels,
and the pelagic longline fishery as a
whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As
explained in detail in the responses to
more specific comments below, the IBQ
system implemented by this final rule is
designed to provide a reasonable and
effective means of reducing dead
discards, increasing accountability, and
maintaining a viable pelagic longline
fishery. The management measures are
intended to provide flexibility at the
level of the individual vessel, and in the
quota system as a whole, so that the
fishery can operate under the challenges
of a substantially new regulatory
structure. Furthermore, the fishery must
be able to adapt on a continuing basis
to the variability of highly migratory
species, and changing ecological
conditions.
Individual pelagic longline vessels
have the flexibility to change their
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71543
fishing practices through modification
of fishing behavior (including time,
location and methods of fishing, and the
use of non-longline gear); increasing
communication within the fishery to
facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing
of individual bluefin quota. Under
Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide
additional flexibility by allocating
additional quota to the Longline
category, as described in the response to
Comments 18 and 19.
Comment 69: Some commenters
stated that NMFS should consider some
of the broad questions such as what will
happen when the bluefin stock grows,
which may lead to more dead discards;
what about unintended consequences of
the IBQ system such as creating a
directed fishery; and what will happen
to a vessel if they have an atypically
large BFT catch event (also known as a
‘‘disaster set’’)?
Response: As the bluefin stock size
continues to grow, the total number of
interactions between the pelagic
longline fleet and bluefin tuna may
increase. However, the relative amount
of dead discards by pelagic longline
vessels (e.g., percentage of total catch)
may be a better way to evaluate a trend
in the amount of dead discards rather
than the absolute number. A second
important metric of success of the IBQ
Program will be whether the catch of
bluefin by the Longline category
exceeds the Longline category quota.
Amendment 7 management measures
are expected to reduce the percentage of
bluefin catch that is comprised of
discards (which from 2006 to 2012,
ranged from 61 to 75 percent of the
Longline bluefin catch), and prevent the
catch of bluefin by pelagic longline
vessels from exceeding the Longline
category quota.
The IBQ Program will not create a
directed fishery for bluefin by the
pelagic longline fleet. Although pelagic
longline vessels will be allocated
bluefin quota and be able to derive
revenue from the sale of legal-sized
bluefin tuna, the quota share of bluefin
tuna for each vessel is a relatively small
percentage of the Longline category
quota. Based on the size of recent
Longline category quotas, individual
vessels will be allocated the equivalent
of between 2 and 13 bluefin tuna per
year (depending upon the specific quota
share percentage and whether the
bluefin is a Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic
bluefin). Due to the relatively small
bluefin quota allocation per vessel, the
requirement to utilize quota to account
for both dead discards and landings, the
requirement to have a minimum amount
of quota to depart on a fishing trip using
pelagic longline gear, and the cost
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71544
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
associated with leasing additional
quota, there will be strong economic
disincentives to target bluefin.
If a vessel catches an atypically large
number of bluefin tuna (i.e., a ‘‘disaster
set’’), Amendment 7 measures will
allow the vessel to retain and sell all
legal-sized bluefin, but prohibit the
vessel from departing on a subsequent
trip using pelagic longline gear until all
the bluefin has been accounted for by
leasing additional quota from another
permitted vessel owner with quota
allocation. This restriction will create a
strong economic incentive to avoid
bluefin tuna in order to not exceed
individual bluefin quota. Furthermore,
if the vessel in such circumstances
holds quota share and at the end of the
year would otherwise be eligible to
receive quota share for the subsequent
fishing year, the quota debt would be
settled by deducting quota from the
subsequent year’s quota allocation. The
quota debt would persist from one year
to the next until settled.
Under Amendment 7 measures,
NMFS may also consider transferring
quota from the Reserve category to the
Longline category, to make quota
available for the fishery as a whole.
With the exception of quota in support
of research (e.g., an Exempted Fishing
Permit), NMFS may allocate additional
quota to the Longline category as a
whole via a disbursement of quota to
eligible vessels via the IBQ Program for
the purpose of accounting for bluefin
catch. Under Amendment 7, NMFS’
review of the IBQ Program after 3 years
of operation will include anevaluation
of the question of whether the IBQ
system adequately addresses large catch
events.
Comment 70: Some commenters had
concerns about the legality of the IBQ
Program and argued that NMFS should
consider the legality of ‘‘diminishing a
vessel’s opportunity to catch its quota.’’
Commenters stated that NMFS should
not give a public resource to individuals
for their financial benefit, and that the
pelagic longline fishery should not
profit from bluefin, but proceeds should
be used for other programs and research.
Response: Allocation of fishery
resources to individual entities under a
catch share program is legal under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The IBQ
Program includes an allocated privilege
of catching a specified portion of the
total annual bluefin quota in the form of
quota shares. IBQ shares are not
property, but are a privilege to an
amount of fish in a given year that can
be renewed or revoked. Although
pelagic longline vessel owners/operators
may derive revenue from the sale of
bluefin, bluefin is not expected to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
become a large proportion of their total
revenue due to the low amount of
bluefin quota and the other elements of
the IBQ Program. Measures throughout
the Amendment were specifically
implemented to ensure that the pelagic
longline BFT catch remains an
incidental fishery, not a directed
fishery. Although the management
measures do not require a portion of the
revenue from the sale of bluefin by
Longline category vessels to fund
research, NMFS may utilize bluefin
quota from the Reserve category in
support of relevant research.
Comment 71: A commenter stated
that, in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS
should limit catch using gear
restrictions and the use of alternative
gears instead of IBQs. Some commenters
noted that NMFS should separate Gulf
of Mexico quota from Atlantic quota.
Response: A discussion of alternative
gears is provided in the response to
Comments 66 and 67. Alternative gears
alone are unlikely to provide the same
benefits of the IBQ Program, which will
limit total catch and provide
accountability at the level of individual
vessels. The IBQ management measures
include a provision that designates
quota share as either Gulf of Mexico or
Atlantic, and prohibits the use of
Atlantic quota in the Gulf of Mexico to
prevent potential increases in the
relative amount of bluefin caught in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Comment 72: Several commenters had
concerns or made suggestions regarding
some of the specific aspects of the
design of the IBQ Program that are not
among the principal design elements.
These comments were as follows: NMFS
should implement strict enforcement
and fines associated with the IBQ
system; the annual distribution of quota
should take place in time for the January
1 start of the fishing year; NMFS should
not allow quota to carryforward from
year to year; NMFS should not allow
vessels to land and sell bluefin without
sufficient quota; money from the sale of
bluefin should be put in escrow until
quota is purchased to account for all
catch, and; NMFS should not
implement the IBQ system because it is
too complex.
Response: Enforcement is an
important aspect of ensuring the
effectiveness of any regulatory program.
New management tools such as the
preferred electronic monitoring will
augment NMFS’ ability to effectively
enforce the regulations.
On an annual basis, IBQ allocation
will be distributed to eligible permit
holders in time for vessels to begin
fishing on January 1. Adjustments to the
IBQ allocations may occur, but are not
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
limited to changes in ICCAT
recommendations, inseason actions, or
NMFS’ annual adjustment authority.
Under this final rule, if an eligible
permit holder has been awarded IBQ
allocation and does not fully utilize that
IBQ allocation (i.e., account for bluefin
caught, or leases the IBQ allocation to
another eligible participant) during the
year, and has a balance of quota at the
end of the year, the quota would not
carry forward into the subsequent year
as IBQ in association with a particular
permit. However, based on the unused
IBQ allocation associated with
individual vessels, NMFS would
calculate the total amount of unused
IBQ allocation for the Longline category
as a whole, and carry that quota forward
(or a portion of that quota) as allowed
under ICCAT into the subsequent
fishing year. U.S. bluefin quota that is
allowed to be carried forward from one
year to the next will be placed in the
Reserve category and may be reallocated
to any/all domestic quota categories.
Under Amendment 7, pelagic longline
vessel operators will be able to land and
sell any legal-sized retained bluefin, in
order to maintain full accountability,
retain flexibility to accommodate
variable bluefin catches, and to provide
incentives to retain rather than discard
fish. Although a vessel operator may
land and sell bluefin in excess of their
quota, they may not depart on a
subsequent trip using pelagic longline
gear until the fish have been fully
accounted for with quota allocation. The
revenue derived from the sale of the
bluefin will facilitate the ability of a
vessel owner to lease additional quota.
If, at the end of the year, they have not
paid the ‘quota debt’ with additional
quota (obtained through leasing), the
balance of quota owed will be ‘paid’ for
from the subsequent year’s allocation or
the vessel will be prohibited from
fishing with pelagic longline gear. The
vessel owner is fully accountable.
In contrast, a system in which a vessel
operator must place the revenue from
the sale of a bluefin in escrow until they
account for the fish with quota (as
suggested by a commenter) is a more
complex system that would provide a
stronger incentive to discard bluefin,
impose additional administrative
burdens, and would not provide the
flexibility a vessel operator may need. If
while still at sea the vessel operator
catches more bluefin than they have
quota,, there would be more incentive to
discard the fish because the vessel
owner would face the uncertainty of
whether they would be able to lease
quota (and at what price) and the
operator would be uncertain whether or
not any revenue could be derived from
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the sale of the bluefin. If the revenue
were to be placed in escrow, the vessel
operator may have insufficient revenue
to lease additional quota allocation, and
therefore the system itself would be an
impediment to the operation of a leasing
market. Additionally, there would be
questions associated with an escrow
requirement such as: If the vessel
operator is unable to lease additional
quota, and forfeited the revenue, would
the vessel still be responsible for
accounting for the bluefin, (i.e., would
the ‘quota debt’ remain with the vessel
into the following year), even though
the vessel owner never obtained any
revenue from the fish?
Although the IBQ Program will result
in a more complex management system
than currently exists, NMFS has
minimized complexity in the design of
the preferred management measures
(including the IBQ Program), and has
noted examples in the Response to
Comments. While this is first catch
share program for Atlantic HMS
fisheries, the elements and approach of
the Amendment 7 IBQ Program are
similar to that of the many successful
catch share programs currently in
operation in the United States. NMFS
will educate the public regarding the
program, and provide the public with
ongoing access to the information to
facilitate the smooth operation of the
preferred IBQ Program and enhance
transparency.
Comment 73: Commenters noted that
NMFS did not provide adequate details
in the proposed rule regarding the
relationship of the Northeast Distant
Area (NED) to the IBQ Program and
suggested that the current bluefin
possession limit be maintained in the
NED, but when the limit is reached, the
vessel should fish under their IBQ.
Response: Under current ICCAT
recommendations, the NED is a
distinctly managed geographic area
managed under a separate quota than
the rest of the fishery. Therefore, the
quota associated with the NED (25 mt)
will not be part of the Amendment 7
quota allocation measures, or managed
under the IBQ Program. However, there
are provisions of the IBQ Program that
will apply to vessels fishing with
pelagic longline gear in the NED. For
example, vessels will be required to
have the minimum IBQ allocation to
operate in the NED starting in 2016 and,
when NED bluefin quota has been
exhausted, permitted vessels must abide
by all the requirements of the IBQ
Program. Electronic monitoring systems,
installed by June 1, 2015, will be
required to fish with pelagic longline
gear including in the NED, and data
from the electronic monitoring system
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
may be used to ensure that targeting
fishing is not occurring. NMFs reminds
the regulated community that the
international separate allocation is only
for bycatch in the NED, and there are
domestic prohibitions against targeting
bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear.
NMFS will re-visit this issue if
necessary if subsequent years’ data
indicate that additional controls are
needed.
Comment 74: Several commenters
made suggestions that the IBQ Program
be split apart from the other major
elements of Amendment 7 and
implemented sequentially through
separate regulatory actions
(amendments). One commenter
requested that the first amendment
focus on the Longline category
management measures (individual
bluefin quotas and gear restricted areas),
and that any quota reallocation among
quota categories or enhanced reporting
for non-Longline categories only be
considered after additional information
is obtained from the pelagic longline
fishery operating under the IBQ system.
The North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources suggested that the
GRAs and allocation measures should
be implemented first, followed by the
IBQs, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council suggested that the
IBQs should follow in a separate action
(with additional analyses and
alternatives).
Response: This final rule implements
a wide range of regulatory measures
through a single action, because
comprehensive modifications to many
aspects of the bluefin tuna fisheries are
needed, and the management measures
are highly inter-related. Amendment 7
utilizes a holistic approach to address
the complex problems effectively, and
minimizes potential negative economic
impacts. For example, to first focus on
management of the Longline category in
isolation and delay consideration of
other measures such as reallocation and
enhanced reporting for non-Longline
category vessels would ignore the
current differences in reporting
requirements among quota categories,
continue a high level of uncertainty in
the quota system, and would fail to
minimize adverse economic impacts for
the Longline category.
Accountability for bluefin catch by
the Longline category is a high priority,
and the IBQ Program provides such
accountability. It ensures that the
fishery operates within the allowable
quota established by ICCAT consistent
with the rebuilding program, and
minimizes bycatch to the extent
practicable, in a manner that will have
less adverse economic impacts than the
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71545
other alternatives analyzed (Regional or
Group Quota Controls). NMFS
considered and analyzed multiple
alternatives for all elements of the IBQ
Program in the DEIS and FEIS, and will
fully evaluate the IBQ Program after
three years of operation.
Comment 75: The Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
(Louisiana DNR) commented that
Amendment 7 will have large negative
socio-economic impacts on the Gulf of
Mexico pelagic longline fishery.
Louisiana DNR asserts the greatest
negative impact will occur in Louisiana,
with minimal benefits to the bluefin
stock, and attributed the economic
impacts mostly to the IBQ Program,
which it feels is inconsistent with the
Louisiana Coastal Resources Program.
Louisiana DNR noted that the potential
benefits to the stock of bluefin tuna are
minimal compared to the potentially
large socio-economic impact to the
targeted fisheries, and NMFS’
consistency determination lacks
sufficient data and information.
Response: NMFS has concluded that
Amendment 7 is fully consistent with
the enforceable policies of the
management program, though the State
of Louisiana objects. The FEIS analysis
demonstrates that NMFS utilized many
of the factors cited by Louisiana DNR as
lacking in NMFS’ evaluation. NMFS
also explored the availability of
alternative methods of achieving the
Amendment 7 objectives, and
considered the economic impacts, as
well as the long term benefits of the
measures. The alternative methods to
reduce dead discards of no action or
group or regional quotas would have
more adverse impacts and be less
effective in achieving Amendment 7
objectives to reduce dead discards and
maximize fishing opportunity. The
design of the IBQ management measures
and other aspects of Amendment 7
minimize the significant adverse
economic impacts, disruption of social
patterns, and adverse cumulative
impacts, to the extent practicable,
relative to other methods analyzed
while also meeting Amendment 7
objectives. For detailed information on
NMFS’ response, see the Classification
section.
14. IBQ Eligibility
Comment 76: Commenters suggested
modifications to the proposed method
of defining which vessels are eligible to
receive quota share (i.e., ‘‘active’’
vessels, defined as those vessels that
made at least one set using pelagic
longline gear between 2006 and 2011,
based on logbook data). Some stated that
the criteria is too restrictive, and that
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71546
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the criteria should instead be any vessel
with a valid permit, while others
believed the criteria is too lenient and
results in an excessive number of
vessels eligible to receive quota share.
Some commenters suggested specific
alternative criteria such as 50 sets
within the previous 3 years.
Response: The definition of a set of
vessels that are eligible to receive
bluefin quota share is a very important
aspect of the design of the IBQ Program
because the definition sets the boundary
of which entities are eligible for the
privilege of being granted quota shares,
and the number of eligible entities has
a large influence on the amount of quota
share each entity will receive. Regarding
the comment that the criteria should be
any vessel with a valid permit, the
bluefin quota allocation method
implemented by Amendment 7 is
intended to limit the catch of, and
provide accountability and incentives
for pelagic longline vessels that are
fishing and interacting with, bluefin
tuna, and therefore only vessels that are
likely to go fishing should be eligible for
quota share. Additionally, if vessels that
have a Longline category permit that do
not typically fish were eligible to
receive quota share, they could utilize
the quota solely for economic gain by
leasing the quota or influencing the
leasing market. Further, the set of
eligible vessels would be substantially
larger (and each eligible vessel would
receive substantially smaller proportion
of the Longline category quota), and
result in such small IBQ allocations that
the IBQ Program would not function
well. Relatively small quota shares make
it likely that most vessels will have
insufficient IBQ allocation and be
dependent upon leased quota to account
for bluefin caught.
Regarding the comment that the
definition of ‘‘active,’’ which did not
include 2012 data, was too restrictive,
the initial allocation implemented by
this final rule reflects a definition of
active that based upon the years 2006
through 2012, instead of through 2011.
Regarding the comment that the
proposed definition of ‘‘active’’ is too
lenient, the objectives of the preferred
IBQ Program do not support further
restricting the scope of eligible vessel to
an arbitrary number of sets, and
excluding vessels with a low level of
fishing activity. Even vessels with low
levels of fishing activity may need
bluefin quota shares to account for
bluefin catch. Instead, the objectives of
the IBQ Program will be achieved using
more flexible management tools,
including incentives for vessels for
avoid bluefin tuna and to fish with
alternative gears.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Because the intent of the program is
to specify a pool of eligible vessels that
excludes inactive vessels, the IBQ
Program utilizes the secondary criteria
that the vessel must have had a valid
permit as of August 21, 2013. Therefore,
a vessel is required to meet the
definition of ‘‘active,’’ and also to have
been issued a valid Longline category
permit as of August 21, 2013 (the date
of publication of the Amendment 7
proposed rule). This second criterion
addresses the situation in which a
vessel met the criteria of having made
at least one pelagic longline set during
the years from 2006 through 2012, but,
subsequent to the time of the qualifying
set(s), became inactive, as evidenced by
a lapsed (non-renewed) Longline
category permit (which must be
renewed on an annual basis), or as
evidenced by a vessel that has been
removed from association with a
particular vessel.
Comment 77: Commenters were
concerned about the ability of new
entrants to become active in the fishery,
and some suggested that NMFS use an
annual system to define eligible vessels,
such as a minimum number of sets
during the previous year. A commenter
noted that businesses which supply new
equipment to outfit pelagic longline
vessels would be negatively impacted if
new entrants are not able to enter the
fishery.
Response: The ability for people who
are currently not involved in the pelagic
longline fishery to become participants
in the fishery (new entrants) is an
important consideration, which is a
required consideration under Section
303A(c)(5)(C) of the MSA. The
Amendment 7 IBQ Program will add a
single additional prerequisite for
participation in the pelagic longline
fishery to the previously existing two
prerequisites and associated monitoring
and compliance requirements (e.g.,
VMS). Prior to this Amendment, the two
principal elements for participation in
the fishery were a vessel and limited
access permit. The IBQ Program
implements a requirement for a vessel to
have the minimum amount of bluefin
quota allocation in order to fish with
pelagic longline gear, as well as
electronic monitoring requirements
associated with the IBQ Program.
The Amendment 7 IBQ Program
provides adequate opportunities for new
entrants to the fishery, because there are
multiple means by which a new entrant
may satisfy the quota requirement. A
person interested in participating in the
fishery may purchase a permitted vessel
with IBQ shares, and therefore be
allocated quota annually (due to the IBQ
share associated with the permit), or a
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
person may purchase a permitted vessel
without IBQ shares, but lease quota
allocation from another permitted
vessel. Under the IBQ Program, as in the
past, participation in the pelagic
longline fishery by new entrants will
require substantial capital investment
and potential new entrants will face
costs which are similar to historical
participants. However, the structure of
the IBQ Program does not create any
unreasonable barriers to new entry.
NMFS considered the merits of setting
aside a specified amount of quota for
new entrants, but found several negative
aspects of such a provision. For
example, providing quota to new
entrants would essentially create a
second quota allocation system, which
would complicate the overall preferred
IBQ Program by creating a separate class
of vessels with different allocations. A
quota set aside for new entrants would
result in less quota available for other
participants in the fishery, and rather
than the market controlling the quota,
there would be many policy decision to
be made (e.g., would the amount of set
aside vary according to the number of
new entrants, or be a fixed amount
annually? Would the quota be divided
equally among new entrants, be
allocated in the minimum share
amounts, or allocated based on fishing
history). NMFS believes in simplifying
the IBQ Program upon implementation
where possible, in order to minimize
regulatory burden and complexity. A
system of rules regarding quota set aside
would add additional complications to
the IBQ Program. Therefore, NMFS
determined that given the lack of
information with which to base such
restrictions, and the uncertainty
whether there would be a pressing need
for such restrictions, that additional
restrictions or a quota set aside are not
warranted. During the three year review
of the IBQ Program NMFS will consider
information from the fishery after
implementation of the IBQ Program, and
evaluate whether the IBQ Program
provides adequate opportunities to new
entrants. See FEIS at pages 70–71 for
additional analyses.
As suggested by commenters, NMFS
considered the concept of making an
annual determination of which vessels
are eligible to receive quota allocations
based on a set of criteria (such as a
certain number of longline sets during
the previous year). NMFS found that
there are negative aspects of such an
annual system. If the vessels allocated
quota shares vary on an annual basis,
the IBQ Program would be more
complex and difficult to administer;
there would be greater uncertainty
annually in the fishery; there would be
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
incentives to fish on an annual basis
(due to criteria to fish in order to receive
quota); and any value associated with a
permit that would be derived from the
associated IBQ share may be minimized
if the IBQ share is only valid for a year.
Although such a system could limit the
number of years a vessel without quota
share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease
quota, the negative aspects of this
approach would be substantial. For
example, in order to have an IBQ system
that includes strong accountability, any
quota ‘debt’ accrued must persist from
one fishing year to the next. It would be
difficult to implement persistent
accountability if the vessels eligible for
quota change on an annual basis.
Comment 78: A commenter suggested
that NMFS should address latent
permits by eliminating the ability to
reactivate such permits.
Response: Neither Amendment 7
overall, nor the IBQ Program objectives
include the reduction of latent effort.
The likelihood of a meaningful increase
in fishing effort is low because the
number of vessels fishing has been fairly
constant, and as stated in the response
to comment number 77, although there
are avenues for new entrants to the
fishery, participation in the pelagic
longline fishery by new entrants would
require substantial capital investment.
Although the number of Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permits has averaged
approximately 239 vessels (2006—
2012), under Amendment 7 as finalized,
only 135 vessels are eligible for initial
bluefin quota shares. Furthermore, the
risk associated with an increase in
fishing effort (for either bluefin or the
target stock of swordfish) is low, given
the fact that Amendment 7 implements
strict bluefin catch limits, one of the
principal target stocks (swordfish) is
rebuilt and another target stock
(yellowfin tuna) is not overfished and
overfishing is not occurring, and there
has been unharvested swordfish quota
on a regular basis.
Comment 79: A commenter suggested
that NMFS use criteria such as
dependence upon commercial fishing
for determining which vessels are
eligible to receive quota shares.
Response: NMFS generally considered
dependence upon commercial fishing in
establishing its approach for initial
allocations. The amount of target
species caught is a factor in the
allocation formula. However, NMFS
cannot at this time quantify fishery
dependence in a uniform manner due to
many issues relating to data availability
and confidentiality. NMFS believes that
the final rule, which takes into
consideration best available information
on current and historical harvests,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
participation, and other factors as well
as public comment, ensures fair and
equitable initial allocations.
Comment 80: Commenters stated that
NMFS should associate IBQ with a
permit and not a vessel.
Response: As explained in the FEIS,
the use of historical data to evaluate
whether a vessel meets certain criteria
as part of the implementation of a
limited access or catch share program
(or a performance criteria) can be
complex due to historical transfers of a
limited access permit from one vessel to
another, or changes in vessel owners.
Over time, a single permit may be
issued to multiple vessels, or a single
vessel may have multiple owners. The
IBQ Program as finalized uses the
historical ‘platform’ upon which to base
the quota share as the vessel history
instead of the permit history for the
following reasons: (1) Vessel history
reflects current and historical
participation in the fishery; (2) the
regulations regarding the transfer of
Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permits do not address fishing history
(i.e., do not specify, when an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit is
transferred from one vessel to another,
whether the fishing history also
transfers; and (3) the structure of the
databases in which the logbook data
reside uses the vessel as a key
organizing feature, and therefore the
compilation of data associated with a
particular vessel is simpler and less
prone to error (it is more complex to
compile data based on an individual
permit history).
Although, as noted above, the basis
for the quota shares is the fishing
history associated with a vessel, the IBQ
Program associates the share with a
permit. In other words, for the purpose
of vessel, permit, and quota
transactions, quota shares under the IBQ
Program will be associated with the
Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit, even though the initial
eligibility for the quota share was
determined on the basis of a particular
vessel history.
Comment 81: Many pelagic longline
vessel owners expressed strong
concerns that the amount of bluefin
quota allocated to individual vessels
would be inadequate to continue to fish,
and that despite efforts to avoid bluefin,
vessels would sooner or later encounter
bluefin. The proposed allocations would
make continuing fishing operations
extremely difficult, because they would
be forced to stop fishing, and therefore
revenue would be cut off, but expenses
would continue. Vessel owners stated
that they would not be able to remain
in business under such circumstances,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71547
and some estimated that a large vessel
would need about 20 bluefin to account
for the number of bluefin they catch,
rather than the 2 to 13 fish they believe
would be allocated under the IBQ
system. Some highlighted the difference
between the proposed IBQ allocations
and the number of bluefin tuna that may
be retained by a vessel with a General
category commercial permit (up to 5
bluefin a trip), as justification for having
larger individual quota allocations.
Response: Under the Amendment 7
IBQ Program, some vessels may not
have enough quota share to continue to
account for the same amount of bluefin
they caught in the past. The FEIS
analysis indicates that at a quota level
of 137 mt, approximately 25 percent of
vessels would need to lease additional
bluefin quota in order to land their
historical average amount of target
species (if they do not change their
behavior to reduce their historical rate
of bluefin interactions). If no leasing of
IBQ allocation were to occur, there
could be a reduction in target species
landings with an associated reduction in
revenue of approximately $7,574,590
total, or $56,108 per vessel (135 vessels).
The precise impacts of the IBQ
Program are difficult to predict due to
the variability of bluefin distribution as
well as the potential range of fishing
behaviors (and business strategies) of
vessels in response to the new
regulations. In order to reduce the
likelihood of interactions, vessel
operators may have to pursue new
strategies including communication
with other pelagic longline operators
regarding the known locations of
bluefin, modifications to fishing time,
location, and technique, as well as use
of alternative gears. In conjunction with
these strategies, leasing additional quota
may be necessary. The IBQ eligibility
criteria include the requirement that the
relevant vessel have a permit as of
August 21, 2013, which limits the
number of eligible vessels, and therefore
slightly increases the amount of quota
share per vessel. Due to the difficulty of
predicting the precise impacts of the
IBQ Program, NMFS may, as the fishery
adjusts to the new system, need to
consider providing additional quota to
the Longline category as a whole in
order to increase the amount of quota
available to eligible vessels via the IBQ
Program, thereby balancing the need to
have an operational fishery with the
need to reduce bluefin bycatch in the
fishery. The Amendment 7 IBQ Program
includes a three-year formal review of
the IBQ system, at which time NMFS
will consider whether any structural
changes to the program are necessary.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71548
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
The pelagic longline fishery is an
incidental bluefin fishery unlike the
directed General category handgear
fishery, and retention limits and other
management measures are different.
This final rule implements a regulatory
system that would mitigate the effects of
the different restrictions among the
different permit categories.
Comment 82: Some commenters did
not want the bluefin quota share
formula to include a criterion that relies
upon logbook data on bluefin catch, due
to the concern that such data may be
inaccurate. The quota share formula that
was proposed includes a metric that
results in a higher score (and
contributing in the formula to a higher
allocation) for vessels that had fewer
interactions with bluefin (relative to the
‘‘designated species,’’ i.e., target catch).
The commenters’ specific concern was
that if some vessels under-reported the
amount of bluefin they caught in their
logbook, such vessels may receive a
higher score (and larger allocation) than
vessels that had accurately reported
higher numbers of bluefin catch. In
other words, accurate reporters would
be penalized relative to inaccurate
reporters. Commenters noted that it is
unfair to emphasize past bluefin catch
in the quota allocation formula because
in the past interactions with bluefin
tuna were legal. Another commenter
noted that past performance may not be
a predictor of future performance.
Response: NMFS recognizes that some
vessel operators may have underreported the amount of bluefin tuna
caught in their logbooks. NMFS
conducted an analysis that compared
logbook data to observer data to get an
indication of how vessel reported
logbook data compares with observer
data, because observer data can serve as
a useful validation tool. Compared to
the observer data, the logbook data
showed both over-reporting and underreporting of bluefin tuna, with the
average amount of under-reporting of
bluefin discards of 28 percent at the
aggregate level for all vessels. Individual
vessel data varied substantially from
being more than 90 percent accurate
with observer data for that trip to more
than 75 percent inaccurate compared to
observer data for that trip. These data
indicate a wide range in reporting
accuracy at a vessel level. For additional
information, see the Appendix in the
FEIS (section 11.5).
Notwithstanding potential underreporting by some vessels, logbook data
are the most complete source of
available data regarding vessel level
interactions with bluefin tuna because
100 percent of pelagic longline vessels
are required to submit logbook reports
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
for every set. It is important to note that
the relative number of bluefin
interactions is only one component of
the IBQ allocation formula, which also
considers the amount of target catch,
resulting in a higher score (and
contributing to more allocation) for
vessels with larger amounts of target
catch (‘‘designated species catch’’).
Amendment 7 includes a requirement
for pelagic longline vessels to have
operational electronic monitoring
systems, which will enhance the
accuracy of vessel-reported information.
Regarding the comment that it is
unfair to use past interactions with
bluefin as part of the allocation formula
because in the past it was lawful to
interact with bluefin tuna, pelagic
longline regulations were designed to
limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna
(e.g., target catch requirements, weak
hook requirements). Therefore, it is
appropriate that the IBQ Program accrue
some benefit in the form of IBQ
allocation for vessels who may have
fished in a manner that reduced
interactions with, or avoided bluefin
tuna, consistent with the regulations.
NMFS acknowledges that past
performance may not be an indicator of
future performance. One of the
objectives of the bluefin IBQ Program is
to provide incentives for future fishing
behavior that will result in reduced
rates of interactions between pelagic
longline gear and bluefin. The principal
incentive of the IBQ Program results
from the fact that vessels are required to
account for all bluefin tuna dead
discards and landings (with IBQ
allocation), and the prohibition of the
use of pelagic longline gear if a vessel
does not have any (or sufficient) IBQ
allocation. The future fishing behaviors
may include avoiding or minimizing
setting pelagic longline gear in areas or
during time periods where there are
known interactions with bluefin tuna;
increasing communication with other
vessels fishing with pelagic longline
gear; incorporating the use of alternative
gears into a vessel’s fishing strategy and
business plan; ‘test sets’ to determine
whether bluefin are present in an area;
and pelagic longline gear modifications.
In determining how to allocate bluefin
quota, NMFS considered historical
catches of both target species and
bluefin tuna to consider both past
performance and potential future needs.
Comment 83: Some commenters
urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of
bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for
multiple reasons. Equal shares would
avoid the use of historical logbook data;
would reduce potential negative feelings
among permit holders with different
amounts of allocation; and would
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provide higher quota allocations for
some vessels than under the proposed
method. Additionally, a commenter
noted that it may not be necessary to
consider the amount of target catch in
the quota share formula (and provide
more quota to vessels catching more
target catch) because larger fishing
operations are better equipped
financially to adapt to new regulations.
Another commenter supported basing
the allocation on target species landings
and fishing effort, because higher effort
is likely to result in more bluefin catch.
Response: NMFS carefully considered
allocating quota shares on an equal
basis, but decided to implement the
method as proposed, which
incorporates two metrics of equal
weight: Designated species landings and
the ratio of bluefin to designated species
landings. While an equal share formula
has some positive attributes, the overall
merits of the method being
implemented are greater. It is important
to take into consideration the diversity
of the pelagic longline fleet, maximize
the potential for the success of the IBQ
Program, and provide incentives for
vessels to avoid bluefin tuna.
NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline
logbook data on target catch and bluefin
interactions, and for most vessels, there
is positive correlation between the
amount of target catch, and the number
of bluefin tuna interactions. In other
words, for most vessels, the more
swordfish, yellowfin tuna, or other
target species a vessel catches, the more
bluefin tuna it interacts with. However,
a few vessels (those responsible for the
largest number of interactions) interact
with large numbers of bluefin, out of
proportion with the amount of their
target catch. Considering this historic
pattern, basing one of the allocation
formula elements on the amount of
designated species landings would
increase the likelihood that vessels
would be allocated quota in relation to
the amount of quota they may need to
account for their catch of bluefin.
The second of the two elements (the
ratio of bluefin interactions to
designated species landings) is useful
because it takes into consideration the
fact that relatively few vessels (i.e.,
about fifteen percent of the vessels) are
responsible for about 80 percent of the
interactions with bluefin tuna. Because
this element of the allocation formula
results in a lower allocation for vessels
with a higher rate of historic
interactions, it provides a strong
incentive for such vessels to make
changes in their fishing practices to
reduce their number of bluefin
interactions. Vessels with historically
high catches of target species and a low
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
rate of interactions with bluefin receive
a larger quota share than vessels with
either higher rates of bluefin
interactions or lower amounts of target
species.
Comment 84: Some commenters were
concerned that either hurricanes, the
2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or
specific regulations (such as a closed
area) may have lowered the amount of
catch a vessel had (during the 2006
through 2012 time period on which the
IBQ share is based), and the resultant
influence on the vessel’s bluefin quota
share.
Response: There are many factors that
may determine the amount of a
particular vessel’s catch, including
regulatory and environmental factors
and factors unique to the vessel. As
noted in the response to comment # 40
the Amendment 7 quota share formula
is based upon a seven-year time period
(2006 through 2012), which is long
enough to reduce the influence of onetime events or short term environmental
or regulatory conditions. Additionally,
the quota share formula implemented by
this final rule includes an additional
year of data (2012), a longer duration
than originally proposed.
Comment 85: Commenters suggested
other methods for allocating quota
shares such as auctioning the quota, and
basing quota shares in relation to the
number of hooks, or the number of
longline sets in the previous year.
Response: NMFS considered an
auction system, but decided that it
would not result in distribution of
limited access privilege shares in a way
that met IBQ program objectives. Among
other things, NMS wants to facilitate
continued participation in the fishery by
vessels that have made past investments
in the fishery. An auction may not
reflect recent or historical participation
in the fishery and could increase
uncertainty in fishery participation.
15. IBQ Leasing
Comment 86: Some commenters
supported the provision that would
allow pelagic longline vessels to lease
quota allocation to and from one
another, but prohibit permanent sale of
quota shares. A commenter said that
NMFS should only allow leasing to
active vessels with intent to fish, and a
commenter suggested that NMFS should
ensure that a fully functioning quota
trading infrastructure is in place before
implementing the IBQ system.
Response: Quota leasing is an
essential component of the IBQ Program
because the amount of quota share a
vessel has many not be aligned with the
amount of quota they need, based on
bluefin catch. Quota leasing provides
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
the flexibility vessels may need to
account for bluefin if they have
insufficient quota, or obtain additional
revenue if they are able to avoid bluefin
and have quota they do not need. Only
vessels that meet the eligibility criteria
will be allocated quota shares; however,
any vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit may lease
quota. Allowing quota to be leased to
any permitted vessel enables vessels
that are not allocated quota to become
active in the fishery (i.e., new entrants),
but would not provide a lasting
opportunity because leased quota would
expire at the end of a year (and may not
be carried over to the following year by
an individual vessel). No sale of quota
shares (in contrast to leasing of quota
allocation) is allowed upon the
implementation of Amendment 7. These
quota restrictions provide a balanced
approach to the types of transactions
allowed, in order to provide flexibility
to account for bluefin caught and enable
participation of new entrants, but limit
the potential for permanent shifts in
ownership of quota shares and
speculative activity by entities not
active in the fishery. NMFS will
conduct a full review of the IBQ
Program after three years of operation,
and may at that time consider allowing
the permanent sale of quota shares or
other modifications to the leasing
program as warranted.
NMFS acknowledges that a
functioning infrastructure is required to
support a quota leasing system, and is
implementing the system necessary to
enable the leasing of IBQ shares and
accounting of bluefin quota shares and
allocations.
Comment 87: Commenters expressed
concern about whether vessel owners
would be willing to lease quota to other
vessels, given the low amounts of quota
allocated to vessels, and concern that
the cost of leasing would be affordable,
especially for owners of small vessels.
Other commenters did not support
leasing because access to additional
quota could enable vessels to target
bluefin.
Response: The analysis of the
preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS
indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25
percent of vessels would need to lease
additional quota in order to land their
historical average amount of designated
species (if they do not change their
behavior to reduce their historical rate
of bluefin interactions). Therefore, a
majority of vessels may have quota in
excess of what is needed to account for
their bluefin catch, and may have
incentive to lease quota to other vessels.
Notwithstanding the analysis, there is
uncertainty regarding both the amount
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71549
and price of quota that may be leased.
A well-functioning leasing market,
which enables quota to be leased by
those who need it will be a key factor
in whether the preferred IBQ Program
functions as intended.
Comment 88: Some commenters did
not support allowing pelagic longline
vessels to lease quota from Purse Seine
vessels. A commenter was concerned
that the leasing program may
disadvantage the Purse Seine vessels,
and a commenter was concerned that
Purse Seine businesses could
consolidate or control quota. A
commenter suggested that NMFS should
set aside quota and lease it to pelagic
longline vessels rather than allowing
Purse Seine vessels to lease, and a
commenter thought that the Purse Seine
category should be allowed to lease to
all other permit categories.
Response: Leasing quota must be
confined to permit categories that are
limited access due to the different
characteristics of limited access and
open access fisheries, and the
complexities of a leasing program.
Therefore, Amendment 7 limits quota
leasing to the Longline and Purse Seine
permit categories. The provision for
Longline category vessels to lease quota
from Purse Seine category participants
provides an additional opportunity for
pelagic longline vessels to lease quota
that may not otherwise be present, and
will increase the chances that there will
be a well-functioning leasing market. As
previously stated, a well-functioning
leasing market, which enables quota to
be leased by those who need it at an
affordable price, will be a key factor in
whether the preferred IBQ Program
functions as intended.
With regard to the concern over Purse
Seine control of quota, as noted in the
Response to Comment 87, NMFS
anticipates that only 25 percent of
vessels would need to lease additional
quota, and this final rule allows such
leasing from either the Longline or
Purse Seine category. Further, the
Annual Reallocation measure
implemented by this final rule will have
the effect of reducing the amount of
quota that is available to the Purse Seine
category if such participants do not
catch the majority of their quota during
the previous year. The net effect of the
Annual Reallocation measure on the
IBQ leasing program should be to
reduce the amount of quota available for
leasing to the Longline category, or
leaving less quota available to the Purse
Seine category with which to
consolidate or otherwise influence the
leasing market (by holding rather than
leasing quota). However, the IBQ leasing
measure will not disadvantage Purse
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71550
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Seine participants due to its interaction
with the Annual Reallocation measure.
The amount of quota allocated to the
Purse Seine category participants will
depend upon the level of bluefin
landings and dead discards during the
previous year, but will not take into
consideration whether or not unused
Purse Seine quota (that is not used to
account for catch) is leased.
Regarding the comment that NMFS
should be directly involved in the quota
leasing market, NMFS did not analyze
an alternative that would give a central
role in the leasing market to NMFS.
Although NMFS could indirectly
influence the quota leasing market
through quota adjustments, direct
involvement in the quota leasing system
would create many administrative
concerns and is not preferred at this
time. For example, if NMFS were a
broker of IBQ leases, the leasing market
would be more complicated, might
function more slowly, and would add
additional burden and costs to NMFS’
support and oversight of the IBQ
system.
16. Measures Associated With the IBQ
Program
Comment 89: Commenters supported
elimination of the target catch
requirements and mandatory retention
of legal-sized bluefin that are dead at
haul-back. Some commenters suggested
that NMFS require retention of all dead
bluefin regardless of size in order to
address the problem of undersized
juvenile bluefin discards.
Response: Under Amendment 7
measures the target catch requirement (a
strict bluefin retention limit based on
the amount of target catch retained) will
no longer be needed to restrict bluefin
retention because catch will be limited
by the IBQ Program restrictions. Dead
discards are an important consideration
with respect to the evaluation of
minimum size restrictions, but are not
the only consideration. The current
bluefin size restriction for pelagic
longline vessels reflects ICCAT
recommendations, as well as
consideration of other factors, including
dead discards. In general, size
restrictions have been instituted to
protect the overall health and breeding
viability of the species, as well as to
distribute fishing opportunities among
both recreational and commercial
fishermen, year-round.
Retention of all bluefin, regardless of
size, would conflict with ICCAT
recommendations in effect. The current
ICCAT recommendation prohibits the
harvest of Western bluefin measuring
less than 115 cm (the equivalent of 27
inches). It also limits the amount of BFT
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
measuring 27 to less than 47 inches, to
10 percent of the total U.S. quota.
Reduction in minimum size to 47 or
59 inches for commercial categories was
an alternative that was considered, but
not further analyzed in the FEIS. As
new information from the fishery
becomes available in the future, or if
new scientific information or ICCAT
recommendations warrant, NMFS may
consider modifications to the bluefin
size restrictions in the future.
Comment 90: A commenter stated that
NMFS should not require retention of
bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico because
the bluefin are too big to bring on board.
Response: Most vessels that fish with
pelagic longline gear target large pelagic
species and are capable of boarding very
large fish. Approximately 82 percent of
the vessels participating in the pelagic
longline fishery are greater than 40 feet
in length overall and either can already
handle large fish, or should be able to
modify their equipment to be able to
handle large fish.
17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline
Fishery
Comment 91: Comments on NMFS’
authority to close the pelagic longline
fishery ranged from those who support
closing the fishery in conjunction with
a Longline category quota allocation of
8.1 percent, to those who said that the
fishery should be closed only if there is
unusually high catch of bluefin (and not
when the quota is reached).
Commenters noted the potential impacts
of closures early in the year on the
pelagic longline fishery, supporting
business, consumers of the fish
products, and future ICCAT
recommendations.
Response: A closure of the pelagic
longline fishery may have adverse direct
and secondary economic impacts, the
severity of which would depend upon
how early in the year the closure
occurred. Under the IBQ Program
implemented by this final rule, in which
individual vessels may not fish with
pelagic longline gear unless they have
quota, it is not likely that NMFS will be
required to close the fishery as a whole.
However, individual vessels will be
prohibited from fishing if they have not
accounted for their catch or do not have
the required minimum amount of quota
allocation to depart on a pelagic
longline trip.
If, based on the best available data,
NMFS estimates that the total amount of
dead discards and landings are
projected to reach, have reached, or
exceed the Longline category quota,
NMFS may prohibit fishing with pelagic
longline gear. Similarly, if there is high
uncertainty regarding the estimated or
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
documented levels of bluefin catch,
NMFS may close the fishery to prevent
overharvest of the Longline category
quota, or prevent further discarding of
bluefin.
As described in many of the responses
to comments, NMFS designed
Amendment 7 management measures
not only to reduce dead discards and
ensure accountability, but also to
provide flexibility for pelagic longline
vessels fishing under the IBQ Program
restrictions, and flexibility in the quota
system as a whole, to balance the needs
of the pelagic longline fishery with the
needs of the other quota categories.
18. VMS Requirements
Comment 92: NMFS received
comments on proposed VMS
requirements for the Purse Seine and
Longline categories (preferred
Alternative D1b), expressing both
support and opposition. Several
commenters were concerned about the
functionality of certain VMS models,
particularly those used in the midAtlantic.
Response: NMFS recently published a
proposed rule regarding type-approval
of VMS units to ensure vendors and
associated mobile communications
providers are meeting fishing industry
needs (79 FR 53386; September 9, 2014).
Specifically, the rule proposed NMFS
procedures for EMTU/MTU and MCS
type approval, type-approval renewal,
and revocation; revision of latency
standards; and methods to ensure
compliance with type approval
standards. By codifying requirements
and processes, NMFS will be better able
to ensure vendor compliance with the
VMS type-approval requirements.
19. Electronic Monitoring Requirements
Comment 93: NMFS received
comments that supported electronic
monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear
sensors), while other comments either
expressed concern or opposed it.
Comments supporting electronic
monitoring indicated that it is not cost
prohibitive, that it would allow NMFS
to ground-truth other data, and that it
supports accountability and
enforcement. Those opposed to
electronic monitoring said that it is cost
prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and
is redundant with existing information.
Some comments expressed concern
about the functionality of a system,
considering the issues experienced with
some VMS functionality, and the ability
to identify the difference between
bigeye and bluefin tuna using video
cameras. Implementation using a pilot
scale was suggested, which would allow
time to set up a functioning
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
infrastructure. Expansion of electronic
monitoring to other categories with dead
discards was also suggested.
Response: Amendment 7 establishes
requirements to monitor dead discards
for all commercial user categories to
better achieve the ICCAT requirement to
account for sources of bluefin tuna
fishing mortality and to better monitor
the fishery for bluefin accounting
purposes domestically. This final rule
implements a requirement for Purse
Seine category vessels to report dead
discards via VMS, and for hand gear
fisheries (General, Harpoon, and
Charter/headboat categories) to report
using an automated catch reporting
system via the internet or phone. As
described above, for all vessels issued
an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that
fish with pelagic longline gear, vessel
owners (or their representatives) must
coordinate with the NMFS-approved
contractor to install and test electronic
monitoring equipment, and the
contractor will then provide
certification that the equipment has
been properly installed. Longline
category vessels are required maintain
an electronic monitoring system
(including video recording and data
sensors) that will record all catch and
relevant data regarding pelagic longline
gear deployment and retrieval. The
purpose of video monitoring for the
Longline category is to provide a cost
effective and reliable source of
information to verify the accuracy of
bluefin tuna interactions reported via
VMS and logbooks. In many instances,
the FEIS analysis found discrepancies
between logbook data and observer data
(considered to be highly accurate)
reported for the same trip. The
Amendment 7 electronic monitoring
requirement supports accurate catch
data and bluefin tuna IBQ management
measures, by providing a means to
verify the accuracy of the counts and
identification of bluefin reported by the
vessel operator. In light of public
comments expressing concern about
ensuring the functionality of electronic
monitoring systems and the costs of
such systems, this final rule relieves
certain purchase and installation
requirements that were set out in the
proposed rule. Rather than requiring
vessel owners to buy and install
equipment and make decisions about
equipment specifications and
functionality, this final rule instead
requires the vessel owners to obtain
certification from a NMFS-approved
contractor stating that the contractor has
properly installed and verified the
functionality of the electronic
monitoring system in accordance with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
more detailed equipment and system
requirements provided in the final rule.
As set out in the proposed rule, vessel
owners would have been responsible for
the costs of the equipment and for
installation for the electronic
monitoring systems, which are
estimated to be approximately $19,175
for purchase and installation per vessel
as well as variable costs of
approximately $225 per trip for data
retrieval, fishing activity interpretation,
and catch data interpretation. These
costs are lower than the cost of
increased observer coverage. The
Southeast Fisheries Science Center
estimates that observer deployment
costs approximately $1,075 per sea day,
which equates to approximately $9,675
per average nine-day pelagic longline
trip.
Video monitoring is currently used in
several fisheries, and NMFS has funded
over 30 pilot projects to further research
the use and effectiveness of electronic
monitoring, including research on the
accuracy of finfish identification. These
studies provide evidence that properly
deployed and maintained video
monitoring camera systems can provide
effective data for accurately identifying
large pelagic species. NMFS
acknowledges that identification of
closely related species such as bluefin
and bigeye tuna can be challenging,
particularly with smaller fish. The size
of tunas that are caught on pelagic
longline vessels tend to be larger due to
the size of the hooks used in
commercial fisheries. To ensure
accurate identification of all species, the
NMFS-approved contractor will place
cameras to ensure a clear view of the
gear hauling location. NMFS white
papers on electronic monitoring are
available at the following Web address:
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/
Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_
WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS will take into
account the time required for owners to
outfit their vessels with newly required
equipment when establishing the
timetable for requirement vessels to
have fully operational electronic
monitoring systems.
20. Automated Catch Reporting
Comment 94: Several commenters
supported electronic catch reporting for
the General, Harpoon, and Charter/
headboat categories, and one commenter
suggested that electronic catch reporting
be required for all categories. Two
commenters questioned the
effectiveness of this reporting
methodology. One suggested that a
catch card system be used, and another
requested additional technical
information on the reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71551
methodology including the data to be
collected and techniques for
verification.
Response: Amendment 7 implements
mandatory dead discard reporting for
General, Harpoon, and Charter/
Headboat category vessels. The
reporting system will be an extension of
the web-based landings reporting
system, which must currently be used
by fishermen in the Angling category to
submit mandatory bluefin tuna landings
reports. Although catch card systems
have been shown to provide a more
accurate accounting for landings in
some geographic areas (i.e., Maryland
and North Carolina), they are more
costly to employ and are difficult to
implement in regions with a large
number of private docks. Further, catch
cards may not be as effective in
accounting for discarded fish that are
not landed. The data fields NMFS will
collect through a required form include
information such as, the trip start and
end date, trip departure and end time,
port and state of departure and landing,
fishing technique, bait type, hook type,
approximate time hooked, approximate
fight time, species, fish size, vessel
name, registration number, permit
holder’s name, Atlantic HMS permit
number, type of trip, and tournament
name (if applicable).
21. Expand the Scope of the Large
Pelagics Survey
Comment 95: One commenter
opposed taking no action on the Large
Pelagics Survey (preferred Alternative
D6a), stating that a change is needed
from the status quo.
Response: NMFS analyzed expanding
the Large Pelagics Survey temporally to
include the months of May, November,
and December, and geographically to
include the states south of Virginia, as
a means to collect more data about the
recreational bluefin tuna fishery, and
further refine recreational bluefin tuna
landings estimates. Although the
expansion of the survey would likely
provide some landings estimates in time
periods and geographic regions that are
currently not covered by the survey, the
likelihood of the survey intercepting
activity in what is considered to be a
‘‘rare event’’ fishery at the edges of its
geographic and temporal range is low,
and the resultant catch estimates would
likely be imprecise. NMFS estimated the
economic cost of these data is
approximately $165,000 per year. Thus,
the benefits of the data may not
outweigh the cost. The NMFS Office of
Science and Technology may consider
future studies to enhance recreational
bluefin tuna landings estimates under
the Marine Recreational Information
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71552
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Program (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
recreational-fisheries/index).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
22. Deployment of Observers
Comment 96: Several commenters
supported the expansion of observer
coverage for the Longline category,
suggesting increases in coverage up to
100%. Another commenter suggested
implementing industry-funded observer
coverage. A commenter thought that
NMFS should use observer data to
monitor Longline category catch limits.
Another commenter was concerned that
observers might not be available to
cover pelagic longline vessel trips into
closed areas.
Response: This Amendment 7 final
rule makes no changes to current
observer coverage requirements for
commercial Atlantic tunas vessels.
Catch data collected by observers is
considered to be highly accurate and
current levels of observer coverage are
adequate to produce statistically sound
estimates of bluefin catches, but the
high cost of observer coverage can be
prohibitive (see response to comment
93). Thus, NMFS is not implementing a
requirement for industry to fund
observers or requiring an increase in
observer coverage at this time or
exploring further the possibility of
industry-funded observers. Under
Amendment 7 measures, NMFS is
requiring Longline category vessels to
use electronic monitoring systems (i.e.,
video cameras and gear sensors) that
will provide data to corroborate logbook
reports and serve as a source of high
quality data for use in monitoring
Longline category catch. Amendment 7
does not include a measure that will
allow access to previously closed areas,
or require observer coverage for access
to the Cape Hatteras GRA at this time.
23. General Category Subquota
Management
Comment 97: NMFS received a
variety of comments on the proposed
measure to allow transfer of General
category quota from one or more the
time periods that follow the January
time-period to the January or other
preceding sub-quota time periods. The
comments included that NMFS should
allow more flexibility in the General
category; NMFS should provide more
quota to the January subquota period;
NMFS should provide half the subquota
to the first half of the year and half the
subquota to the second half of the year;
NMFS should give a share of the
subquota to North Carolina to fish from
January to June, as the current 5.5
percent of quota in January to June is
caught in less than 14 days. The North
Carolina Department of Environment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
and Natural Resources commented that
NMFS should shift subquota for
December to the January subquota
period.
Response: Under the quota
regulations, the General category quota
is divided into subquotas for each time
period versus specific geographic areas.
Under the measures implemented by
this final rule, NMFS can transfer quota
from one subquota period to another,
earlier in the calendar year. For
example, subquota could be transferred
from the December subquota to the
January subquota for that same calendar
year. Although NMFS could transfer
quota from one subquota period to any
other subquota period, based on public
comment NMFS will prioritize transfer
from the winter fishery that occurs in
December to the winter fishery that
occurs in January within a fishing year
(e.g., prioritize transfer of quota from
December in Year A to January of Year
A).
Comment 98: NMFS received a
comment that NMFS should consider
the fact that transfers will have the
effect of moving quota from the
traditional Northeast fishery to the midAtlantic and South; Alternative E1c will
negatively impact Northeast fishermen.
One commenter stated that NMFS
should take no action on General
category subquotas (Alternative E1a).
Another commenter stated that NMFS
should establish 12 equal monthly
subquotas (Alternative E1b).
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
concerns that quota distribution may
impact historical geographic
distribution and considered these
factors in selecting which alternative to
finalize. Note that current regulations do
not preclude General category and HMS
Charter/Headboat category vessels from
traveling from one area to another. In
fact, many vessels travel from the
northeast and mid-Atlantic states to
participate in the winter fishery that
occurs largely off North Carolina. NMFS
will continue to consider the regulatory
determination criteria regarding
inseason quota transfers in an attempt to
balance reasonable opportunity to
harvest quota with other considerations,
including variations in bluefin
distribution and availability, among
others. The measure implemented by
Amendment 7 will provide additional
fishing opportunities within the General
category quota while acknowledging the
traditional fishery. Prioritizing transfer
from one winter fishery subquota to
another will minimize negative impacts
of transferring quota that is traditionally
used by Northeast fishermen in the
summer and fall months. Division of the
quota equally by month was not
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
preferred because the potential negative
social and economic impacts outweigh
the positive impacts. The negative
aspects of this alternative include the
potential for gear conflicts and derby
fishing, as well as the potential for the
historical geographic distribution of the
fishery to be dramatically altered.
Although this alternative would provide
some stability to the fishery by
establishing a known amount of quota
that would be available at the first of
each month, if catch rates are high in
the early portion of the month, these
quotas could be harvested rapidly and
may lead to derby style fisheries on the
first of each month. Additionally, if
catch rates are high and subquotas are
reached quickly, NMFS may need to
institute multiple closures notices
throughout the year.
24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit
Comment 99: NMFS received a
comment supporting increased
flexibility for the Harpoon category.
Response: In 2011, NMFS increased
the incidental retention limit of large
medium bluefin after considering
requests from Harpoon category
participants to eliminate certain
regulations perceived as unnecessarily
restrictive (76 FR 74003, November 30,
2011). Since then, NMFS has received
requests from Harpoon category
participants to instead manage the large
medium size class retention limit over
a range, similar to how NMFS manages
the daily General category retention
limit, for increased flexibility in setting
the limit based on consideration of
applicable factors (i.e., the regulatory
determination criteria applicable to
retention limit adjustments). Under the
Amendment 7 measure implemented by
this final rule, NMFS will have the
ability to increase or decrease the daily
retention limit of large medium bluefin
within a range of two to four fish, based
on the former and current daily
retention limits. This measure enhances
NMFS’ ability to more precisely manage
the landing rate of large medium bluefin
by the Harpoon category, thereby
optimizing opportunities while
preventing landings from exceeding the
subquota.
25. Angling Category Trophy Sub-Quota
Comment 100: NMFS received
comments on allocating a portion of the
trophy south subquota to the Gulf of
Mexico (preferred Alternative E3b),
including that NMFS should not reduce
the trophy south subquota; the
reduction would negatively affect
charter captains in the mid-Atlantic and
South Atlantic areas; and that the
change in allocation would increase
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf
of Mexico. Other commenters stated that
NMFS should change the division of
subquota, but not split the subquota
equally between the southern area and
the Gulf of Mexico; and that NMFS
should allocate 10% or 17% of the
trophy south subquota to the Gulf of
Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council commented that
NMFS should take no action on this
issue (Alternative E3a) and that
Alternative E3b would lead to an
unreasonably small recreational bluefin
trophy quota for the northern region.
Response: Under the Amendment 7
measure implemented by this final rule,
the trophy subquota will be divided to
provide 33% each to the northern area,
the southern area outside the Gulf of
Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. The
objective of this measure is to provide
a reasonable fishing opportunity for
recreational vessels in the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico, reduce discards, and
account for incidentally caught bluefin.
A separate subquota allocation for the
Gulf of Mexico will improve the equity
of the trophy-sized fish allocation by
increasing the likelihood that there will
be trophy quota available to account for
incidental catch of bluefin in that area
(while still providing incentives not to
target bluefin). An equal 33% division
among the three areas provides the most
equitable trophy subquota allocation.
This measure will not affect the amount
of Trophy subquota available to the
northern area.
Comment 101: One commenter stated
that NMFS should eliminate the trophy
category because it is not possible to
monitor the catch.
Response: Currently, NMFS monitors
trophy bluefin along with all other sizes
of recreationally-caught bluefin through
the Large Pelagics Survey, the
Automated Catch Reporting System, and
state catch card programs (for landings
in Maryland and North Carolina). NMFS
considers the combined methods of
monitoring trophy bluefin catch to be
adequate such that closure of the trophy
bluefin fishery is not warranted at this
time.
26. Purse Seine Category Start Date
Comment 102: NMFS received
comments on changing the start date of
the Purse Seine category to June 1
(preferred Alternative E4b), including
that NMFS should change the Purse
Seine category start date to June 1 as
fish have tended to be available on the
fishing grounds earlier than July 15 in
recent years; NMFS should give the
Purse Seine category the same start date
as other commercial categories; and
NMFS should give the Purse Seine
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
category a start date of June 15 if there
is a need to compromise with other
categories. Subsequent to the date the
FEIS was published NMFS received
many comments expressing concerns
regarding the proposed June 1 start date.
Specifically, commenters feared that the
June 1 start date would flood the June
and early July market for bluefin,
depress the price, and cause a severe
social and economic impact to small
boat handgear fishermen. Other
concerns were the increased potential
for gear conflicts, and a concern that
fish behavior would change and the fish
may be dispersed by relatively early
Purse Seine fishing activity .
Response: We had proposed changing
the default start date of the Purse Seine
category fishery from July 15 to June 1,
with the ability to delay the season start
date from June 1 to no later than August
15, to help optimize fishing opportunity
for Purse Seine category vessels, given
the other measures affecting the Purse
Seine category implemented by this
Amendment 7 final rule. Based on
public comments, however, in the final
rule NMFS is removing the default start
date of the Purse Seine fishery, and
instead will establish by action (via
Federal Register notice) the start date of
the fishery, during a range from June 1
through July 15.
Comment 103: One commenter stated
that NMFS should not change the start
date because the average value of
bluefin is lower in June.
Response: NMFS has received
comments over recent years from
commercial bluefin fishery participants
and dealers that fish quality tends to be
lower earlier in the year, with lower
associated price per pound. However,
providing purse seine operators the
ability to start fishing on June 1
provides additional flexibility for
deciding when to make sets. These
decisions are based largely on the
availability of bluefin and the size
composition of schools. To the extent
that this flexibility could allow the
harvest of the Purse Seine category
quota while minimizing dead discards,
the management measure meets the
Amendment 7 objectives.
27. Permit Category Changes
Comment 104: One commenter did
not support modifying the rules
regarding permit category changes
(preferred Alternative E5b), stating that
the 10-day restriction is sufficient and
changing the restriction would give
people the chance to abuse the rules and
fish in multiple categories.
Response: Based on feedback NMFS
has received over a number of years
from vessel owners affected by the 10-
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71553
day restriction, NMFS believes that
limiting the time period during which a
vessel may change permit categories to
10 calendar days is overly restrictive,
and may not allow the flexibility to
resolve the problems of a permit issued
by mistake. This measure, which will
allow permit category changes within 45
days of permit issuance, provided the
vessel has not fished (as verified via
landings data), will achieve a better
balance of allowing flexibility for vessel
owners, while still preventing fishing in
more than one permit category during a
fishing year.
28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna
Quota
Comment 105: NMFS received a
comment on implementing a U.S. North
Atlantic albacore tuna quota (preferred
Alternative E6b), stating that NMFS
should be cautious with carrying
forward multiple years of underharvest
given the status of the northern albacore
stock.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
concern about carrying forward large
amounts of unused quota (often referred
to as ‘‘stockpiling’’). The ICCAT
Contracting Parties have discussed that
issue in recent years, particularly
regarding the potentially large adjusted
quotas for the major harvesters of
northern albacore (specifically the
European Union, with 77 percent of the
northern albacore quota). The current
ICCAT northern albacore
recommendation (Recommendation 13–
05; Supplemental Recommendation by
ICCAT Concerning the North Atlantic
Albacore Rebuilding Program) allows
for 25% of a country’s quota to be
carried forward, if unused, and to be
used within the two years following the
subject year of catch. Because the U.S.
quota represents less than 2 percent of
the northern albacore TAC, and the
most the adjusted quota could be under
the current recommendation is 658.75
mt (125% of the 527-mt quota), there is
little risk of stock harm. Regarding stock
status, based on the 2013 northern
albacore stock assessment and the
domestic thresholds for minimum stock
size (i.e., the MSST) and maximum
fishing mortality (i.e., the MFMT), the
stock is not overfished (i.e., rebuilding),
with overfishing not occurring. Carryforward of unused quota would be
limited to 25 percent of the initial quota,
consistent with the current ICCAT
recommendation.
29. Other Concerns
Comment 106: Commenters expressed
concerns and made suggestions about a
variety of topics related to the
management of bluefin tuna or
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71554
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
associated HMS fisheries, but not
specific to one of the proposed
management measures or alternatives
analyzed. The underlying science was a
concern, and commenters suggested that
NMFS should reevaluate the methods
and timing of stock assessments; should
revise the method of dead discard
estimates; should increase overall
research; and should increase
communication between scientists and
managers. Other commenters
questioned why some permit categories
are open access and some are limited
access; suggested that NMFS open the
Florida East Closure or the DeSoto
Canyon Closure; should modify the
weak hook regulations; suggested that
NMFS ban longlines; NMFS only cares
about the commercial interests; the
management of bluefin is unfair because
the U.S. regulations are more restrictive
than in other countries; and, observers
should be required in all commercial
categories. Commenters stated that
greenstick gear and rod and reel cannot
replace pelagic longline in regard to the
amount of fish landed by the gears;
expressed concern that pelagic longline
vessels in the Gulf of Mexico are
generally too large to effectively fish
with greenstick gear; concern was
expressed that tuna landed with
greenstick gear are low in quality, bring
a lower price than longline-caught tuna;
and that greenstick-caught tuna are not
as acceptable in domestic or
international markets. Commenters
stated that other fishing practices
should be used to reduce discards of
fish including the use of shorter
longlines, thinner monofilament on
mainlines or gangions, increased
floatation on mainlines, using mackerel
for bait, and/or reducing soak time. A
commentor stated that dehooking
devices should be used to promote postrelease survival of organisms.
Response: Although the comments are
directly or indirectly related to the
management of bluefin tuna,
Amendment 7 considered (i.e., analyzed
and proposed) a discrete range of
management measures. In adopting any
final measures, NMFS is restricted in
scope to management measures closely
related to those proposed, and within
the range of impacts analyzed in the
DEIS. Therefore, many of the
management measures or ideas
suggested by the public, regardless of
potential merits, were not included in
the FEIS (for analysis and
consideration), but would have to be
considered in the context of a future
management action. In addition to the
formal regulatory process of proposed
and final rulemaking, NMFS considers
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
issues, discusses management ideas,
and obtains public input in the context
of the HMS Advisory Panel, which
typically convenes twice a year at
meetings that are open to the public.
Possession and use of dehooking
devices are currently required onboard
pelagic longline vessels.
Comment 107: Commenters requested
that NMFS modify the Purse Seine
landings tolerance regulations that
restrict the amount of large medium
bluefin tuna relative to the amount of
giant bluefin that can be landed.
Specifically, they recommended that the
tolerance be increased or eliminated in
order to reduce dead discards. The
current tolerance is no more than 15
percent of the total amount of giant
bluefin (81 inches or greater) per year,
by weight. However, as the total number
of future trips, and catch, is unknown,
the vessel owner/operators have been
self-imposing this regulation on a trip
level basis to ensure compliance at the
end of the year.
Response: Although there has been
past interest in altering this limit, the
issue was raised in the comments on the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP—this
alternative was not considered further
in the DEIS because there was very little
data available to determine whether
such as change might be warranted and
the impacts of such a change given
recent low catch/landings from the
Purse Seine category. Data are now
available on dead discards by size
relative to retained catch for the Purse
Seine category from the 2013 fishing
year. NMFS believes that additional
analysis about the potential benefits of
altering the limit, both by reducing dead
discards and improving the Purse Seine
category’s opportunity to harvest its
quota, is warranted and beneficial to the
stock and the fishery. Additional data
are needed to conduct such analyses
and to make fishery management
decisions. NMFS may take future action
in a subsequent rulemaking, if
warranted, but such changes are not
supportable at this time in this
Amendment.
Changes From the Proposed Rule (78
FR 52032; August 21, 2013)
This section explains the changes in
the regulatory text from the proposed
rule to the final rule. Some changes
were made in response to public
comment, others clarify text for the final
rule, and others provide more detail or
specifications about the administration
of the measures as proposed. The
changes from the proposed rule text in
the final rule are as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
IBQ Shares and Allocation
Administration of the IBQ Program
Program Requirements and Scope
(635.15): The IBQ allocation shares in
the proposed rule were based on
eligibility criteria and a quota share
formula based on the time period from
2006 through 2011. The final rule
includes an additional year of data
(2012) that became available after
publication of the proposed rule. NMFS
stated in the DEIS that analyses would
be updated where 2012 data became
available for the FEIS, and public
comment on the DEIS also reflected the
need to update these analyses. The
range of seven years provides a
reasonable representation of historical
fishing activity, including recent years.
Seven years is long enough to prevent
short-term circumstances from
disproportionately impacting a vessel,
but recent enough to reflect current
fishery participation. By including 2012
data, nine more vessels meet the criteria
to be deemed ‘‘active’’ for the purposes
of IBQ eligibility.
The final rule also clarifies that there
are two aspects to how the pool of
eligible vessels is determined: A vessel
must meet the definition of ‘‘active,’’
and also must have been issued a valid
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
as of August 21, 2013 (the date of the
proposed rule). ‘‘Active’’ vessels are
those vessels that made at least one set
using pelagic longline gear from 2006
through 2012 based on pelagic longline
logbook data. At the DEIS stage, this
criterion was based on logbook data for
2006–2011. Logbook data for 2012 data
became available after publication of the
DEIS, however. NMFS stated in the
DEIS that analyses would be updated
where 2012 data became available for
the FEIS, and public comment on the
DEIS also reflected the need to update
these analyses. Thus, the final action
uses 2006 to 2012 data. In addition to
being ‘‘active,’’ vessels must have a
valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit. NMFS clarifies here that, for
purposes of IBQ share eligibility, a
‘‘valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit’’ is one held as of the date the
proposed rule was published, which
was August 21, 2013.
In response to public comment that
NMFS should provide additional
administrative details about the appeals
process, the final rule includes an initial
administrative step regarding the
appeals of initial quota shares, and
specifies the documentation that may be
used to appeal. In the proposed rule
appeals were to be made directly to the
NMFS National Appeal Office. The final
rule includes a provision that vessel
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
owners may first submit a written
request for review of initial IBQ shares
to the HMS Management Division
within 90 days of publication of this
final rule. The written request to adjust
their initial quota share, must indicate
the reason for the requested change and
provide supporting documentation (see
below). HMS Management Division staff
will evaluate all requests and
accompanying documentation, then
notify the requestor by letter signed by
the HMS Division Chief, of NMFS’
decision to approve or deny the request
for adjustment. If the request is
approved, NMFS will issue the
appropriate adjustment to the initial
quota share and resultant allocation by
letter, identifying any alteration to the
quota share percentage and associated
allocation. If the HMS Management
Division denies the request, the permit
holder may appeal that decision within
90 days of receipt of the notice of denial
by submitting a written petition of
appeal to the NMFS National Appeals
Office in accordance with regulations at
15 CFR part 906. This final rule
specifies what will be considered
‘‘documented legal landings’’ in support
of an appeal of a quota share
determination because public comment
indicated that additional guidance on
this issue was necessary. Specifically,
for the purposes of appeals, NMFS
considers ‘‘documented legal landings,’’
to be official NMFS logbook records or
weighout slips for landings between
January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2012, that were submitted to NMFS
prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the
cutoff date for eligible landings), and
verifiable sales slips, receipts from
registered dealers, state landings
records, and permit records. Landings
data are required to be submitted within
7 days of landing under the applicable
regulations. Recognizing that somewhatlate reporting could have occurred for a
variety of reasons, however, NMFS is
clarifying that it will consider
‘‘documented’’ landings for appeals
purposes to be those reported within 60
days to include those that were slightly
late.
This final rule includes a provision
that when NMFS determines that all
requests for IBQ share adjustments and
appeals have been resolved, NMFS may
adjust all IBQ share percentages to
accommodate permitted holders that
have been deemed eligible or provided
an increased IBQ quota share through
the appeals process. NMFS will notify
IBQ participants in writing with any
resulting changes in their IBQ quota
shares stemming from approved
appeals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
This rule provides additional details
about and clarifies requirements
regarding the IBQ System used to track
IBQ shares and resultant allocation,
usage and balances of IBQ allocation,
and conduct leasing of IBQ allocation.
The proposed rule stated that NMFS
would implement an Internet based
system to track leases of IBQ allocation,
but did not specifically note that the
IBQ system would also be used to track
IBQ shares, or provide details regarding
the associated requirements for IBQ
Program participants to create an
account. Therefore, the following
administrative details are being added:
Eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit holders must have an
IBQ System accounts in order to be
issued IBQ shares and resultant
allocation or lease IBQ. NMFS will set
up these accounts for initial IBQ System
accounts for eligible IBQ participants.
Similarly, a permitted dealer purchasing
bluefin tuna caught from a vessel fishing
with pelagic longline gear must also
have an IBQ System account and access
the system online to provide landings
data at the end of pelagic longline trips
where bluefin were purchased or
received (i.e., data on the amount of
bluefin landings and dead discards).
NMFS will also set up accounts for
those dealers who have historically
purchased bluefin from pelagic longline
vessels.
This final rule provides additional
details for two aspects of IBQ
accounting as follows: If an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit holder
participating in the IBQ Program has a
quota debt that remains unresolved at
the time of such permits sale or transfer,
then that quota debt remains associated
with that permit. This is consistent with
the IBQ share remaining linked to the
eligible permit itself and further refines
how IBQ shares, resultant allocation,
and quota debt will be managed to
ensure accountability under the IBQ
Program, even if permits are sold or
transferred. Secondly, for those permit
holders who own or operate multiple
vessels with IBQ allocation, if, at the
end of the year, one or more of the
vessels has an outstanding quota debt,
yet the other vessels still have IBQ
allocation, the IBQ system will apply
any remaining unused regional IBQ
allocation associated with the other
vessels to account for the quota debt of
the other. This functionality has been
added since the proposed rule because
unused IBQ allocation does not carry
over from one year to the next, but quota
debt does. This functionality facilitates
the resolution of quota debt, and
reduces the possibility that a permit
holder of multiple vessels may
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71555
inadvertently fail to manually resolve an
existing quota debt with IBQ allocation
associated with one of their other
vessels at the end of the year.
To ensure that all IBQ Program
activity can be accounted for on an
annual basis, the IBQ System will
prohibit any and all online transactions,
such as catch transactions and IBQ
allocation leases, between December 31
at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m.
(Eastern Time). IBQ System functions
will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the
following year. No IBQ System
transactions will be allowed or available
during this 20 hour time period to
provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ
accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the
upcoming year, etc. If a vessel with the
required minimal IBQ allocation departs
on a trip prior to the end of a calendar
year and returns to port after the start of
the following year, any bluefin landings
or dead discards will be counted against
the new year’s allocation.
This final rule provides additional
administrative detail and guidance
about aspects of the annual process IBQ
allocation. Annual IBQ allocations to
eligible permit holders will occur
January 1. For those permit holders
awarded IBQ shares but are not eligible
to receive the resultant IBQ allocation as
of December 31 because they have
begun—but not completed—the process
of permit renewal or permit transfer,
IBQ allocations will be made when the
transaction regarding permit renewal
and/or transfer has been completed.
Subsequent to the annual IBQ
allocation, additional IBQ allocation
may be made available to eligible permit
holders as a result of a U.S. quota
increase or potential in-season quota
transfer from the Reserve category,
pursuant to determination criteria
associated with quota adjustments.
Subsequent to the annual IBQ
allocation, IBQ allocation may be
reduced as a result of a decrease in the
U.S. bluefin quota, or to account for
accrued quota debt.
Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area
This final rule modifies the definition
of the Gulf of Mexico GRA at § 635.2
from the definition in the proposed rule.
NMFS proposed a Gulf of Mexico GRA
for the months of April and May, during
which time vessels would be prohibited
from fishing with pelagic longline gear
in the defined area. Based on public
comment, NMFS re-analyzed additional
spatial and temporal configurations of
GRAs in the Gulf of Mexico, and instead
is implementing a GRA during the same
months (April and May), but of a
different configuration than proposed.
However, the GRA remains within the
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71556
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
range of areas considered and analyzed
in the FEIS and the range of alternatives.
The total area of the Spring Gulf of
Mexico GRAs being implemented is
larger than that of the proposed Small
Gulf of Mexico GRA. This final rule
implements a GRA comprised of two
separate areas: An area based on that
proposed, but extended to the east, and
reduced in size on the western and
northern borders, and a second area that
is adjacent to the southern border of the
Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s
northwestern ‘block.’ A larger
geographic area in the Gulf of Mexico
that includes areas to the east of what
was proposed is required to effectively
reduce bluefin interactions, given the
location of historic interactions between
bluefin and pelagic longline gear, and
the high variability of bluefin
distribution in the Gulf of Mexico.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area
Under § 635.2, the definition of the
Cape Hatteras GRA was modified.
NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA
for the months of December through
April during which time vessels would
be prohibited from fishing with pelagic
longline gear in the defined area, with
the exception of vessels granted access
based upon performance criteria. Based
on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed
spatial and temporal configurations of
the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead is
implementing a modified GRA during
the same months (December through
April), but of a slightly different
configuration than proposed. The total
area of the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA
being implemented is smaller than that
of the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, due
to the modification of the southeastern
region of the GRA. Specifically, the
southeastern corner as proposed was a
ninety degree angle, but this final rule
connects the southwestern corner to a
more northerly point on the eastern
boundary of the Cape Hatteras GRA,
eliminating a triangular shaped area
from the southeast region of the GRA.
The shape of the Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA as implemented will
minimize the likelihood that pelagic
longline gear set south of the GRA will
drift into the GRA (based upon the
prevailing direction of currents).
Allow Pelagic Longline Vessels To Fish
Under General Category Rules
Under § 635.21, paragraph (c)(3) was
modified, however this measure is not
being implemented by this final rule. In
the proposed rule, NMFS proposed
allowing pelagic longline vessels that
are not allowed to fish in the Cape
Hatteras GRA (based on the performance
criteria) to instead fish for bluefin tuna
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
under General category rule (in the time
period and area associated with the
GRA). Based upon public comment and
further consideration, this alternative is
not being implemented as part of the
Amendment 7 final rule due to concerns
about ecological impacts, and uncertain
economic benefits. Other commenters
were concerned about the expansion of
a targeted bluefin fishery in the Cape
Hatteras GRA, an area that already has
large numbers of interactions with
bluefin. Some noted concern about the
potential impacts on the rate of harvest
of the General category quota, which is
limited, and the indirect impacts on
General category vessels. Others noted
that the replacement of pelagic longline
gear with handgear (targeting bluefin) is
not economically viable due to the size
of the pelagic longline vessels and the
associated trip expenses. Based on these
public comments, NMFS determined
that the potential benefits of allowing
pelagic longline vessels, which are part
of a limited access fishery, to fish under
the open-access General category rules
do not outweigh the potential costs and
risks associated with this activity at this
time.
Limited Conditional Access to Pelagic
Longline Closed Areas
Section § 635.21 and paragraph
§ 635.23(f)(2) were modified because
this measure that would have provided
vessels fishing with pelagic longline
gear some access to the existing pelagic
longline closed areas was not
implemented. This measure was
included in the proposed rule but based
upon additional information, public
comment, and further consideration of
potential administrative costs, NMFS is
not implementing this measure in the
final rule. NMFS may obtain data from
within the closures through the use of
exempted fishing permits. As explained
further in Response to Comment # 65,
the potential benefits of allowing
pelagic longline vessels limited
conditional access to closed areas would
not outweigh the potential costs and
risks associated with this activity. The
objectives of this alternative were to
maintain the relevant conservation
aspects of the closure, balance the
objectives of the closures, provide
commercial data from within the
closures, and provide additional fishing
opportunities for permitted longline
vessels (mitigating the potential
negative economic impacts of
Amendment 7).
Vessel Monitoring System
Paragraphs § 635.69(a) and
§ 635.69(e)(4) were modified from the
proposed rule. The proposed rule
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
included measures requiring the use of
VMS units for Purse Seine vessels, as
well as reporting requirements for the
Purse Seine and Longline category
vessels, but did not provide all the
relevant details. The scope of the
measures in this final rule are within
the scope of the measures proposed.
This final rule clarifies the scope of the
VMS requirements applicable to Purse
Seine category vessels by explaining
that vessels fishing with purse seine
gear are subject to the same
requirements as pelagic longline vessels,
including hardware and
communications specifications,
installation checklists, power down
exemptions, hail in and hail out
requirements, declaration out of the
HMS fishery, interruption in position
reports, repair and replacement
requirements, NMFS access to data, etc.
Secondly, the specific bluefin tuna
reporting requirements in this final rule
differ from the proposed rule. The
proposed rule stated that vessels fishing
with either pelagic longline gear or
purse seine gear would be required to
submit bluefin catch reports for each
day on which gear is set, and that no
report would be required for sets where
there is no catch of bluefin. In contrast,
this final rule requires submission of a
bluefin tuna catch report for each
pelagic longline or purse seine set,
providing information on the date the
haul was completed, the number of
hooks (for pelagic longline gear) and the
number and size range of bluefin caught
(including reporting a catch of zero
bluefin).
Electronic Monitoring
The final rule provides details about
the specific requirements of the
electronic monitoring program that were
not in the proposed rule. Section 635.9
was modified from the proposed rule.
This final rule provides further
clarification of the electronic monitoring
program. In addition to those
requirements in the proposed rule, this
final rule implements the following
requirements: The permit holder must
make the pelagic longline vessel
accessible to NMFS or a NMFSapproved contractor to allow for the
installation and testing of the electronic
monitoring system, which will include
training for the captain and crew, and
may be required to steam to a
designated port for these activities. The
NMFS-approved contractor will provide
the vessel owner a certificate that the
installed equipment is a fully
functioning electronic monitoring
system. The final rule contains more
detailed info on video cameras; GPS
receiver; hydraulic drum rotation
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
sensors; control box and monitor; and
includes some requirements related to
hydraulics, power, camera mounts and
lighting. This final rule notes the
requirement for a written Vessel
Monitoring Plan, to be developed by the
NMFS-approved contractor with the
vessel owner; and includes a pre-trip
electronic monitoring system test
requirement.
Annual Reallocation
Paragraph 635.27(a)(4) was modified
from the proposed rule, based on public
comment. In this final rule, the
allocations for a particular year will be
based on the previous year’s individual
purse seine participant catch rather than
category-wide catch. This modified
measure will tie quota allocation more
closely to individual participant catch
and create an incentive for fishery
participants to remain active in the
fishery. Without this modification to the
alternative, individual allocations
would be tied to the catch of the other
participants in the fishery, which could
have unfair results if catch were to vary
greatly among the participants.
Specifically, pursuant to this final rule,
each Purse Seine fishery participant will
initially be given a fifth of the quota
available to the category for the year
(159.1 mt divided by five participants
equals 31.8 mt per participant under the
current ICCAT quota). Next, NMFS will
determine the annual quota available for
use by each individual tuna Purse Seine
participant that year based on the
previous year’s performance. Each
participant will have available either 25
percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100
percent of its allocation share of the
base Purse Seine quota, depending upon
the level of that participant’s bluefin
catch the previous year.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Provide Additional Flexibility for
General Category Quota-Adjustment
Paragraph 635.27(a)(1)(ii) was
modified to clarify the measure. This
final rule clarifies that, based on public
comments, NMFS will prioritize the
transfer of quota from December subquota time period to the January
subquota time period within a fishing
year in order to address the unique
characteristics of the January sub-quota
period.
Adjustment of Management Measures
Paragraph 635.34 was modified to
clarify as follows: As a result of the
implementation of new management
tools via Amendment 7, the proposed
rule added to the list of management
measures that NMFS may modify or
establish in accordance with the
framework procedures of the FMP. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
final rule adds two items to this list of
management measures and provides
examples of Amendment 7 measures
that are within the scope of management
measures currently listed in the
regulations. The Amendment 7
measures not included in the proposed
rule list are as follows: Electronic
monitoring requirements and examples
of measures under the purview of the
administration of the IBQ Program
(quota share caps by individual or by
category, permanent sale of shares, and
NED IBQ rules).
Classification
The NMFS Assistant Administrator
has determined that this final rule is
consistent with the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
ATCA, and other applicable law.
NMFS prepared an environmental
impact statement that analyzes the
impact on the environment of a range of
alternatives that would achieve the
objectives of Amendment 7, which are
described in the background section of
the preamble for this action. A copy of
the FEIS is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). As further explained in the
Background, in this action, NMFS is
implementing measures to minimize
bycatch to the extent practicable;
optimize fishing opportunity and
account for dead discards; reduce
bluefin tuna dead discards; enhance
reporting; and adjust other aspects of
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as
necessary and appropriate.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866. The Agency has
consulted, to the extent practicable,
with appropriate state and local officials
to address the principles, criteria, and
requirements of Executive Order 13132.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The
FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary
of the significant issues raised by the
public comments in response to the
IRFA, our responses to those comments,
and a summary of the analyses
completed to support the action. The
full FRFA and analysis of economic and
ecological impacts are available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of
the FRFA follows.
The purpose of this final rulemaking,
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and the 2006 Consolidated HMS
FMP and its amendments, is to
implement HMS management measures
that: (1) Optimize the ability for all
permit categories to harvest their full
bluefin quota allocations, account for
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71557
mortality associated with discarded
bluefin in all categories; maintain
flexibility of the regulations to account
for the highly variable nature of the
bluefin fisheries; and maintain fairness
among permit/quota categories; (2)
reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna
and minimize reductions in target catch
in both directed and incidental bluefin
fisheries, to the extent practicable; (3)
improve the scope and quality of catch
data through enhanced reporting and
monitoring to ensure that landings and
dead discards do not exceed the quota
and to improve accounting for all
sources of fishing mortality; and (4)
adjust other aspects of the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary
and appropriate. These objectives are
intended to support the following goals:
Prevent overfishing and rebuild bluefin
tuna, achieve on a continuing basis
optimum yield, and minimize bluefin
bycatch to the extent practicable by
ensuring that domestic bluefin tuna
fisheries continue to operate within the
overall TAC set by ICCAT consistent
with the existing rebuilding plan.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments
Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires
a summary of the significant issues
raised by the public comments in
response to the IRFA, a summary of the
assessment of the Agency of such issues,
and a statement of any changes made in
the rule as a result of such comments.
NMFS received many comments on the
proposed rule and IRFA. Summarized
public comments and the Agency’s
responses to them are included in this
final rule, in the ‘‘Responses to
Comments’’ section of this preamble,
above. The specific economic concerns
raised in the comments are also
summarized and addressed here (the
numbering of the excerpted comments
reflects the numbering in the
‘‘Responses to Comments’’ section,
above).
Comment 2: Many commenters,
particularly those with small businesses
involved in the pelagic longline fishery,
expressed concern regarding the
potential for negative economic impacts
of Amendment 7 on jobs, families, and
communities, and noted the importance
of pelagic longline-caught fish in
supplying high quality seafood to the
nation. These commenters were
concerned about the potential for the
Amendment 7 measures to put people
out of business, and ‘‘destroy the pelagic
longline fishery.’’ Commenters stated
that vessels that are currently only
marginally economically viable would
be at particular risk of going out of
business, but were also concerned about
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71558
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
any secondary impacts on related
businesses such seafood dealers, gear
manufacturers, etc. They urged NMFS to
use a balanced regulatory approach to
address the Amendment 7 objectives,
and stated that Amendment 7 measures
would increase uncertainty in the
pelagic longline fishery.
Response: The seafood supplied to the
Nation by the pelagic longline fleet is
valuable as both a source of food, and
for the generation of income supporting
local jobs, communities, and the broader
economy. NMFS designed management
measures to minimize economic
impacts by relying on the combined
effects of multiple management tools
and incorporating flexibility into the
system. The preferred measures will
affect all permit/quota categories, and
reflect the balance of addressing the
issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock
and management of the fishery while
maintaining the viability of the pelagic
longline and other fisheries dependent
upon bluefin tuna. For example,
reductions in dead discards would be
achieved through the use of multiple
measures, including gear restricted
areas, the IBQ system, and quota
allocation measures. The preferred
measures would modify the quota
system to increase management
flexibility in order to allocate quota
among categories to maximize
opportunities to catch available quota,
account for dead discards, and respond
to changing conditions in the fishery. As
the pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to
the suite of new measures, NMFS would
have the flexibility to allocate a limited
amount of additional quota to the
pelagic longline vessels if necessary to
prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a
result of the gear restricted areas and
IBQ system, reduce the net amount of
bluefin catch from the levels recently
caught. The management measures work
together to reduce dead discards and
otherwise reduce bycatch to the extent
practicable, increase accountability,
enhance reporting and monitoring, and
optimize quota allocation, in a
predictable but flexible manner. The
potential economic impacts of the
measures affecting the pelagic longline
fleet are analyzed in Chapters 5 and 7,
of the FEIS, and the economic rationale
is summarized in this FRFA.
Comment 3: Commenters stated that
when determining whether the pelagic
longline fleet should be subject to
additional restrictions, NMFS should
consider the current and past regulatory
environment and other factors as
context. Commenters stated the pelagic
longline fishery is already heavily
regulated to minimize its environmental
impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
closures, weak hook requirement,
observer deployment, bait
requirements), and that progress is being
made. Furthermore, increases in fuel
costs strain fishers’ ability to make a
living, and events such as the 2010 oil
spill in the GOM continue to be
relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin
tuna is managed at the international
level and believe that the United States
manages its citizens in a more effective
and responsible way than other
countries, and that NMFS should not
further regulate bluefin tuna and
increase the management disparity
between the United States and other
countries.
Response: The context in which
vessels operate, including current
regulations was a relevant factor NMFS
considered in determining whether new
regulations are justified. NMFS took
into consideration many factors in
selecting preferred measures that
address the diverse objectives of
Amendment 7 in a balanced manner.
Chapter 6 of the FEIS contains a
cumulative impacts analysis which is
broad in scope and takes into
consideration past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable factors. In
addition, Chapter 2 of the FEIS contains
a description of measures and the
rationale for the preferred measures.
This FRFA includes a description of the
steps taken to minimize the economic
impacts on small entities, and the
reasons for the preferred measures.
The United States manages its
exclusive economic zone in accordance
with applicable U.S. laws and in
response to the unique characteristics of
its fisheries, and therefore the U.S.
regulations regarding bluefin tuna are
different from the rules affecting
citizens of other countries, which
operate under different laws and
circumstances. Where U.S. regulations
are more restrictive than those abroad,
NMFS believes that the corresponding
ecological and socio-economic benefits
that result from such restrictions are
also likely to be greater than those
abroad.
Comment 12: Many commenters
strongly opposed reallocating quota to
the Longline category because of
concerns about the economic impacts
on a particular geographic region (e.g.,
New England or mid-Atlantic), or quota
category (e.g., the General category or
the Angling category). Some
commenters urged NMFS to respect the
historical allocation percentages, and
noted that reallocation would have the
effect of pitting the different categories
against each other. Some commenters
suggested that NMFS consider other
regulatory and economic circumstances
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
facing vessels that may be impacted by
a reduced quota. For example,
Congressional representatives from
Massachusetts and the New England
Fishery Management Council (Council)
stated that the proposed reallocation
would disadvantage the New England
Fishery, the traditional Massachusetts
fleet, and shore-side infrastructure, and
would allow fleets from other regions to
use a disproportionate amount of quota.
They were concerned about the
commercial fleet, which is experiencing
economic damage due to the decline in
key stocks in the groundfish fishery.
The Council suggested that NMFS
assess the port-specific impacts of
reallocation. A commenter was
concerned that recreational vessels in
the mid-Atlantic region would be
disproportionately affected by quota
reallocation because the quota may not
last until the time the bluefin are off the
mid-Atlantic coast.
Response: A reduction in quota may
impact the revenue associated with a
particular quota category or geographic
region, or result in secondary economic
impacts on a community. The FEIS
analysis estimates that reallocation of
quota to the Longline category could
reduce revenue for individual vessels
with a General category permit by $850
and result in total reduction in
maximum revenue of $542,000 for all
General category vessels. Although
thirty percent of the General category
permits are associated with the State of
Massachusetts (1,150 permits as of
October 2013), the total number of
active vessels is substantially lower. Of
the total number of General category
permits issued throughout the Atlantic
coast (3,783), the average number of
General category vessels landing at least
one bluefin between 2006 and 2012 was
474 vessels. Thus, the number of active
vessels in Massachusetts can be
presumed to be substantially fewer than
1,150.
When considering the social and
economic impacts of actions, different
communities and regions may be
impacted to different degrees due to
their unique regulatory and economic
circumstances. The FEIS contains an
analysis of the community impacts from
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil
Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents
social indicators of vulnerability and
resistance for 25 communities selected
for having a greater than average
number of HMS permits associated with
them. Those communities with
relatively higher dependence upon
commercial fishing included Dulac, LA;
Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; Gloucester,
MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC;
Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, NJ; Cape May,
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are
principally at a fishery-wide, or permit
category level. The bluefin tuna
fisheries (and other HMS fisheries) are
widely distributed and highly variable
due to the diversity of participants
(location, gear types, commercial,
recreational), and because bluefin tuna
are highly migratory over thousands of
miles, with an annual distribution that
is highly variable. The specific ports
and communities that provide the goods
and services to support the fishery may
vary as well, as vessels travel over large
distances to pursue their target species.
Due to this variability, it is difficult to
predict potential revenue and secondary
impacts of preferred management
measures by port or by state. Vessels
fishing in any geographic area in the
Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are likely to
have only limited access to bluefin tuna,
unless they travel long distances within
the bluefin’s migratory range.
It is important to note that the actual
economic impacts of reallocation of
quota depend upon the total amount of
quota allocated to (and harvested from)
each of the quota categories, as a result
of the combined effect of all of the
measures that affect quota. For example,
in addition to the amount of quota
available as a result of the percentage
allocations, and deductions for the 68
mt Annual Reallocation, there may be
quota available for redistribution to
various quota categories. Specifically,
pursuant to the preferred ‘‘Annual
Reallocation’’ measure, as described in
Chapter 2 of the FEIS, if the Purse Seine
category has not caught 70 percent of its
quota during the previous year, quota
may be moved to the Reserve category
and subsequently reallocated across
multiple user groups. Furthermore, in
recent years, many categories have not
fully harvested their amount of quota
available to them. Thus, the actual
impacts of reallocation may be minor or
may be mitigated by future reallocation
when available.
Reallocation of quota may result in
frustration or negative attitudes among
fishery participants of different quota
categories, due to the changes to an
historically accepted quota allocation
system, or perceptions of unfairness.
However, the modifications to the quota
system are warranted for the reasons
described in the response to comments
8 through 1. They are also fair due to the
fact that all quota categories are affected
in proportion to their quota percentage.
As explained in the response to
Comment# 9 above, NMFS designed the
quota allocation alternatives to
minimize the economic impacts on the
non-longline categories. The alternatives
take into consideration the relative size
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
of each category quota (in the case of the
‘‘Codified Reallocation Alternative,’’ or
the level of activity of vessels (‘‘Annual
Reallocation Alternative’’), and are
designed to consider changing levels of
quota or landings, respectively, in ways
that reduce economic impacts.
Comment 13: Many recreational
anglers wanted to insulate the Angling
category from any potential effect of
quota reallocation to the Longline
category, citing the economic impacts
and high value of the recreational
bluefin fishery to the economy, as well
as the economic investments of the
participants and the current regulatory
burden such vessels face. Vessel owners
with General category commercial
permits expressed concern about the
potential impacts to the General
category. Commenters requested
additional quantitative analyses
comparing the different quota
categories, including primary and
secondary impacts.
Response: As stated above in the
response to the previous comment, a
reduction in quota may impact the
revenue associated with a particular
quota category or result in secondary
economic impacts on a community. The
objective of the preferred allocation
measures is not to reallocate quota
based on economic optimization, but to:
account for bluefin dead discards within
the Longline category; reduce
uncertainty in annual quota allocation
and accounting; optimize fishing
opportunity by increasing flexibility in
the current bluefin quota allocation
system; and ensure that the various
quota categories are regulated fairly in
relative to one another.
The reallocation measures
implemented by this final rule will
minimize adverse economic impacts to
the extent practicable because the
relative amount of quota reallocated is
small and proportional to the size of the
category quota, and the overall quota
system will be more flexible and
predictable and able to offset some or all
of the negative economic impacts. This
approach was developed consistent
with our obligation under National
Standard 6 (Conservation and
management measures shall take into
account and allow for variations among,
and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery
resources, and catches) and National
Standard 8 (Conservation and
management measures shall, consistent
with the conservation requirements of
this chapter (including the prevention of
overfishing and rebuilding of overfished
stocks), take into account the
importance of fishery resources to
fishing communities by utilizing
economic and social data that meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71559
requirements of paragraph (2), in order
to (A) provide for the sustained
participation of such communities, and
(B) to the extent practicable, minimize
adverse economic impacts on such
communities.)
Although the FEIS includes estimates
of the value of bluefin tuna quota by
quota category for comparative
purposes, the preferred codified
reallocation was not based on a specific
economic analysis, but the achievement
of the stated objectives. An elaborate
quantitative analysis that compares the
economic value of the Angling,
Longline, and General category fisheries
was not conducted due to the different
characteristics of the Angling, Longline
and General category fisheries, the
variable amount of data associated with
these fisheries, and the large number of
factors and assumptions that contribute
to estimating the value of a fishery. For
example, under the preferred IBQ
system, the availability of bluefin tuna
quota may be a limiting factor for a
pelagic longline vessel, and therefore
the lack of adequate bluefin quota, by
even a small amount, could result in a
vessel being prohibited from fishing
with pelagic longline gear. In that
circumstance, the value of the bluefin
quota to the vessel owner may be very
high, and related to the value of the
target catch (e.g., swordfish or yellowfin
tuna). On the other hand, the value of
a bluefin tuna to a recreational angler or
to the recreational fishery at-large may
include the value of the recreational
experience to the angler, as well as the
associated goods and service supporting
the fishing trip. The FEIS indicates that
the Angling category would potentially
face unquantified reductions in
economic and social activity associated
with the 7.36 percent reduction in
available quota. In contrast, for a vessel
fishing commercially in the General
category, a high quality bluefin tuna
sold to Japan may be extremely valuable
and other catchfar less important.
Comment 20: NMFS should avoid
closures to the pelagic longline fishery.
Any closure would disrupt markets.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
GRAs designed to reduce bluefin tuna
interactions and regulatory discards and
to thus decrease bycatch have costs
associated with them, and may have
disruptive effects on local markets.
NMFS designed the GRAs (i.e., their
timing and configuration) after
considering the amount of reduced
fishing opportunity as well as the
amount of reduced bluefin interactions,
in order to minimize potential
disruptions in markets. NMFS designed
the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA to
provide access opportunities to
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71560
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
fishermen that have a proven ability to
avoid bluefin, and are compliant with
the observer and logbook requirements.
As described in the Response to
Comment #47, NMFS specifically
modified the Cape Hatteras GRA from
what was proposed to reduce disruption
to ongoing fishing in an adjacent area,
and thereby reduce potentially negative
economic impacts of the alternative.
Evaluation of all alternatives considered
both economic and ecological
considerations (i.e., the potential
reductions in revenue associated with
estimated reductions in bluefin
interactions).
Comment 21: NMFS should not
implement GRAs. NMFS received
comments indicating that, due to a
variety of reasons, commercial
fishermen may be limited to certain
fishing locations by the size and
configuration of their vessels, insurance
requirements, or safety concerns, and
that some participants in the fishing
fleet have nowhere else to fish (except
in the location of the GRA) and they
would be ‘‘shut out’’ of the fishery.
Response: The underlying concept of
the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA
minimizes economic impacts by
providing conditional access to the area,
based on performance criteria. The
majority of the pelagic longline fleet
will be allowed to fish in the area upon
implementation, and in the future if
conditions for access continue to be
met. In estimating ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA, NMFS determined that
14 vessels will not have access to this
GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels
made over 75 percent of their sets in the
Modified Cape Hatteras GRA. Based
upon the location of their historical
catch, and to ensure that NMFS did not
underestimate the potential economic
impacts, the analysis assumes that these
vessels would not redistribute effort
outside of the gear restricted area.
Although these four vessels could
redirect from fishing grounds off Oregon
Inlet, NC to fishing grounds between
Cape Fear and Cape Hatteras, such a
change in fishing grounds may involve
substantial costs (fuel, longer trips,
possible transfer and dockage in a new
port, etc.). However, NMFS modified
the Cape Hatteras GRA in a way that
would achieve the reduction in bluefin
discards, and would also allow
fishermen to continue to deploy gear in
regions south and west of the GRA,
thereby reducing adverse impacts. With
respect to the potential negative impacts
of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico
GRA, approximately 61 vessels that fish
in the Gulf of Mexico would be affected.
Given the consistent pattern of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
historical catch of large numbers of
bluefin tuna in certain times and
locations by pelagic longline gear,
NMFS determined that a GRA in both
the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic are
necessary in order to achieve reductions
in bluefin tuna dead discards, and that
the potential economic impacts are
warranted in order to achieve such
reductions. The potential negative
socio-economic impacts were
minimized by using an iterative process
to design the gear restricted areas. The
Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic
Longline GRAs were designed in order
to achieve a balance between a
reduction in bluefin dead discards,
protection of the Gulf of Mexico
spawning stock, and continued
operation of the pelagic longline fleet in
the Gulf of Mexico. The specific
boundaries of the area were determined
by an iterative process, by selecting
areas of historical pelagic longline
interactions with bluefin, and
comparing both the anticipated
reduction in bluefin interactions with
the estimated reduction in revenue, of
different configurations. In addition,
NMFS selected the time period due to
its occurrence during the peak bluefin
spawning period in the GOM.The
magnitude of the potential economic
impacts result from the specific location
and duration of the GRA. The size of the
Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic
Longline GRA was based upon the
historical location and number of
bluefin interactions, as well as the
recent persistent trend in fishing effort
shifting to the east of this area, and the
known variability in the fishery in
general. A smaller geographic area
would be unlikely to achieve
meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna
interactions. The duration of the GRA
encompasses the months with the
highest number of interactions during
the spawning period. An alternate, or
shorter time period would coincide with
neither the highest number of bluefin
interactions nor the bluefin spawning
period peak.
Comment 29: NMFS should not
penalize small vessels because of their
inability of provide adequate space for
observers.
Response: NMFS designed the scoring
system for the Pelagic Observer Program
Performance metric in the preferred
alternative such that valid reasons for
not carrying an observer will not be
penalized. Observer coverage is integral
to the management of the fishery as it
contributes important, objective data in
support of the management of protected
species and provides important
information on the pelagic longline
fishery utilized in the management of
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
bluefin and other HMS species. Due to
the importance of having enough
observed trips to meet the observer
coverage targets required by national
and international law, NMFS also
evaluated vessels on the number of trips
observed. The agency utilizes observer
data to develop estimates of protected
resources interactions and estimates of
discards of other species including
bluefin. These data are essential for
stock assessments and are critical in
meeting international management
obligations. Under ATCA and as a
contracting party of ICCAT, the United
States is required to take part in the
collection of biological, catch, and effort
statistics for research and management
purposes.
Comment 48: NMFS should consider
the potential negative economic impact
on fishermen in the area who do not
have access to other fishing grounds.
Response: The preferred design of the
Cape Hatteras GRA was the result of an
iterative process. NMFS analyzed
multiple time periods and geographic
areas in order to take into consideration
both the potential reduction in the
number of bluefin interactions and the
potential reductions in target catch. The
analysis considered relevant fisheries
data and oceanographic trends. In the
DEIS, due to current patterns in the
Cape Hatteras area, the zone affected by
the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was
analyzed beyond the explicit boundaries
of the GRA. Analysis of a buffer region
was needed because vessels to the south
and west of the GRA would be
prevented from fishing in these areas
due to their gear drifting into the GRA
(having the effort of creating a larger
affected geographic area that the
boundary of the GRA). The DEIS
analysis of impacts not only considered
the reduced fishing effort within the
GRA, but also the reduced fishing effort
in a buffer region to the south and west
of the area. Therefore, NMFS included
sets made in this buffer region into the
redistribution analyses. In the FEIS,
based on public comment and
additional analyses, NMFS now prefers
the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA which
would minimize the adverse impacts on
fishing opportunities while still
achieving comparable reductions of
bluefin discards and almost identical
conservation and management benefits
as the original proposal.
Comment 50: A large number of
commenters expressed general support
for a GRA in the GOM, while others
stated that NMFS should not implement
a GOM GRA, due to the severe
economic impact it would have on the
fishery.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Response: Implementation of a GRA
in the GOM supports the achievement of
the Amendment 7 objectives. A GRA
will, in conjunction with the other
management measures implemented by
this final rule, result in the reduction of
dead discards of bluefin tuna by the
pelagic longline fishery. Although
implementation of a GRA would have a
negative economic impact on the
pelagic longline fishery, the preferred
alternative would have less of an impact
than some of the other alternatives
considered and analyzed. As described
in more detail in the responses to
comments below, NMFS analyzed a
range of alternatives, and took into
account the importance of fishery
resources to fishing communities by
analyzing economic and social data.
Because GRAs may result in the
reduction and/or redistribution of
fishing effort by pelagic longline gear,
the preferred alternative represents a
balance between anticipated reductions
in dead discards of bluefin, and
potential negative economic impacts on
the pelagic longline fishery.
Furthermore, the preferred alternative
will support the broader objectives of
both stock rebuilding as well as the
continued viability of the commercial
and recreational fisheries that depend
upon bluefin tuna.
Comment 55: One commenter noted
that the size of the fishable area in the
GOM is already small, given the
constraints on the locations where they
can fish, including existing pelagic
longline closed areas, as well as the
areas that must be avoided for other
reasons (e.g., activity range of
seismographic vessels, which can
operate for up to six months, and oils
rigs).
Response: NMFS acknowledges that
the preferred Spring Modified GOMo
Pelagic Longline GRAs would further
reduce the amount of fishable areas in
the GOM available for the use of pelagic
longline gear, and that vessels choosing
to fish in the GOM with pelagic longline
gear must work around other industrial
users of Gulf of Mexico resources.
NMFS selected the boundaries of the
Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs
with careful consideration of the
associated benefits and costs. NMFS
optimized the size of the preferred
GRAs to achieve a meaningful reduction
in dead discards, and still leave fishing
grounds open for the pelagic longline
fleet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis
in the FEIS (Chapter 6) considers the
impacts of the preferred alternatives in
the broader context of other historical
and current activities.
Comment 56: NMFS should consider
the impact on the yellowfin tuna and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
swordfish fisheries, which are active in
the GOM and in the areas covered by
the GRAs. Specifically, the commenter
questioned whether the GOM pelagic
longline fleet would be able to remain
active.
Response: NMFS carefully considered
the impact of the preferred Modified
Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs on
yellowfin and swordfish fisheries, both
of which are robust and healthy
fisheries in the GOM. The estimated
reductions in revenue totals of the
preferred GRAs (assuming effort is
redistributed) were calculated for the
alternatives for both swordfish (ranged
from $11,583 to $2,089,885 on average
per year) and for yellowfin tuna (ranged
from $59,500 to $3,964,682, on average
per year) fisheries. The preferred Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would
achieve a balance between conservation
objectives and providing continuing
opportunity for the GOM swordfish and
yellowfin tuna fisheries. The primary
conservation objectives of the GRAs is
to reduce bluefin interactions, and
reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality to
the extent practicable. NMFS compared
among the alternatives the amount of
‘savings’ of bluefin tuna and the
reduction in target catch as part of its
analysis of the gear restricted areas.
Under the Preferred Alternative, the
annual reductions in revenue associated
with the reduced catches of swordfish
and yellowfin tuna are estimated at
$41,504 and $207,110, respectively. The
annual reduction in total revenue is
estimated at $1,793,922. An example of
how the data was compared and
alternatives evaluated follows:
Comparing the Preferred Alternative
with the alternative that would restrict
the full EEZ from March through May,
the reduction in the weight of bluefin
catch would be a little more than twice
as much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt
versus 19.2 mt under the Preferred), but
the reduction in total revenue associated
with the EEZ GRA would be more than
six times larger than the reduction in
total revenue associated with the
Preferred Alternative ($1,793,922 versus
$281,614 under the Preferred). In other
words, compared to the Preferred
Alternative, the amount of additional
costs that would be associated with the
EEZ GRA would be disproportionately
greater than the additional conservation
benefits associated with the EEZ GRA.
The Amendment 7 measures are not
designed to target a particular amount of
reduction in dead discards, but rather
reduce dead discards in a meaningful
way, provide strong incentives to avoid
and reduce bycatch, and take into
account the potential impacts on the
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71561
pelagic longline fishery. The combined
effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of
Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA and the
Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic
Longline GRA, would reduce the
number of bluefin discarded by 40
percent and the number of bluefin kept
by 10 percent (fishery-wide).
Comment 63: Some commenters
supported the proposed measure to
allow vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear that are not authorized
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA, to fish under General category
rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this
type of fishing opportunity as mitigation
for the lost opportunity of fishing with
pelagic longline gear in the Cape
Hatteras GRA, between December
through April. Some commenters did
not support the proposed opportunity
for such vessels to fish under the
General category rules for various
reasons. Some noted that the activity
would be a ‘‘dangerous precedent,’’
because limited access vessels would be
allowed to fish under the rules
applicable to an open access category,
General category vessels would not be
allowed to fish as a pelagic longline
vessel. Others were concerned about the
expansion of a targeted bluefin fishery
in the Cape Hatteras GRA, an area that
already has large numbers of
interactions with bluefin. A commenter
found it ironic that vessels not allowed
to fish with pelagic longline gear in the
Cape Hatteras GRA (proposed in order
to reduce bluefin interactions with
pelagic longline gear) due to their low
performance criteria score would be
provided an opportunity to target
bluefin tuna. Some noted concern about
the potential impacts on the rate of
harvest of the General category quota,
which is limited, and the indirect
impacts on General category vessels.
Others noted that the replacement of
pelagic longline gear with handgear
(targeting bluefin) is not economically
viable due to the size of the pelagic
longline vessels and the associated trip
expenses. A commenter stated that the
proposed measure would facilitate
trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline
category to General category vessels. A
commenter suggested that all pelagic
longline vessels should be able to fish
under the General category rules, and
not only those affected by the GRA.
Response: Based upon public
comment and further consideration,
NMFS is not implementing the
management measure that would have
allowed vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear that are not authorized
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA to fish under General category
rules. While this measure would have
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71562
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
provided additional fishing
opportunities to pelagic longline vessels
without access to the Cape Hatteras
GRA, the differences in fishing costs
and productivity between pelagic
longline gear and handgear are great
enough that handgear fishing for bluefin
tuna would not be economically viable
for a pelagic longline vessel. Given the
unlikely -economic benefits as well as
public perceptions of unfairness, the
potential benefits of allowing vessels to
fish under the General category rules do
not outweigh the potential costs and
risks associated with this activity.
Comment 64: NMFS received a large
number of comments that did not
support the proposed limited
conditional access to closed areas for
vessels using pelagic longline gear, for
a variety of reasons. Commenters,
including the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, were
foremost concerned about potential
negative biological impacts on
swordfish, billfish, and other species, as
well as the indirect negative socioeconomic impacts on the recreational
fishing community if there were
negative biological impacts.
Specifically, commenters cited the
benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East
Florida Coast closed areas contributing
to the rebuilding of the swordfish stock,
and the stabilization of the blue and
white marlin stocks. Commenters stated
that the biological analysis of the
alternative was inadequate, and one
commenter was concerned about the
impacts on dusky sharks. Some
commenters supported access, noting
the importance of such access as a
means to provide flexibility to pelagic
longline vessels in the context of the
IBQ Program restrictions, while others
suggested modifications to the
alternative such as allowing the use of
electronic monitoring instead of human
observers.
Response: Based upon public
comment and further consideration of
potential administrative costs, NMFS is
not implementing this management
measure. The potential benefits of
allowing pelagic longline vessels
limited conditional access to the closed
areas would not outweigh the potential
costs and risks associated with this
activity. The objectives of the proposed
measure were to maintain the relevant
conservation aspects of the closure,
balance the objectives of the closures,
provide commercial data from within
the closures, and provide additional
fishing opportunities for permitted
longline vessels (mitigating the potential
negative economic impacts of
Amendment 7). The East Florida Coast,
Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Closed Area were implemented as part
of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on
three objectives: (1) Maximize the
reduction in incidental catch of billfish
and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed
weight; (2) minimize the reduction in
the target catch of larger swordfish and
other marketable species; and (3) ensure
that the incidental catch of other species
(e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and
turtles) either remains unchanged or is
reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS
recognized that all three objectives
might not be met to the maximum
extent, and that conflicting outcomes
would require some balancing of the
objectives. There are data that supports
the assertion that the closed areas have
contributed to the achievement of their
objectives, in concert with other
management measures. NMFS provides
an annual review of the potential
effectiveness of the current suite of
management measures, including closed
areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual
SAFE report for HMS. Although the
SAFE report does not isolate and
quantify the effectiveness of closed
areas as a separate management tool, the
estimated reductions in discards of
swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin,
sailfish, and spearfish, as a result of all
management measures have remained
consistently high (-50 to -70 percent),
suggesting that the current suite of
international and domestic management
measures have played a significant role
in allowing the United States to reduce
its bycatch interactions. Given the likely
benefits of the closed areas, the
difficulty in determining the precise
magnitude of the benefits of the closed
areas in the context of other
management measures, as well as the
difficulty predicting the potential
impacts that access to closed areas
would have, NMFS believes that there is
uncertainty whether in fact the first
objective of the alternative (maintain
relevant conservation aspects of the
closure) would be met. The access to
closed areas alternative did not include
defined bycatch limits, but would have
relied upon the assumption that low
levels of fishing effort is sufficient to
prevent excessive bycatch. Furthermore,
there would be administrative costs
associated with the access program.
Therefore, the benefits associated with
providing additional fishing
opportunities (by providing access)
would not outweigh the costs in terms
of the risk of undermining the
conservation benefits of the closed
areas. With respect to providing
commercial data from within the
closures, as stated previously, NMFS
may obtain data from within the
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
closures through the use of exempted
fishing permits.
Comment 68: Commenters supported
implementation of the IBQ system in
order to hold vessels accountable and
provide incentives to reduce discards.
Commenters noted that NMFS should
provide some flexibility in the IBQ
system, particularly in the short-term, to
ensure that vessels, especially small
vessels, are able to adapt to the new
restrictions and the overall program is
successful. Commenters urged NMFS to
continue to support the pelagic longline
swordfish fishery, which is important
for multiple reasons.
Response: Implementation of the IBQ
system will increase the responsibility
and accountability of individual vessels
and the pelagic longline fishery as a
whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As
explained in detail in the responses to
more specific comments, the individual
bluefin quota system implemented by
this final rule is designed to provide a
reasonable and effective means of
reducing dead discards, increasing
accountability, and maintaining a viable
pelagic longline fishery. The
management measures are intended to
provide flexibility at the level of the
individual vessel, and in the quota
system as a whole, so that the fishery
can operate under the challenges of a
substantially new regulatory structure.
Furthermore, the fishery must be able to
adapt on a continuing basis to the
variability of highly migratory species,
and changing ecological conditions.
Individual pelagic longline vessels
have the flexibility to change their
fishing practices through modification
of fishing behavior (including time,
location and methods of fishing, and the
use of non-longline gear); increasing
communication within the fishery to
facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing
of individual bluefin quota. Under
Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide
additional flexibility by allocating
additional quota to the Longline
category, as described in the response to
Comments 18 and 19.
Comment 76: The Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources
(Louisiana DNR) commented that
Amendment 7 will have large negative
socio-economic impacts on the GOM
pelagic longline fishery, with greatest
impacts in Louisiana. The Louisiana
DNR also asserted the rule will have
minimal benefits to the bluefin stock,
and attributed the economic impacts
mostly to the IBQ Program, which it
feels is inconsistent with the Louisiana
Coastal Resources Program. Louisiana
DNR noted that the potential benefits to
the stock of bluefin tuna are minimal
compared to the potentially large socio-
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
economic impact to the targeted
fisheries, and NMFS’ consistency
determination lacks sufficient data and
information.
Response: Pelagic longline vessels
may be negatively impacted by the
preferred IBQ Program, and such
impacts would likely be felt in the ports
and communities associated with the
fishery, including those in Louisiana,
which is home to approximately 27
percent of the active pelagic longline
vessels. Florida, New York, and New
Jersey would also be impacted due to
the distribution of active pelagic
longline vessels (31 percent, 16 percent,
and 16 percent of the active vessels,
respectively). Bluefin dead discards in
the GOM by pelagic longline vessels
have typically ranged from 36 to 86 mt
per year. The benefits of the preferred
IBQ Program include strictly limiting
bluefin catch in the pelagic longline
fishery, reduction of dead discards and
waste, and promotion of economic
efficiency, all of which will contribute
to stock growth and a sustainable
bluefin tuna fishery in the long term.
The fact that the GOM is a critically
important spawning area for bluefin
contributes to the biological importance
of having a quota system that effectively
limits bluefin catch and provides
incentives for pelagic longline vessels to
minimize interactions with bluefin.
The IBQ Program was analyzed by
home port state, and the impacts by
state vary, depending upon the specific
measurement (i.e., number of vessels
with quota share, number of vessels that
may need more quota than allocated;
amount of quota that each vessel would
need; and total amount of quota that
each state would need). The states with
the highest number of vessels with
quota shares would be Florida (43
vessels with quota shares), Louisiana
(25 vessels), New Jersey (18 vessels),
North Carolina (14 vessels) and New
York (11 vessels). Under the regulatory
conditions of the Preferred Alternatives,
within those home port states, the
number of vessels that would need to
lease additional quota (above their
initial allocation) to continue fishing at
their historic rates are as follows:
Florida (5 vessels), Louisiana (13
vessels), New Jersey (4 vessels), North
Carolina (2 vessels) and New York (3
vessels). Although the proportion of
vessels in a particular state that would
need to lease additional quota is highest
in New Orleans, the average amount of
quota that the vessels would need to
lease is almost identical similar among
vessels from the ports of Louisiana,
Florida, and New Jersey. Vessels with
the homeport state of New York would
need to lease about four times more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
quota per vessel to continue fishing at
their historic rates. The estimate of the
total amount of quota that vessels with
a home port of New York would need
to lease is 13.4 mt (11 vessels), and the
total amount of quota that vessels with
a home port in Louisiana would need to
lease is 17.4 mt (25 vessels). NMFS has
concluded that this action is fully
consistent with the enforceable policies
of the management program, though the
State of Louisiana objects. The FEIS
analysis demonstrates that NMFS
utilized many of the factors cited by
Louisiana as lacking in NMFS’
evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the
best available logbook, dealer, and
observer data, conducted vessel-specific
analyses for preferred alternatives on
GRAs and IBQ measures, and relevant
recent scientific information. NMFS also
explored the availability of alternative
methods of achieving the Amendment 7
objectives, and considered the economic
impacts, and the long-term benefits of
the measures. The alternative methods
to reduce dead discards—no action or
group or regional quotas—would have
more adverse impacts and be less
effective in achieving Amendment 7
objectives to reduce dead discards and
maximize fishing opportunity. The
design of the IBQ management measures
and other aspects of Amendment 7
minimize the significant adverse
economic impacts, disruption of social
patterns, and adverse cumulative
impacts, to the extent practicable,
relative to other methods analyzed
while also meeting Amendment 7
objectives.
The preferred IBQ Program was
designed to provide flexibility for
vessels to be able to continue to
maintain viable businesses, through
initial allocations, potential allocation
of quota from the Reserve category,
quota leasing, elimination of the target
species requirement, and, as described
above, the flexibility for vessels to fully
account for their catch at the end of a
trip, after sale of the bluefin.
Comment 78: Commenters were
concerned about the ability of new
entrants to become active in the fishery,
and some suggested that NMFS use an
annual system to define eligible vessels,
such as a minimum number of sets
during the previous year. A commenter
noted that businesses which supply new
equipment to outfit pelagic longline
vessels would be negatively impacted if
new entrants were not able to enter the
fishery.
Response: The ability for people who
are currently not involved in the pelagic
longline fishery to become participants
in the fishery (new entrants) is an
important consideration, and is a
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71563
required consideration under the MSA.
The preferred Amendment 7 IBQ
Program would add a single additional
prerequisite for participation in the
pelagic longline fishery to the
previously existing two prerequisites
and associated monitoring and
compliance requirements (e.g., VMS).
Prior to this Amendment, the two
principal elements for participation in
the fishery were a vessel and limited
access permit. The preferred IBQ
Program would implement a
requirement for a vessel to have the
minimum amount of bluefin quota
allocation to fish with pelagic longline
gear, as well as electronic monitoring
requirements associated with preferred
IBQ Program.
The preferred IBQ Program would
provide adequate opportunities to new
entrants to the fishery because there
would be multiple means by which a
new entrant may satisfy the quota
requirement. The structure of the
preferred IBQ Program would not create
any unreasonable barriers to new entry.
A person interested in participating in
the fishery may purchase a permitted
vessel with IBQ shares, and therefore be
allocated quota annually (due to the IBQ
share associated with the permit), or a
person may purchase a permitted vessel
without IBQ shares, and lease quota
allocation from another permitted
vessel. Under the preferred IBQ
Program, as in the past, participation in
the pelagic longline fishery by new
entrants would require substantial
capital investment and potential new
entrants will face costs which are
similar to historical participants.
NMFS considered the merits of setting
aside a specified amount of quota for
new entrants, but found several negative
aspects of such a provision. For
example, providing quota to new
entrants would essentially create a
second quota allocation system, which
would complicate the overall preferred
IBQ Program by creating separate class
of vessels, with different allocations. A
quota set aside for new entrants would
result in less quota available for other
participants in the fishery, and rather
than the market controlling the quota,
there would be many policy decisions to
be made (e.g., would the amount of set
aside vary according to the number of
new entrants, or be a fixed amount
annually? Would the quota be divided
equally among new entrants, be
allocated in the minimum share
amounts, or allocated based on fishing
history?). NMFS believes in simplifying
the IBQ Program upon implementation
where possible, to minimize regulatory
burden and complexity. A system of
rules regarding quota set aside would
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71564
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
add additional complications to the IBQ
Program. Therefore, when considering
whether additional restrictions to
facilitate new entrants to the fishery are
warranted, NMFS determined that given
the lack of information with which to
base such restrictions, and the
uncertainty whether there would be a
pressing need for such restrictions, a
quota set aside was not warranted.
During the three year review of the IBQ
Program NMFS will consider
information from the fishery after
implementation of the IBQ Program, and
evaluate whether the IBQ Program
provides adequate opportunities to new
entrants.
As suggested by commenters, NMFS
considered the concept of making an
annual determination of which vessels
are eligible to receive quota allocations
based on a set of criteria (such as a
certain number of longline sets during
the previous year). NMFS found that
there are negative aspects of such an
annual system. If the vessels allocated
quota shares varied on an annual basis,
the IBQ Program would be more
complex and difficult to administer;
there would be greater uncertainty
annually in the fishery; there would be
incentives to fish on an annual basis
(due to criteria to fish in order to receive
quota); and any value associated with a
permit that would be derived from the
associated IBQ share may be minimized
(if the IBQ share is only valid for a year).
Although such a system could limit the
number of years a vessel without quota
share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease
quota, the negative aspects of this
approach would be substantial. For
example, in order to have an IBQ system
that includes strong accountability, any
quota ‘debt’ accrued must persist from
one fishing year to the next. It would be
difficult to implement persistent
accountability if the vessels eligible for
quota changed on an annual basis.
Comment 82: Many pelagic longline
vessel owners expressed strong
concerns that the amount of bluefin
quota allocated to individual vessels
would be inadequate to continue to fish,
and that despite efforts to avoid bluefin,
vessels would sooner or later encounter
bluefin. The proposed allocations would
make continuing fishing operations
extremely difficult, because they would
be forced to stop fishing, and therefore
revenue would be cut off, but expenses
would continue. Vessel owners stated
that they would not be able to remain
in business under such circumstances,
and some estimated that a large vessel
would need about 20 bluefin to account
for the anticipated amount of bluefin
catch (instead 2 to 13 fish). Some
highlighted the difference between the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
proposed IBQ allocations and the
number of bluefin tuna that may be
retained by a vessel with a General
category commercial permit (up to 5
bluefin a trip), as justification for having
larger individual quota allocations.
Response: Under the preferred IBQ
Program, some vessels will not have
enough quota share to continue to
account for the same amount of bluefin
they caught in the past. The FEIS
analysis indicates that at a quota level
of 137 mt approximately 25 percent of
vessels will need to lease additional
bluefin quota in order to land their
historical average amount of target
species if they do not change their
behavior to reduce their historical rate
of bluefin interactions. If no leasing of
IBQ allocation occurs, there could be a
reduction in target species landings
with an associated reduction in revenue
of approximately $7,574,590 total, or
$56,108 per vessel (135 vessels).
The precise impacts of the IBQ
Program are difficult to predict due to
the variability of bluefin distribution as
well as the potential range of fishing
behaviors (and business strategies) of
vessels in response to the new
regulations. In order to reduce the
likelihood of interactions, vessel
operators may have to pursue new
strategies including communication
with other pelagic longline operators
regarding the known locations of
bluefin, modifications to fishing time,
location, and technique, and use of
alternative gears. In conjunction with
these strategies, leasing additional quota
may be necessary. The preferred IBQ
Program includes the requirement that
the relevant vessel have a permit as of
August 21, 2013, which reduced the
number of eligible vessels, and therefore
will slightly increase the amount of
quota share per vessel. Due to the
difficulty of predicting the precise
impacts of the preferred IBQ Program,
NMFS may, as the fishery adjusts to the
new system, need to consider providing
additional quota to the Longline
category in order to increase the amount
of quota available to individual vessels,
thereby balancing the need to have an
operational fishery with the need to
reduce bluefin bycatch in the fishery.
During the preferred alternative’s threeyear formal review of the IBQ system,
NMFS will consider any structural
changes to the program necessary.
The pelagic longline fishery is an
incidental bluefin fishery unlike the
directed General category handgear
fishery, and retention limits and other
management measures are different. The
preferred alternatives in Amendment 7
would implement a regulatory system
that would mitigate the effects of the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
different restrictions among the different
permit categories.
Comment 84: Some commenters
urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of
bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for
multiple reasons. Equal shares would
avoid the use of historical logbook data;
would reduce potential negative feelings
among permit holders with different
amounts of allocation; and would
provide higher quota allocations for
some vessels than under the proposed
method. Additionally, a commenter
noted that it may not be necessary to
consider the amount of target catch in
the quota share formula (and provide
more quota to vessels catching more
target catch) because larger fishing
operations are better equipped
financially to adapt to new regulations.
Another commenter supported basing
the allocation on target species landings
and fishing effort, because higher effort
is likely to result in more bluefin catch.
Response: NMFS carefully considered
allocating quota shares on an equal
basis, but prefers to implement the
method as proposed, which will
incorporate two metrics of equal weight:
Designated species landings and the
ratio of bluefin to designated species
landings. While an equal share formula
has some positive attributes, the overall
merits of the preferred method would be
greater. It is important to take into
consideration the diversity of the
pelagic longline fleet, maximize the
potential for the success of the IBQ
Program, and provide incentives for
vessels to avoid bluefin tuna.
NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline
logbook data on target catch and bluefin
interactions, and for most vessels, there
is positive correlation between the
amount of target catch, and the number
of bluefin tuna interactions. For most
vessels, the more swordfish, yellowfin
tuna, or other target species a vessel
catches, the more bluefin tuna it
interacts with. However, a few vessels
(those responsible for the largest
number of interactions) interact with
large numbers of bluefin out of
proportion with the amount of their
target catch. Considering this historic
pattern, basing one of the allocation
formula elements on the amount of
designated species landings would
increase the likelihood that vessels
would be allocated quota in relation to
the amount of quota they may need to
account for their catch of bluefin.
The second of the two elements (the
ratio of bluefin interactions to
designated species landings) is useful
because it takes into consideration the
fact that relatively few vessels (i.e.,
about fifteen percent of the vessels) are
responsible for about 80 percent of the
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
interactions with bluefin tuna. Because
the preferred allocation formula would
result in a lower allocation for vessels
with a higher rate of historic
interactions, it will provide a strong
incentive for such vessels to make
changes in their fishing practices to
reduce their number of bluefin
interactions. Vessels with historically
high catches of target species and a low
rate of interactions with bluefin will
receive a larger quota share than vessels
with either higher rates of bluefin
interactions or lower amounts of target
species.
Comment 87: Commenters expressed
concern about whether vessel owners
would be willing to lease quota to other
vessels, given the low amounts of quota
allocated to vessels, and concern about
whether the cost of leasing will be
affordable, especially for owners of
small vessels. Other commenters did not
support leasing because access to
additional quota could enable vessels to
target bluefin.
Response: The analysis of the
preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS
indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25
percent of vessels will need to lease
additional quota in order to land their
historical average amount of designated
species if they do not change their
behavior to reduce their historical rate
of bluefin interactions. Therefore, a
majority of vessels may have quota in
excess of what is needed to account for
their bluefin catch, and may have
incentive to lease quota to other vessels.
Notwithstanding the analysis, there is
uncertainty regarding both the amount
and price of quota that may be leased.
A well-functioning leasing market,
which enables quota to be leased by
those who need it, will be a key factor
in whether the preferred IBQ Program
functions as intended.
Comment 92: Comments on NMFS’
authority to close the pelagic longline
fishery ranged from those who support
closing the fishery in conjunction with
a Longline category quota allocation of
8.1 percent, to those who said that the
fishery should be closed only if there is
unusually high catch of bluefin (and not
when the quota is reached. Commenters
noted the potential impacts of closures
early in the year on the pelagic longline
fishery, supporting businesses,
consumers of the fish products, and
future ICCAT recommendations.
Response: A closure of the pelagic
longline fishery may have adverse direct
and secondary economic impacts, the
severity of which will depend upon
how early in the year the closure
occurred. Under the preferred IBQ
Program, in which individual vessels
may not fish with pelagic longline gear
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
unless they have quota, it is not likely
that NMFS will be required to close the
fishery as a whole. However, individual
vessels will be prohibited from fishing
if they have not accounted for their
catch or do not have the required
minimum amount of quota allocation to
depart on a pelagic longline trip. If,
based on the best available data, NMFS
estimates that the total amount of dead
discards and landings are projected to
reach, have reached, or exceed the
Longline category quota, NMFS may
prohibit fishing with pelagic longline
gear. Similarly, if there is high
uncertainty regarding the estimated or
documented levels of bluefin catch,
NMFS may close the fishery to prevent
overharvest of the Longline category
quota, or prevent further discarding of
bluefin.
As described in many of the responses
to comments, NMFS has designed
Amendment 7 not only reduce dead
discards and implement accountability,
but also to provide flexibility for pelagic
longline vessels fishing under the
preferred IBQ Program restrictions, and
flexibility in the quota system as a
whole, to balance the needs of the
pelagic longline fishery with the needs
of the other quota categories.
Comment 94: NMFS received
comments that supported electronic
monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear
sensors), while other comments either
expressed concern or opposed it.
Comments supporting electronic
monitoring indicated that it is not cost
prohibitive, that it would allow NMFS
to ground-truth other data, and that it
supports accountability and
enforcement. Those opposed to
electronic monitoring said that it is cost
prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and
is redundant with existing information.
Some comments expressed concern
about the functionality of a system,
considering the issues experienced with
some VMS functionality, and the ability
to identify the difference between
bigeye and bluefin tuna using video
cameras. Implementation using a pilot
scale was suggested, which would allow
time to set up a functioning
infrastructure. Expansion of electronic
monitoring to other categories with dead
discards was also suggested.
Response: The preferred measures
would establish requirements to
monitor dead discards for all
commercial user categories to better
achieve the ICCAT requirement to
account for sources of bluefin tuna
fishing mortality and to better monitor
the fishery for bluefin accounting
purposes domestically. The Purse seine
category would be required to report
dead discards via VMS, and hand gear
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71565
fisheries (General, Harpoon, and
Charter/headboat categories) would be
required to report using an automated
catch reporting system via internet or
phone. Longline category vessels would
be required to coordinate installation
and maintain a video and gear
electronic monitoring system that would
record all catch and relevant data
regarding pelagic longline gear
deployment and retrieval. The purpose
of video monitoring for the Longline
category would be to provide a cost
effective and reliable source of
information to verify the accuracy of
bluefin tuna interactions reported via
VMS and logbooks. In many instances,
the FEIS analysis found discrepancies
between logbook data and observer data
(considered to be highly accurate)
reported for the same trip. The preferred
electronic monitoring measure would
support accurate catch data and the
preferred bluefin tuna IBQ management
measures, by providing a means to
verify the accuracy of the counts and
identification of bluefin reported by the
vessel operator. The per-vessel cost of
this gear is expected to be
approximately $19,175 for purchase and
installation (including maintenance
costs and loan interest), or $3,835 per
year over the five-year life of the
equipment. NMFS has been able to
procure funding for the initial
installation of these systems. Variable
costs are approximately $225 per trip,
including data retrieval, fishing activity
interpretation, and catch data
interpretation. These costs are lower
than the cost of increased observer
coverage. The Southeast Fisheries
Science Center estimates that observer
deployment costs approximately $1,075
per sea day, which equates to
approximately $9,675 per average nine
day pelagic longline trip.
Video monitoring is currently used in
several fisheries, and NMFS has funded
over 30 pilot projects to further research
on the use and effectiveness of
electronic monitoring, including
research on the accuracy of finfish
identification. These studies provide
evidence that properly deployed and
maintained video monitoring camera
systems provide effective data for
accurately identifying large pelagic
species. NMFS white papers on
electronic monitoring are available at
the following Web address: https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/
Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_
WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS would take into
account the time required for owners to
outfit their vessels with newly required
equipment when establishing the dates
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71566
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
of required effectiveness for electronic
monitoring.
Comment 99: NMFS received a
comment that NMFS should consider
the fact that transfers of quota under the
measure that would provide more
flexibility for General category quota
transfers will have the effect of moving
quota from the traditional Northeast
fishery to the mid-Atlantic and South;
in other words that Alternative E1c will
negatively impact Northeast fishermen.
One commenter stated that NMFS
should take no action on General
category subquotas (Alternative E1a).
Another commenter stated that NMFS
should establish 12 equal monthly
subquotas (Alternative E1b).
Response: NMFS acknowledges the
concerns that quota distribution may
impact temporal fishing opportunities
and considered these factors in selecting
preferred alternatives. Note that current
regulations do not preclude General
category and HMS Charter/Headboat
category vessels from traveling from one
area to another. In fact, many vessels
travel from the northeast and midAtlantic states to participate in the
winter fishery that occurs largely off
North Carolina. NMFS would continue
to consider the regulatory determination
criteria regarding inseason quota
transfers in an attempt to balance
reasonable opportunity to harvest quota
with other considerations, including
variations in bluefin distribution and
availability, among others. The
preferred alternative would provide
additional fishing opportunities within
the General category quota while
acknowledging the traditional fishery.
Division of the quota equally by month
was not preferred because the potential
negative social and economic impacts
outweigh the positive impacts. The
negative aspects of this alternative
include the potential for gear conflicts
and a derby fishery, as well as the
potential for the historical geographic
distribution of the fishery to be
dramatically altered. Although this
alternative would provide some stability
to the fishery by establishing a known
amount of quota that would be available
at the first of each month, if catch rates
are high in the early portion of the
month, these quotas could be harvested
rapidly and may lead to derby style
fisheries on the first of each month.
Additionally, if catch rates are high and
subquotas are reached quickly, NMFS
under this alternative may have to
implement multiple closures notices
throughout the year.
Comment 101: NMFS received
comments on allocating a portion of the
trophy south subquota to the Gulf of
Mexico (preferred Alternative E3b),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
including that NMFS should not reduce
the trophy south subquota; the
reduction would negatively affect
charter captains in the mid-Atlantic and
South Atlantic areas; and that the
change in allocation would increase
landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf
of Mexico. Other commenters stated that
NMFS should change the division of
subquota, but not split the subquota
equally between the southern area and
the Gulf of Mexico; or that NMFS
should allocate 10% or 17% of the
trophy south subquota to the Gulf of
Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council commented that
NMFS should take no action on this
issue (Alternative E3a) and that
Alternative E3b would lead to an
unreasonably small recreational bluefin
trophy quota for the northern region.
Response: Under the preferred
alternative, the trophy subquota would
be divided to provide 33 percent each
to the northern area, the southern area
outside the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf
of Mexico. The objective of this
alternative is to provide reasonable
fishing opportunities for recreational
vessels in the Atlantic and GOM, reduce
discards, and account for incidentally
caught bluefin. A separate subquota
allocation for the GOM would improve
the equity of the trophy-sized fish
allocation by increasing the likelihood
that there would be trophy quota
available to account for incidental catch
of bluefin in that area (while still
providing incentives not to target
bluefin). An equal 33 percent division
among the three areas would provide
the most equitable trophy subquota
allocation. This preferred measure
would not affect the amount of Trophy
subquota available to the northern area.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which the Final
Rule Will Apply
Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires
a description and estimate of the
number of small entities to which the
final rule would apply. This final rule
is expected to directly affect commercial
and for-hire fishing vessels that possess
an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic
HMS Charter/Headboat permit. In
general, the HMS Charter/Headboat
category permit holders can be regarded
as small entities for RFA purposes. HMS
Angling (Recreational) category permit
holders are typically obtained by
individuals who are not considered
small entities for purposes of the RFA.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) has established size criteria for all
major industry sectors in the U.S.
including fish harvesters. A business
involved in fish harvesting is classified
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
as a ‘‘small business’’ if it is
independently owned and operated, is
not dominant in its field of operation
(including its affiliates), and has
combined annual receipts (revenue) not
in excess of $20.5 million for all its
affiliated operations worldwide (NAICS
code 114111, finfish fishing). NAICS is
the North American Industry
Classification System, a standard system
used by business and government to
classify business establishments into
industries, according to their economic
activity. The United States government
developed NAICS to collect, analyze,
and publish data about the economy. In
addition, the SBA has defined a small
charter/party boat entity (NAICS code
487210, for-hire) as one with average
annual receipts (revenue) of less than
$7.5 million. The SBA recently
modified its definitions of small
businesses, and therefore the definitions
were slightly different between the
proposed and final rules (79 FR 33647;
June 12, 2014).
The average annual revenue per active
pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be
$187,000 based on the 170 active vessels
between 2006 and 2012 that produced
an estimated $31.8 million in revenue
annually. The maximum annual
revenue for any pelagic longline vessel
during that time period was less than
$1.4 million, well below the SBA size
threshold of $20.5 million in combined
annual receipts. Therefore, NMFS
considers all Tuna Longline category
permit holders to be small entities.
NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic
Tunas category permit holders that
potentially could earn more than $20.5
million in revenue annually. Therefore,
NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas
permit holders subject to this action to
be considered small entities. NMFS is
also unaware of any charter/headboat
businesses that could exceed the SBA
receipt/revenue thresholds for small
entities.
The preferred alternatives would
apply to the 4,059 Atlantic Tunas
permit holders based on an analysis of
permit holders in October 2013 (NMFS
2014). Of these permit holders, 252 have
Longline category permits, 14 have
Harpoon category permits, 7 have Trap
category permits, 5 have Purse Seine
category participants, and 3,783 have
General category permits. The preferred
alternatives would also impact HMS
Angling category and HMS Charter/
Headboat category permit holders. In
2013, 3,968 vessel owners obtained
HMS Charter/Headboat category
permits. It is unknown what portion of
these permit holders actively participate
in Atlantic HMS fishing or fishing
services for recreational anglers. NMFS
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
has determined that the preferred
alternatives would not likely directly
affect any small government
jurisdictions defined under RFA. More
information regarding the description of
the fisheries affected, and the categories
and number of permit holders, can be
found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Description of Projected Reporting and
Record-Keeping Requirements
Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires
a description of the projected reporting,
record-keeping, and other compliance
requirements of the final rule, including
an estimate of the classes of small
entities which would be subject to the
requirements of the report or record.
Several Amendment 7 measures include
reporting, record-keeping, and
compliance requirements that require a
new Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
filing, and some of the preferred
alternatives would modify existing
reporting and record-keeping
requirements, and add compliance
requirements. NMFS estimates that the
number small entities that would be
subject to these requirements would
include the Longline category (252),
Charter/Headboat category (3,968),
General category (3,783), Harpoon
category (14) and Purse Seine category
(3), based on the number of permit
holders in commercial bluefin tuna
fishing categories in 2013. The
following section describes the
projected reporting, record-keeping and
other compliance requirements of the
final rule as required.
Area-Based Alternatives
Currently, pelagic longline vessels
must have agency approved E–MTU
VMS units installed and must use them
to hail in and out of port prior to and
at the end of a fishing trip. The Areabased preferred alternative that would
grant conditional access (based on
performance metric criteria) to the
Modified Cape Hatteras GRA
(Alternative B 1d) would require that
pelagic longline vessels authorized to
fish in the area also submit daily reports
to NMFS via E–MTU VMS summarizing
their fishing effort and bluefin tuna
catch and harvest. This is a slightly
modification of the preferred alternative
in the DEIS and in the proposed rule,
but it has the same additional reporting
burden, which is expected to take five
minutes per report/day at a cost of $0.12
per report. This data will allow NMFS
to determine whether continued access
to the areas is warranted based on
bluefin tuna interaction rates, among
other things.
NMFS would calculate performance
metrics for each pelagic longline vessel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
to determine whether they qualify to
gain access to the Cape Hatteras GRA.
These metrics would be based on the
vessel’s historical catch and reporting
compliance. Pelagic longline permit
holders would be permitted to appeal
their performance metrics by submitting
a written request, indicating the reason
for the appeal, and providing supporting
documentation (e.g., copies of landings
records, permit ownership, etc.). Each
appeal request is expected to take
approximately two hours to compile.
Quota Control Alternatives
The preferred alternatives for bluefin
tuna quota controls include several
reporting requirements necessary to
implement IBQs for pelagic longline
vessels. Some of these requirements are
also addressed under the alternatives in
other sections of this document.
The alternatives in this section
include options for assigning IBQ
shares. Preferred alternative C2j would
implement a process for individuals to
appeal their IBQ share. Individuals
would be required to submit a written
request for an appeal, and include the
reason for appeal and supporting
documentation. The reporting burden
associated with each appeal, those
submitted to the HMS Management
Division or to the National Appeals
Office, are expected to be approximately
two hours.
Preferred alternative C2c2 would
authorize transfer of quota among
eligible Atlantic tunas Longline permit
holders and Purse Seine category
participants. To support tracking of IBQ
transfers among IBQ participants and
establish a tracking system for purchase
of bluefin tuna under the IBQ System,
preferred alternative C2e1 would
require IBQ participants to track and
execute transfers of IBQ allocation via
the IBQ System. To access the IBQ
System eligible users must be able to
access the system electronically. IBQ
System users will need some basic
computer and Internet skills to input
information for bluefin tuna trade into
the IBQ System. The record-keeping and
reporting burden for permit holders is
expected to be approximately 15
minutes per trade. The IBQ System will
also require interaction with federal
bluefin tuna dealer permit holders that
purchase bluefin from pelagic long line
vessels; however, electronic dealer
reporting for bluefin tuna purchases was
previously analyzed and approved by
NMFS in the 2006 Consolidated HMS
FMP rulemaking (71 FR 58058, October
2, 2006) and thus the rule effectively
does not impose a new requirement for
dealers in this category. An IBQ System
for bluefin demands a high degree of
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71567
accountability for providing accurate
data on catch and harvest. Preferred
alternative C2g2 (same as D2b) would
require pelagic longline vessels to
install an electronic monitoring system,
including video cameras and associated
recording and monitoring equipment, in
order to record all longline catch and
relevant data regarding pelagic longline
gear deployment and retrieval. Data
collected during each fishing trip would
be required to be provided to NMFS,
within a specified time frame after each
trip. This alternative would require both
fixed and variable costs over the service
life of each camera installed onboard.
The per-vessel cost of this gear is
expected to be approximately $19,175
for purchase and installation (including
maintenance costs and loan interest), or
$3,835 per year over the five-year life of
the equipment. NMFS has been able to
procure funding for the initial
installation of these systems. Variable
costs are approximately $225 per trip,
including data retrieval, fishing activity
interpretation, and catch data
interpretation.
Preferred alternative C2g1 (same as
D1b) would require pelagic longline
vessels to use their E–MTU VMS to
submit daily reports of bluefin tuna
catch and harvest and fishing effort.
Purse seine vessels would be required to
purchase and install E–MTU VMS units,
and submit daily reports of catch,
harvest, and effort as well. This
alternative would provide more timely
data as required by the IBQ system than
the current pelagic longline logbook
program and dealer reporting
requirements. As noted above, the
additional reporting burden for the VMS
reports is 5 minutes per report/day and
$0.12 per report. The cost of installing
E–MTU VMS is $3,300 per vessel and
daily position reports cost
approximately $1.44 per day.
Several alternatives include
additional compliance requirements
without additional reporting. Preferred
alternative C21.2b would require
mandatory retention of all legal-sized
dead bluefin tuna caught on pelagic
longline gear. Preferred alternative C4b
would allow NMFS to prohibit fishing
using pelagic longline gear once the
bluefin tuna quota is reached.
Conversely, preferred alternative C21.1b
would relieve certain compliance
requirements by repealing target catch
requirements for pelagic longline
vessels.
Lastly, one of the preferred
alternatives would have an additional
reporting requirement, but would occur
via a future action under separate
rulemaking. As required by the MSA, a
cost recovery program for management
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71568
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and enforcement costs associated with
the preferred IBQ Program (Preferred
alternative C2i) will be addressed via a
subsequent regulatory action, at which
time NMFS will update/modify current
record-keeping and compliance
requirements. This action may require
new PRA filings, but does not at this
time.
Enhanced Reporting Measures
Several preferred alternatives are
identified as measures to enhance
reporting for bluefin tuna. Three of
these include the VMS requirements
(C2g1 and D1b), and electronic
monitoring of the Longline category
(C2g2 and D2b), discussed above. The
last is the preferred alternative to
require automated catch reporting for
General, Harpoon, and Charter/
Headboat permit categories (D3b). This
alternative would require individuals
with those vessel permits to report their
catch (i.e., landings and discards) after
each trip using an automated system
such as a Web site or phone recording
system. NMFS estimates that each
report will take approximately 5
minutes. Based on previous years’
landings, NMFS estimates that the total
annual reporting burden will be
approximately 607 hours and could
affect approximately 8,226 permit
holders.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Other Measures
The other measures implemented by
this rule would not increase reporting or
compliance requirements.
Description of Steps Taken To Minimize
Significant Economic Impacts of This
Action
Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires
a description of the steps NMFS has
taken to minimize the significant
economic impacts on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of
applicable statutes, including a
statement of the factual, policy, and
legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and the reason
that each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by
the Agency which affected small entities
was rejected. The impacts NMFS has
identified and the steps NMFS has taken
to minimize them are discussed below
and in the FEIS. One of the
requirements of an FRFA is to describe
any alternatives to the preferred
alternatives which accomplish the
stated objectives and which minimize
any significant economic impacts. These
impacts and the steps taken to minimize
them are discussed below and in
Chapters 4 and 5 of the FEIS.
Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
603(c)(1)–(4)) lists four general
categories of ‘‘significant’’ alternatives
that would 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
Amendment, consistent with all legal
requirements, NMFS cannot exempt
small entities or change the reporting
requirements only for small entities
because all the entities affected are
considered small entities. Thus, there
are no alternatives discussed that fall
under the first and fourth categories
described above. Under the third
category, ‘‘use of performance rather
than design standards,’’ NMFS
considers Alternative B 1c ‘‘Cape
Hatteras Gear Restricted Area with
Access based on Performance’’,
Alternative B 1d ‘‘Modified Cape
Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear
Restricted Area with Access Based on
Performance’’, Alternative C 2 ‘‘IBQs
Based on Designated Species Landings
and the Ratio of Bluefin Catch to
Designated Species Landings’’, and B 3b
‘‘Limited Conditional Access to Closed
Areas using Pelagic Longline Gear Based
on Performance Criteria’’ to all be
alternatives that use performance
standards. As described below, NMFS
analyzed several different alternatives
and provides the rationale for
identifying the preferred alternatives to
achieve the desired objective.
NMFS considered five different
categories of potential bluefin
management measures, each with its
own range of alternatives that would
meet the objectives of the MagnusonStevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP. The first category, allocation
alternatives, covers four main
alternatives that address various quota
reallocation strategies. The second
category of alternatives, area based
alternatives, explores various gear
restricted areas, gear measures, and
access to closed areas using pelagic
longline gear. The third category of
alternatives, bluefin tuna quota controls,
covers four main alternatives, which
include IBQs, regional and group
quotas, and closure of the pelagic
longline fishery. The fourth category of
alternatives, enhanced reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
measures, covers six main alternatives,
which include VMS requirements,
electronic monitoring of the Longline
category, automated catch reporting,
deployment of observers, logbook
requirements, and expanding the scope
of the Large Pelagics Survey. The fifth
category of alternatives, other measures,
covers seven main alternatives that
address other Tunas permit categories
besides Longline and other tuna quotas.
The expected economic impacts of the
different alternatives considered and
analyzed are discussed below.
The potential impacts that these
alternatives may have on small entities
have been analyzed and are discussed in
the following sections. The economic
impacts that would occur under these
preferred alternatives were compared
with the other alternatives to discuss
how the economic impacts to small
entities were minimized while still
accomplishing the stated objectives of
this rule.
Allocation Alternatives
These alternatives would either
modify the base allocations (percentages
of the U.S. quota designated to
particular for bluefin quota categories)
and remain the same until and if
changed by future amendment, or
would set up a regulatory mechanism
for modifying the quotas annually or in
certain years based on defined criteria.
Alternative A 1—No Action
The No Action alternative would
make no changes to the current
percentages that each quota category is
allocated (General: 47.1 percent;
Harpoon: 3.9 percent; Purse Seine: 18.6
percent; Longline: 8.1 percent; Trap: 0.1
percent; Angling: 19.7 percent; Reserve:
2.5 percent). Dead discards would
continue to be accounted for separately
from the quota allocations through the
annual specification process.
In the short-term, minor to moderate
direct adverse economic impacts are
likely to be limited to the Longline
category due to quota shortages. In 2012,
NMFS projected that the Longline
category was likely to fully harvest their
allocated quota before the end of the
fishing year, and closed the southern
area on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31546) and
the northern area on June 30, 2012 (77
FR 38011, June 26, 2012). In 2013, the
Longline category northern and
southern areas were closed on June 25
(78 FR 36685) because the adjusted
quota had been reached. In the longterm, there could be additional minor to
moderate direct adverse economic
impacts if other quota categories are
closed early in the fishing year.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Alternative A 2—Codified Reallocation
The Codified reallocation alternative
(Preferred) would reallocate quota and
result in increased bluefin quota for the
Longline category, and would therefore
alleviate some of the current challenges
associated with the domestic quota
system.
This alternative would codify a quota
category increase of 62.5 mt whole
weight to the Longline category
reflecting the historical 68 mt dead
discard allowance and the current
allocation percentages. All of the
categories, including the Longline
category, would contribute to the 68 mt
historical allowance, with a net increase
of 62.5 to the Longline category after its
share of the deduction, (i.e., based on
the current 8.1 percent allocation, the
Longline category portion of the 68 mt
is 5.5 mt; 68 mt–5.5 mt equals 62.5 mt,
hence an increase of 62.5 mt. This
alternative results in a net increase of
62.5 mt for the Longline category, which
would increase the potential revenue
from bluefin for the Longline category
by approximately $11,269 per permit
holder per year. The General category
would face a potential reduction in the
maximum revenue from bluefin of
approximately $850 per permit holder
per year. The Harpoon category would
face a potential reduction in the
maximum revenue from bluefin of
approximately $2,409 per permit holder
per year. The Purse Seine category
could face a potential reduction in the
maximum revenue from bluefin of
approximately $107,627 per permit
holder per year. Although the
magnitude of revenue loss appears to be
high for the Purse Seine category, this
alternative actually would likely have
minor adverse economic impacts on
Purse Seine fishermen since landings in
this category have recently been very
low. This alternative minimizes
economic impacts by reallocating only a
relatively small portion of each
category’s quota to the Longline
category.
Alternative A 2b (Reallocation
Incorporating Recent Catch Data) would
revise the quota allocation percentages
for all categories, basing the new
allocation on both the current codified
allocation (50%) and recent catch (50%)
as applicable to each quota category.
Reallocating the quota based on recent
catch data would result in a 83.56%
increase in the Longline category quota
and an increase for the Angling category
of 47.1%. However, this reallocation
alternative would result in a decrease in
the quotas of the General, Harpoon,
Purse Seine, Trap, and Reserve
categories of 10.85%, 15.56%, 49.01%,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
55.56%, and 48.05%, respectively.
Revising the quota allocations for all
categories to reflect recent catch would
increase the potential revenue from
bluefin for the Longline category by
approximately $11,305 per permit
holder per year. The General category
could face a potential reduction in the
maximum revenue from bluefin of
approximately $1,254 per permit holder
per year. The Harpoon category could
face a potential reduction in the
maximum revenue from bluefin of
approximately $4,996 per permit holder
per year. The Purse Seine category
could face a potential reduction in the
maximum revenue from bluefin of
approximately $713,558 per permit
holder per year.
Alternative A 2c (Reallocation from
Purse Seine to Longline Category)
would reallocate two-fifths (40 percent)
of the current Purse Seine category
quota to the Longline category and
would result in 91.84% increase in the
Longline category quota and a decrease
the Purse Seine quota by 39.99%. The
permanent reallocation of two-fifths of
the Purse Seine category to the Longline
category would increase the potential
revenue from bluefin for the Longline
category by approximately $12,387 per
permit holder per year. The Purse Seine
category could face a potential
reduction in the maximum revenue
from bluefin of an equivalent $582,202
per permit holder per year. The other
bluefin quota categories would not be
impacted by this alternative.
Alternative A 3—Annual Reallocation of
Bluefin Quota From Purse Seine
Category
Annual reallocation Alternatives A 3a
and A 3b would reallocate anticipated
unused quota from the Purse Seine
category to other quota categories or
would allocate to the Purse Seine
category in proportion to the number of
permitted vessels (respectively).
Under alternative A 3a, the preferred
alternative, 25 percent of the Purse
Seine category bluefin quota would be
guaranteed to be available to the five
historically permitted fishery
participants (permit holders) in that
category, but beyond that, the bluefin
quota would be based on the previous
year’s landings and dead discards.
Based on a formula, quota may be
reallocated from the Purse Seine
category to the Reserve category
annually. The allocation formula is
designed to allocate a minimum level of
quota to permitted fishery participants,
as well as enable quota to increase over
successive years, in order to avoid being
too restrictive. Note that NMFS would
still have the regulatory authority to
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71569
transfer quota inseason to or from any
fishing category to or from the Reserve,
and could continue to transfer any
amount of quota inseason, even if purse
seine vessels receive the minimum
amount of quota (25 percent) at the start
of the season. In recent years, little of
the Purse Seine category quota has been
landed. If that continues into the future,
under alternative A 3a, the Purse Seine
quota could be reduced by 75 percent.
The 23.8 mt associated with that
reduction would reduce the maximum
revenue from bluefin that the purse
seine vessel could land by $403,000
annually. However, given the recent
bluefin landings history of the purse
seine fleet, it is unlikely that future
bluefin landings would be constrained
substantially by this reduction and
allocations would be re-evaluated on an
annual basis. Therefore, alternative A 3a
would likely only result in minor direct
adverse short-term economic impacts to
permitted Purse Seine vessels. Other
categories would benefit from the
potential of increased revenue, and this
alternative would increase predictability
in the fishery. This alternative
minimizes economic impacts by
providing a means to optimize quota
utilization and account for dead
discards, enhance quota flexibility in a
predictable manner, as well incorporate
a system for Purse Seine fishery
participants to be allocated their total
base quota percentage if they are
consistently active in the fishery.
Under alternative A 3b (Annual Purse
Seine Allocation Commensurate with
the Number of Purse Seine Vessels),
NMFS would make Purse Seine category
quota available annually to that category
based on the number of active Purse
Seine vessels and would reallocate the
remainder to the Reserve category. An
active Purse Seine vessel would be
defined as a vessel with a valid Purse
Seine category permit, which has
requested and received an allocation in
accordance with the regulations
(§ 635.27(a)(4)), and is capable of fishing
purse seine gear (defined at
§ 635.21(e)(vi)) to harvest Atlantic
bluefin tuna. The net result would be
that only those Purse Seine category
permit holders with active vessels
would receive Purse Seine quota, and
individually they would be allocated
one fifth of the overall Purse Seine base
quota, acknowledging the preferred
codified allocation alternative
(Alternative A 2a), under which the
Purse Seine base quota would be 159.1
mt. The economic impacts of this
alternative would be similar to those
under alternative A 3a. Alternative A 3b
would also likely only result in minor
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71570
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
direct adverse short-term economic
impacts resulting from the loss of
potential revenue if current bluefin
fishing levels remain the same.
Alternative A 4—Modifications to
Reserve Category
Under the alternative A 4a, the No
Action alternative, there would be no
changes to the allocation to the Reserve
category or the determination criteria
that are considered prior to making any
adjustments to/from this category. This
alternative would not impact small
entities. The Reserve category would be
allocated the current 2.5 percent of the
U.S. annual quota, and NMFS could
allocate any portion of the Reserve
category quota for inseason or annual
adjustments to any other quota category
provided NMFS considered the current
determination criteria and other
relevant factors first.
Alternative A 4b (Modify Reserve
Category), the preferred alternative,
would increase the amount of quota that
may be put into the Reserve category
from several sources and expand the
potential uses of Reserve category quota.
Specifically, it would potentially
increase the Reserve category quota
beyond the current baseline allocation
of 2.5 percent and broaden the
determination criteria to be considered
in making adjustments to/from the
Reserve category. This could result in
moderate beneficial economic impacts if
unused quota from a previous year
could be reallocated to the Reserve
category to potentially offset any
overharvests in another category,
consistent with ICCAT
recommendations on carry-forward of
unharvested quota.
Area Based Alternatives
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Alternative B 1—Gear Restricted Areas
Under alternative B 1, NMFS
considered a range of GRA alternatives
from maintaining existing pelagic
longline closures (the no action
alternative) to a year-round GRA of the
entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ (west of 82°
longitude) in order to reduce
interactions with bluefin tuna.
Alternative B 1a, the No Action
Alternative, would result in the status
quo regarding GRAss. Although the
current pelagic longline closed areas
would remain effective, the data
indicate that large numbers of
interactions of pelagic longline gear
with bluefin occur in consistent areas
during predictable time periods, which
are outside of the current closed areas.
The No Action alternative would
therefore not reduce dead discards. The
magnitude of the discards in the pelagic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
longline fishery is likely to stay the
same or increase under the No Action
alternative, without implementation of a
new GRA. This could result in moderate
long-term adverse economic impacts
when the Longline category exceeds its
quota earlier in the fishing year because
of dead discards and is required to shut
down.
Alternative B 1b would define a
modified rectangular area off Cape
Hatteras, North Carolina, and prohibit
the use of pelagic longline gear in that
area annually during the five-month
period from December through April.
Other gear types authorized for use by
pelagic longline vessels, such as buoy
gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel,
would be allowed. This region off North
Carolina contains seasonally consistent
concentrations of bluefin and catches by
the pelagic longline fleet. Logbook and
observer data indicate that historically
there have been relatively high catches
and catch rates of bluefin by pelagic
longline vessels in this region. The
specific time and area of the Cape
Hatteras GRA represents a time and area
combination likely to result in reduced
bluefin interactions based on past
patterns of interactions. This alternative
is expected to have moderate short and
long-term direct adverse economic
impacts on 50 vessels that have
historically fished in the Cape Hatteras
GRA during the months of December
through April. The average annual
revenue per vessel made in the gear
restricted area is approximately $28,000
annually during the restricted months
assuming that fishing effort does not
move to other areas. However, it is
likely that some of the vessels that
would be impacted by this gear
restricted area would be able to
redistribute their effort to other fishing
areas. NMFS estimated that if a vessel
historically made less than 40 percent of
their sets in the GRA, it would likely
redistribute all of its effort. If a vessel
made more than 40 percent, but less
than 75 percent of its sets in the GRA,
it would likely redistribute 50 percent of
its effort impacted by the gear restricted
area to other areas. Finally, if a vessel
made more than 75 percent of its sets
solely within the gear restricted area,
NMFS assumed it would not likely shift
its effort to other areas. Based on these
redistribution assumptions, the net
impact of the Cape Hatteras GRA on
fishing revenues after redistribution of
effort is estimated to be $17,900 per
year.
Under Alternative B 1c (Cape Hatteras
Pelagic Longline GRA with Access
based on Performance), NMFS would
annually review pelagic longline vessel
performance using three performance
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
metrics, and based on that review,
authorize some vessels fishing with
pelagic longline gear to have access to
the Cape Hatteras GRA. As described in
more detail in Chapter 2, the
performance metrics are: (1) Level of
bluefin interactions/avoidance; (2)
observer program participation; and (3)
logbook submissions. NMFS would
notify vessel owners by mail whether or
not they are authorized to fish in the
area. This alternative would use the
same area off Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, as in Alternative B 1b, and
would define criteria for access by HMS
permitted vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear during the five-month
period from December through April.
Vessels that are determined by NMFS to
have a relatively low rate of interactions
with bluefin based on past performance,
and that comply with reporting and
monitoring requirements would be
allowed to fish in the area using pelagic
longline gear. Vessels that have not
demonstrated their ability to avoid
bluefin would not be allowed to fish
with pelagic longline gear in this area;
or if a vessel has demonstrated its
ability to avoid bluefin, but has had
poor record of compliance with
reporting and monitoring requirements,
it would not be allowed to fish with
pelagic longline gear in this area from
December through April. Individual
vessel data would be evaluated annually
for the purpose of determining access,
and results would be communicated to
the individual permit holders via a
permit holder letter. This evaluation
would be based on the most recent
complete information available in order
to provide future opportunities and
accommodate changes in fishing
behavior, both positively and
negatively, based on performance.
Based on the proposed performance
criteria, NMFS determined that, of 161
active vessels in the entire pelagic
longline fleet, 50 vessels fished in the
Cape Hatteras GRA or buffer region. Of
these 50 active vessels, 16 vessels that
fished in the Cape Hatteras GRA or
buffer region did not meet the criteria
for access based on their inability to
avoid bluefin tuna, and/or compliance
with POP observer and logbook
reporting requirements. The average
annual revenue made in the GRA by
these 16 vessels is approximately
$29,000 per vessel during the restricted
months. However, it is likely that some
of the vessels that would be impacted by
this gear restricted area would be able
to redistribute their effort to other
fishing areas. The net impact of
Alternative B 1c on fishing revenues
after redistribution of effort is estimated
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
to be $19,000 per vessel per year for
those 16 vessels.
Alternative B 1d (Modified Cape
Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA with
Access Based on Performance;
Preferred), would delineate a gear
restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina and prohibit the use of pelagic
longline gear in the area annually
during the five-month period from
December through April. Access to the
GRA would be evaluated annually for
each permitted vessel in the pelagic
longline fleet using the same
performance metrics discussed under
Alternative B 1c.
NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA
for the months of December through
April during which time vessels would
be prohibited from fishing with pelagic
longline gear in the defined area, with
the exception of vessels granted access
based upon performance criteria. Based
on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed
the spatial and temporal configurations
of the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead
is implementing a modified gear
restricted area during the same months
(December through April), but of a
slightly different configuration than
proposed. The total area of the Modified
Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented
is smaller than that of the proposed
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, due
to the modification of the southeastern
region of the GRA. Specifically, the
southeastern corner as proposed was a
ninety degree angle, but this final rule
connects the southwestern corner to a
more northerly point on the eastern
boundary of the Cape Hatteras GRA,
eliminating a triangular shaped area
from the southeast region of the Gear
Restricted Area. The shape of the
Modified Cape Hatteras GRA as
implemented will minimize the
likelihood that pelagic longline gear set
south of the GRA will drift into the GRA
due to the prevailing direction of
currents. As a result of these analyses,
and considerations, NMFS has modified
the preferred alternative to a gear
restricted area during the same months
(December through April), but with a
slightly different configuration.
NMFS determined that only 14
vessels that fished in the Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA would not meet the
criteria for access based on their
inability to avoid bluefin tuna, and/or
compliance with POP observer and
logbook reporting requirements. The
average annual revenue from fishing
sets made in the GRA by these 14
vessels is approximately $22,000 per
vessel during the restricted months
based on past fishing patterns from
2006–2012. However, it is likely that
some of the vessels that would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
impacted by this alternative’s
implementation of the GRA would
redistribute their effort to other fishing
areas. The net impact of Alternative B
1d on fishing revenues after
redistribution of effort is estimated to be
$15,000 per vessel per year for those 14
vessels.
This alternative is as effective at
reducing dead discards as the originallyproposed Cape Hatteras GRA but it
minimizes economic impacts to the
extent practicable, consistent with the
objectives of Amendment 7. The
modified alternative thereby strikes a
better balance between reducing dead
discards of bluefin and continued
operation of the pelagic longline fleet in
the Atlantic. Therefore, NMFS prefers
this modification (i.e., shaving off the
southeast corner of the restricted area)
to balance environmental, ecological,
and economic impacts of the alternative.
This alternative minimizes economic
impacts by providing access to vessels
if certain parameters are met and
because the time and area of the GRA
were set based on consideration of
bluefin interactions as well as economic
impacts in order to optimize the design
to achieve the objectives.
Alternative B 1e would allow vessels
with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit
to fish under the rules/regulations
applicable to the General category as
they pertain to targeting bluefin using
non pelagic longline-gear (gear
authorized under the General category,
including rod and reel, handline,
harpoon, etc.), in the area defined as the
Cape Hatteras GRA during the time of
the restriction (December through
April), when the General category
fishery is open. The bluefin landed with
authorized handgear would be counted
against the General category quota. The
amount of bluefin landings allowed
under this alternative would be limited
by the available General category
subquotas for December and for January.
Alternative B 1d would result in shortterm, direct, minor, beneficial economic
impacts for Longline category fishermen
that otherwise would not be able to fish
for bluefin in the Cape Hatteras GRA. It
would result in short-term, direct,
minor, adverse economic impacts for
General category participants to the
extent that any Longline category vessel
landings of bluefin under General
category rules results in the available
subquota being met earlier than it would
otherwise. A loss or gain of one fish is
approximately $3,500. If a Longline
category vessel chooses to fish with
General category gear in the Cape
Hatteras GRA versus outside the area
with pelagic longline gear, the ability to
land and sell bigeye, albacore,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71571
yellowfin, and skipjack from that area
would result in short-term, direct,
minor, beneficial economic impacts,
although substantially less so than
continuing to use longline gear, which
accounts for a much larger proportion of
catch of bigeye, albacore, and yellowfin
tuna than does handgear. If other
alternatives, such as annual reallocation
from the Purse Seine category (A3a) or
providing additional flexibility for
General category quota adjustment (E1c)
are implemented, adverse economic
impacts for General category
participants may be reduced.
Alternative B 1f would prohibit the
use of pelagic longline gears in the GOM
for 3 months each year. This alternative
is expected to have moderate short and
long-term direct adverse economic
impacts on 69 vessels that have
historically fished in the GOM EEZ
during the months of March through
May. The average annual revenue from
fishing sets made in the GRA is
approximately $26,000 per vessel
during the closure months. Based on
historical fishing patterns of vessels that
fish in the OM, it is unlikely that effort
will be redistributed into areas outside
of this region.
Alternative B 1g would define a
rectangular area in the GOM and
prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear
during the two-month period from April
through May. NMFS tailored the Small
GOM GRA to maximize the reductions
in bluefin interactions while
minimizing the area where pelagic
longline gear use is restricted. This
alternative is expected to have moderate
short- and long-term direct adverse
economic impacts on 36 vessels that
have historically fished in the Small
Gulf of Mexico GRA during April and
May. The average annual revenue from
fishing sets made in the GRA is
approximately $7,500 per vessel during
the restricted months. However, it is
likely that some of the vessels that
would be impacted by this gear
restricted area would be able to
redistribute their effort to other fishing
areas within the GOM. The net impact
of the Small GOM GRA on fishing
revenues after redistribution of effort is
estimated to be $2,600 per vessel per
year.
Alternative B 1h would prohibit the
use of pelagic longlines in the same area
as in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA (i.e.,
anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico), yearround. This alternative is expected to
have moderate short- and long-term
direct adverse economic impacts on 75
vessels that have historically fished in
the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. The average
annual revenue from fishing in the GRA
is approximately $102,000 per vessel.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71572
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Alternative B 1i, a preferred
alternative, would establish modified
GRAs in the central GOM that would
prohibit the use of pelagic longlines
from April through May. This
alternative is based upon public
comments on the Small GOM GRA,
which was the preferred alternative in
the DEIS. The total area of the Modified
Spring GOM GRA is larger than that of
the Small GOM GRA. The Spring Gulf
of MexicoGRAs are comprised of two
separate areas: An area based on the
Small GOM GRA preferred in the DEIS,
but extended to the east and reduced in
size on the western and northern
borders, and a second area that is
adjacent to the southern border of the
Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s
northwestern ‘block.’ NMFS will also
conduct a three-year review to
determine the effectiveness of the
Modified Spring GOMGRAs during the
review of the IBA program and will
consider any changes at that time as
appropriate. This alternative is expected
to have moderate short and long-term
direct adverse economic impacts on 49
vessels that have historically fished in
the Modified Spring GOM GRAs during
April and May. The average annual
revenue from fishing sets made in the
gear restricted area is approximately
$11,000 per vessel during the restricted
months. However, it is likely that some
of the vessels impacted by these GRAs
would be able to redistribute their effort
to other fishing areas within the
GOMand therefore reduce any losses.
The net impact of the Modified Spring
GOM GRAs on fishing revenues after
redistribution of effort is estimated to be
$5,700 per vessel per year. The
economic impacts of this alternative
were minimized through the iterative
design of the GRA. NMFS carefully
evaluated the costs and benefits
associated with this GRA, and
determined that the specific time and
area achieves a balance between a
reduction in bluefin dead discards,
protection of the GOM Spawning stock,
and continued operation of the pelagic
longline fleet in the GOM.
Alternative B 1j, a preferred
alternative, would allow HMS vessels
that possess bottom or pelagic longline
gear on board to transit the closed areas
and GRAs if they remove and stow the
gangions, hooks, and buoys from the
mainline and drum. The hooks would
not be allowed to be baited. Allowing
pelagic and bottom longline vessels to
transit closed and GRAs after removing
and stowing gear would result in direct
short- and long-term beneficial
economic impacts by potentially
reducing fuel costs and time at sea for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
vessels that need to transit the closed or
restricted areas. Allowing transit
through these areas could also
potentially improve safety at sea by
allowing more direct transit routes and
reducing transit time, particularly
during inclement weather. More direct
transit routes and reduced transiting
time minimize economic impacts of the
closed and restricted areas.
potential need to acquire different
permits while fishing with buoy gear.
This alternative would have no effect on
vessels with a Swordfish Incidental
permit, unless Alternative B 2b is
adopted. Without Alternative B 2b, this
alternative would provide additional
flexibility for vessels with a Swordfish
Directed permit and an Atlantic Tunas
Longline permit.
Alternative B 2—Gear Measures
Alternative B 2a, the preferred No
Action alternative, would not change
current authorized gear requirements
(with respect to the use of buoy gear and
associated restrictions on possession of
bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack
tunas (BAYS) and bluefin) applicable to
those vessels with an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit and either a
Swordfish Directed or Swordfish
Incidental permit. Currently, vessels
with an Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit must also have both a
Swordfish Directed or Incidental permit,
and a Shark Directed or Incidental
permit. There are no economic impacts
associated with this ‘‘no action’’
alternative. Alternative B 2b would
authorize vessels with a Swordfish
Incidental permit to fish with buoy gear,
except vessels fishing in the East Florida
Coast Pelagic Longline Closed Area.
Under this alternative, vessels would
still be limited to 35 buoys. The
rationale for this alternative is to
provide increased flexibility and
encouragement for pelagic longline
vessels to utilize gears other than
pelagic longline to maintain and
enhance fishing opportunities. This
would result in short- and long-term
direct beneficial economic impacts by
providing greater flexibility in the gear
type that can be used and also by
reducing the need to acquire a different
permit to use buoy gear. Alternative B
2c would allow vessels with an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit and the
Swordfish Directed or Incidental permit
to retain BAYS and bluefin when
fishing with buoy gear. The rationale for
this alternative is the same as for
Alternative B 2b: To provide increased
flexibility and encouragement for
pelagic longline vessels to utilize gears
other than pelagic longline to maintain
and enhance fishing opportunities in
the context of new restrictions that may
be implemented by Amendment 7. This
alternative would result in short- and
long-term direct beneficial economic
impacts by increase the potential
revenue opportunities by allowing
additional species to be landed when
using buoy gear, reducing costs
associated with discarding, and
reducing the costs associated with the
Alternative B 3—Access to Closed Areas
Using Pelagic Longline Gear
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Alternative B 3a, the preferred No
Action alternative, would maintain the
current regulations that do not allow
vessels to enter a closed area with
pelagic longline gear during the time of
the closure, unless issued an Exempted
Fishing Permit. It would not result in
any further costs to small entities.
Alternative B 3b would allow
restricted and conditional access to the
following closed areas: Charleston
Bump closed area (February through
April), a portion of the East Florida
Coast closed area (year-round), the
DeSoto Canyon closed area (yearround), and the Northeastern U.S.
closed area (June). All trips into any of
the eligible pelagic longline closed areas
would be required to be observed.
Current NMFS Pelagic Observer
Program vessel selection procedures
would be used to select vessels using
the current strata (i.e., the procedures
that select vessels to obtain observer
coverage each calendar quarter, and
deploy in each of various geographic
(statistical) areas). If selected, a vessel
would be informed of the statistical area
for which the vessel was selected, and
the vessel would be allowed to fish
within the eligible pelagic longline
closed area provided it is within that
particular statistical area and that an
observer is onboard. The scope of the
alternative and its effects would depend
upon the level of observer coverage.
Currently, eight percent of fishing effort
is covered by observers and funded
wholly by NMFS. Due to the limits on
the level of observers, observer
availability and cost would serve as the
principal constraint to the amount of
access. Participating vessels would be
required to ‘‘declare into’’ the area via
their VMS unit and report species
caught and effort daily via VMS. There
would be minor short- and long-term
direct beneficial economic and social
impacts associated with the added
option for vessels to potentially fish in
these areas, which could potentially
increase landings revenues and decrease
fishing costs by providing access to
closer and/or more productive fishing
areas.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
In addition to the requirement to carry
an observer and declare and report catch
via VMS, this alternative would further
require that permitted pelagic longline
vessels meet various performance
criteria to be authorized to fish in a
closed area. Vessels that are determined
by NMFS to have a relatively low rate
of interactions with bluefin based on
past performance, and are compliant
with reporting and monitoring
requirements would be allowed to fish
in the area using pelagic longline gear.
Those vessels that have not
demonstrated their ability to avoid
bluefin or comply with reporting and
monitoring requirements would not be
allowed to fish with pelagic longline
gear in the area. The rationale
underlying this requirement is that the
commercial data from within the closed
areas may be utilized in the future as
part of the information used to evaluate
the effectiveness and impacts of closed
areas, as well as for stock assessments
or other management measures.
Confidence in the data may be enhanced
if the vessels allowed to fish in the
closed areas have consistently
demonstrated compliance with relevant
regulations and are among the vessels
that have demonstrated the ability to
avoid bluefin at the level exhibited by
the majority of the fleet. The
performance criteria may lead to
beneficial economic incentives for
fishery participants to better comply
with reporting and monitoring
requirements and reduce bluefin
interaction rates. Potential revenue
would be gained if this alternative were
implemented.
The maximum number of potential
observed trips into the closed areas was
estimated based on historical rates of
observer coverage (per quarter) in
various statistical areas, and the fact that
observer coverage would be a condition
of a trip into a closed area. NMFS
estimated the maximum number of trips
into the pelagic longline closed areas
would be 20 trips into the East Florida
Coast closed area, witht an average
revenue of $17,575 per trip; 80 trips into
the DeSoto Canyons at an average
revenue of $17,692 per trip; 2 trips into
the Northeast closure at an average
revenue of $40,726 per trip; and 5 trips
into the Charleston Bump at an average
revenue of $17,575 per trip. It is import
to note that these revenue estimates are
an overestimate, with a large amount of
uncertainty. The estimates are high
because it is very unlikely that all
observed trips in a particular statistical
area would fish in a closed area. The
estimates are uncertain because the
average revenue per trip data is from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
locations outside the closed areas, and
may not represent the potential revenue
from inside the closed areas.
Bluefin Tuna Quota Controls
Alternative C1—No Action
Under this alternative, there would be
no change to the current regulations that
restrict pelagic longline vessel retention
of bluefin once the Longline category
quota has been reached; hence, the total
amount of dead discards would not be
restricted. There are no short-term
economic impacts to vessel owners
associated with this alternative, but in
the long-term, if dead discards are not
curtailed, the pelagic longline fishery
could face reduced allocations and
earnings.
Alternative C 2—Individual Bluefin
Quotas
This preferred alternative would
implement IBQs for vessels permitted in
the Atlantic Tunas Longline category
(provided they also hold necessary
limited access swordfish and shark
permits) that would result in prohibiting
the use of pelagic longline gear when
the vessel’s annual pelagic longline IBQ
has been caught. The allocation of an
IBQ share to individual vessels/permits
as well as a provision for transferability
of IBQs would reduce bluefin dead
discards by capping the amount of catch
(landings and dead discards); provide
strong incentives to reduce interactions
and flexibility for vessels to continue to
operate profitably; accommodate
different fishing practices within the
pelagic longline fleet; and create new
potential for revenue (from a market for
transferrable IBQs).
NMFS considered two alternatives for
vessel eligibility to receive bluefin quota
shares. The first alternative would be to
consider any permitted Atlantic Tunas
Longline category vessel (sub-alternative
C 2a.1) as being eligible to receive an
initial allocation of IBQs. Based on the
most recent number of Atlantic Tuna
longline limited access permit holders,
NMFS estimates that 223 vessels would
be eligible to receive IBQs under this
alternative. While this alternative might
be more inclusive of all members of the
fishery, it would reduce the amount of
IBQs allocated to each vessel. There
would also likely be negative short-term
and potentially long-term direct adverse
economic impacts associated with
reduced initial allocation of IBQs to the
most active participants in the fishery.
Their initial allocations would likely be
insufficient to be able to maintain their
current levels of fishing activity and
they may not be able to find IBQs to
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71573
lease or have sufficient capital to lease
a sufficient amount of IBQs.
The second alternative, subalternative C 2a.2 is the preferred
alternative and would consider only
active permitted Atlantic Tunas longline
vessels. Based on HMS Logbook records
from 2006–2012, there were 135 active
pelagic longline vessels during that
period, with active defined as having
reported in the HMS Logbook
successfully setting pelagic longline
gear at least once between 2006 and
2012. Allocation of quota shares to a
smaller number of vessels may reduce
the likelihood that a permitted vessel
without quota shares would fish and
increase the likelihood that available
quota would be sufficient for active
vessels. This alternative minimizes
economic impacts by utilizing criteria
that result in a pool of eligible vessels
that is optimized in terms of the number
of vessels. The optimization balances
the benefits of a small number of
eligible vessels (resulting in a larger
percentage quota share per vessel), and
the benefits of an inclusive criteria,
which includes the majority of vessels
that have fished with pelagic longline
gear since 2006. The number of vessels
eligible (135) is slightly larger than the
average number of vessels that have
fished annually since 2006.
In addition to determining who is
eligible to receive IBQs, NMFS also
considered four alternatives for how
IBQ should be initially allocated to
those eligible vessel owners. Under
Alternative C 2b.1, NMFS would base
the initial allocation of IBQs on an equal
share of the quota to eligible vessels. To
estimate the potential landings each
vessel could make given its initial IBQ
under this alternative, NMFS analyzed
the ratio of bluefin tuna landings and
dead discards to designated species
weight. These estimated potential
landings were then compared to average
annual historical landings to estimate
the reduction in designated species
landings. Under the 74.8 mt Longline
category quota scenario, NMFS
estimates that there could be a reduction
of 2.1 million pounds of designated
species landing per year if an IBQ
allocation based on designated species
landings is used and no trading of IBQs
occurs. This would be a reduction of
annual landings of approximately 36
percent, and result in a reduction in
annual revenues of approximately
$91,000 per vessel. Under the 137 mt
Longline category quota scenario, NMFS
estimates that there could be a reduction
of 1.5 million pounds of designated
species landing per year if an IBQ
allocation based on designated species
landings is used and no trading of IBQs
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71574
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
occurs. This would be a reduction of
annual landings of approximately 19
percent, and result in a reduction in
annual revenues of approximately
$47,000 per vessel. Under the 216.7 mt
Longline category quota scenario, NMFS
estimates that there could be a reduction
of 0.9 million pounds of designated
species landing per year if an IBQ
allocation based on designated species
landings is used and no trading of IBQs
occurs. This would be a reduction of
annual landings of approximately 10
percent and result in a reduction in
annual revenues of approximately
$27,000 per vessel.
Under Alternative C 2b.2, NMFS
would base the initial allocation of IBQs
based on the historical landings of
designated species from 2006 through
2012. The designated species include
swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna,
albacore tuna, skipjack tuna,
dolphinfish, wahoo, blue shark,
porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher
shark. These are the main marketable
pelagic species landed by pelagic
longline vessels in addition to bluefin.
Under the 74.8 mt Longline category
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that
there could be a reduction of 2.2 million
pounds of designated species landing
per year if an IBQ allocation based on
designated species landings is used and
no trading of IBQs occurs. This would
be a reduction of annual landings of
approximately 40 percent and result in
a reduction in annual revenues of
approximately $102,000 per vessel.
Under the 137 mt Longline category
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that
there could be a reduction of 2.0 million
pounds of designated species landing
per year if an IBQ allocation based on
designated species landings is used and
no trading of IBQs occurs. This would
be a reduction of annual landings of
approximately 24 percent, and result in
a reduction in annual revenues of
approximately $62,000 per vessel.
Under the 216.7 mt Longline category
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that
there could be a reduction of 1.2 million
pounds of designated species landing
per year if an IBQ allocation based on
designated species landings is used and
no trading of IBQs occurs. This would
be a reduction of annual landings of
approximately 15 percent, and result in
a reduction in annual revenues of
approximately $37,000 per vessel.
Under Alternative C 2b.3, a preferred
alternative, NMFS would base the initial
allocation of IBQs on the historical
landings of designated species from
2006 through 2012 and the ratio of
bluefin catch to designated species
landings. Using the ratio of bluefin tuna
landings and dead discards to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
designated species weight, NMFS
estimated the potential landings each
vessel could make given its initial IBQ.
These estimated potential landings were
then compared to average annual
historical landings to estimate the
reduction in designated species. Under
the 74.8 mt Longline category quota
scenario, NMFS estimates that there
could be a reduction of 2.7 million
pounds of designated species landing
per year if an IBQ allocation based on
designated species landings is used and
no trading of IBQs occurs. This would
be a reduction of annual landings of
approximately 33 percent, and result in
a reduction in annual revenues or
approximately $84,000 per vessel.
Under the 137 mt Longline category
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that
there could be a reduction of 1.8 million
pounds of designated species landing
per year if an IBQ allocation based on
designated species landings is used and
no trading of IBQs occurs. This would
be a reduction of annual landings of
approximately 22 percent, and result in
a reduction in annual revenues or
approximately $56,000 per vessel.
Under the 216.7 mt Longline category
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that
there could be a reduction of 1.2 million
pounds of designated species landing
per year if an IBQ allocation based on
designated species landings is used and
no trading of IBQs occurs. This would
be a reduction of annual landings of
approximately 14 percent and result in
a reduction in annual revenues or
approximately $36,000 per vessel. The
economic impacts of the allocation
alternative were minimized through the
use of the dual criteria, which considers
both the bluefin catch rate, as well as
the amount of designated species catch.
The scoring system that determines the
allocations considers the diversity in the
fleet so that some vessels are not
disadvantaged due to the level of their
fishing activity. Vessels that have
historically caught larger amounts of
target species, as reflected in the
logbook and dealer data will score
higher on the ‘designated species’
element of the allocation criteria. The
other aspects of the IBQ Program (e.g.,
quota allocation leasing) as well as other
aspect of Amendment 7 (e.g., allocation
alternatives), were designed to mesh
with the IBQ Program in order to
provide flexibility to increase the
likelihood of profitable fishing
operations and minimize negative
economic impacts, in addition to
minimizing and accounting for bluefin
catch.
After issuing IBQ shares and
allocation based upon the formula,
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
subalternative C 2b.4 would then
designate all IBQ shares and allocations
as either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or ‘‘Atlantic’’
based upon the geographic location of
sets (associated with the vessels fishing
history used to determine the vessel’s
quota share). Gulf of Mexico IBQ
allocation could be used in either the
Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic, but
Atlantic IBQ allocation could only be
used in the Atlantic (and not the Gulf
of Mexico). For a vessel to fish with
pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of
Mexico, the vessel would be required to
have the minimum amount of IBQ to
depart, and the IBQ would have to be
Gulf of Mexico. The minimum IBQ
amount required to fish in the Gulf of
Mexico would be 0.25 mt based on the
larger average size of bluefin in the Gulf
of Mexico. The minimum IBQ amount
required to fish in the Atlantic would be
0.125 mt based on the smaller average
size of bluefin tuna encountered in the
Atlantic. The economic impact of
creating these two regional designations
would primarily be associated with the
larger minimum IBQ allocations
required to fish in the Gulf of Mexico
and the restriction from transferring or
using Atlantic IBQ in the Gulf of
Mexico. This would reduce the number
of potential trading partners for IBQs in
the Gulf of Mexico region, thus
potentially leading to less available IBQ
allocation that could be leased,
potentially making it more difficult to
find potential trading partners and
therefore increasing transaction costs for
conducting a lease. The regional
designations minimize economic
impacts by allowing Gulf of Mexico IBQ
allocation to be utilized in the Atlantic,
and through the rules regarding the
NED, which provide different IBQ
accounting rules for that unique
particular area.
In defining the scope of IBQ transfer
for alternative C 2c, NMFS considered
two subalternatives, because only two
Tuna permit categories are under
limited access systems. Sub-alternative
C 2c.1 would allow transfer of bluefin
quota shares or quota allocation among
permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline
category vessels only, and would not
include transferring with other limited
access quota categories such as the
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category.
The rationale for this sub-alternative is
to provide flexibility for pelagic longline
vessels to obtain or sell quota as
necessary, so that allocations may be
aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that
catch bluefin may be able to obtain
quota from those that do not interact
with bluefin, or have not used their full
allocation of bluefin). This sub-
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
alternative would constrain the amount
of bluefin quota available to the
Longline category vessels to the
Longline category quota, and not make
additional quota available. Quota
transfers would be allowed among all
Longline category vessels with a valid
limited access permit, regardless of
whether they have been allocated quota
under Alternative C 2b. If a vessel
catches bluefin using quota that has
been leased from another vessel, the
fishing history associated with the catch
of bluefin tuna would be associated
with the vessel that catches the bluefin
(the lessee, not the lessor vessel). In
other words, the lessee (vessel catching
the fish) gets the ‘credit’ for the landings
and dead discards, and not the lessor
(the vessel that transferred the quota
allocation to the catching vessel). NMFS
assumed that the total surplus of IBQs
would potentially be traded to vessels
with IBQ shortfalls. To simulate trading,
the total amount of IBQs surplus was
divided equally by the number of
vessels that needed additional IBQs.
This occurred in two rounds of trades.
Under the 74.8 mt quota scenario, the
estimated reduction in annual revenues
goes from $84,000 per vessel under no
trading to $18,000 per vessel with
trading. Under the 137 mt quota
scenario, the estimated reduction in
annual revenues goes from $56,000 per
vessel under no trading to $19 per
vessel with trading. Finally, under the
216.7 mt quota scenario, the estimated
reduction in annual revenues goes from
$36,000 per vessel under no trading to
no change in annual revenues with
trading since there would be a sufficient
amount of surplus quota to easily cover
the vessels that do not receive initial
IBQ allocations to cover their historical
fishing levels. While this alternative
would have short-term direct minor
beneficial economic impacts, those
beneficial impacts would be lower than
those under sub-alternative C 2c.2.
Sub-alternative C 2c.2, the preferred
alternative, would allow transfer of
bluefin quota shares or quota allocation
between those permitted in the limited
access Atlantic Tunas Longline and
Purse Seine categories. This subalternative would provide flexibility for
pelagic longline vessels to obtain, lease,
or sell quota as necessary, so that
allocations may be aligned with catch
(i.e., vessels that catch bluefin may be
able to obtain quota from those that do
not interact with bluefin, or have not
used their full allocation of bluefin).
This sub-alternative would not
constrain the amount of bluefin quota
available to pelagic longline vessels (i.e.,
through the Longline category quota),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
but would make additional quota
available if purse seine vessels are
willing to lease quota. This alternative
would also modify the Purse Seine
category regulations which currently
restrict the transfer of Purse Seine quota
to vessels with Purse Seine category
permits. Purse Seine quota would be
transferable to vessels with an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit.
Similarly, Purse Seine fishery
participants would be able to lease
quota allocation from pelagic longline
vessels. Quota transfer would be
allowed among all Longline category
vessels with a valid limited access
permit, regardless of whether they have
been allocated quota under Alternative
C 2b. If a vessel catches bluefin using
quota that has been leased from another
vessel, the fishing history associated
with the catch of bluefin tuna would be
associated with the vessel that catches
the bluefin (the lessee, not the lessor
vessel). In other words, the lessee
(vessel catching the fish) gets the ‘credit’
for the landings and dead discards, and
not the lessor (the vessel that transferred
the quota allocation to the catching
vessel). This alternative would have
short-term direct moderate beneficial
economic impacts.
NMFS considered both annual leasing
and permanent sale of IBQs under
alternative C 2d. Sub-alternative C 2d.1,
a preferred alternative, would allow
temporary leasing of bluefin quota
among eligible vessels on an annual
basis. Temporary quota transfer would
give vessels flexibility to lease quota,
but as a separate and distinct type of
transaction from the permanent sale of
quota share. Vessel owners would be
able to obtain quota on an annual basis
to facilitate their harvest of target
species. Sub-leasing of quota would be
allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from vessel A
to vessel B, then to vessel C). This subalternative may be combined SubAlternative C 2d.2 (permanent sale of
quota share), if implemented. IBQ
allocation leases of one year duration
would coincide with the time period of
annual quota allocation for the fishery
as a whole. For a particular calendar
year, an individual lease transaction
would be valid from the time of the
lease until December 31. This
alternative would have short-term direct
moderate beneficial economic impacts
to participants in the fishery. However,
in the long-term, the annual transaction
costs associated with matching lessors
and lessees, the costs associated with
drafting agreements, and the uncertainty
vessel owners would face regarding
quota availability would reduce some of
the economic benefits associated with
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71575
leasing. The IBQ allocation leasing
alternatives minimize economic impacts
by providing flexibility for pelagic
longline vessels to lease IBQ as
necessary so that their IBQ allocations
may be aligned with catch (i.e., vessels
that catch bluefin may be able to obtain
IBQ from those that do not interact with
bluefin, or have not used their full IBQ
allocation of bluefin).
Sub-alternative C 2d.2 would allow
permanent sale of quota share among
eligible vessels. Through this subalternative, vessel owners would be able
to purchase (or sell) quota share and
permanently increase (or decrease) their
quota share percentage. Permanent sale
of quota share provides a means for
vessel owners to plan their businesses
and manage their quota according to a
longer time scale than a single year.
Vessel owners may be able to save
money through a single quota share
transaction instead of reoccurring
annual quota allocation transactions.
This sub-alternative may be combined
with the temporary transfer of quota
(i.e., annual leasing of quota, SubAlternative C 2d.2), but is a separate and
distinct type of transaction. (Note, that
elsewhere in this document NMFS
considers measures for codified quota
reallocation alternatives unrelated to an
IBQ Program; See Alternative A 2). To
enable effective accounting and reduce
program complexity, permanent quota
share transfers would become effective
in the subsequent year, and would have
to be executed prior to the annual
allocation of quota to IBQ holders.
Limits would be placed on the amount
of quota an individual entity could
permanently transfer in order to prevent
the accumulation of an excessive share
of quota. This alternative would have
long-term direct moderate beneficial
economic impacts to participants in the
fishery by allowing the ownership of
IBQs to shift to where they provide the
best economic benefit in the long-term.
However, in the short-term, there could
be issues associated with the IBQ
market. For example the process of the
buyers and sellers arriving at a price for
IBQ shares may be difficult or highly
variable due to uncertainties such as
how to value IBQ shares, information
availability, and associated risks.
Experiences in other catch share
programs have shown that fishermen
may not know how to effectively value
the IBQs initially and uncertainty in this
new market may cause IBQs to be
undervalued in the first few years. This
could result in both adverse social and
economic impacts in the fishing
community if participants sell out of the
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71576
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
IBQ market in the early years for less
than the long-term value of the IBQs.
Sub-alternative C 2d.3, a preferred
alternative, would allow permanent sale
of quota shares among eligible vessel
owners in the future, after NMFS and
fishery participants have multiple years
of experience with the IBQ Program.
Until NMFS develops and implements a
permanent IBQ transfer program, vessel
owners would only be able to conduct
temporary (annual) leasing of quota
allocation, and therefore, vessel owners
would not be able to purchase (or sell)
quota share to permanently increase (or
decrease) their quota share percentage.
A phased-in approach would reduce
risks for vessel owners during the initial
stages of the IBQ Program, when the
market for bluefin quota shares is new
and uncertain. During the first years of
the IBQ Program, price volatility may be
reduced, as well as undesirable
outcomes of selling or buying quota
shares at the ‘‘wrong’’ time or price.
NMFS intends to develop a program to
allow the permanent sale of quota share
in the future because it would provide
a means for vessel owners to plan their
business and manage their quota
according to a longer time scale than a
single year, in a manner that would be
informed by several years of the
temporary leasing market. NMFS may
wait until a formal evaluation of the IBQ
Program before developing this
alternative (see IBQ Program Evaluation
Alternatives C 2h.1 and C 2h.2). This
sub-alternative may be combined with
the temporary transfer of quota
allocation (i.e., annual leasing of quota,
Sub-Alternative C 2d.1), but is a
separate and distinct type of transaction.
While this alternative may result in
long-term moderate beneficial economic
impacts, the uncertainty regarding the
timeline may make business planning
for vessel owners and IBQ holders more
difficult and result in some minor
adverse economic impacts. This
alternative minimizes economic impacts
by ensuring that during the initial years
of the IBQ Program, permanent transfer
of IBQ shares will not be possible, and
therefore reduces one of the potential
risks of the IBQ Program (that a transfer
will have negative unintended
economic impacts).
Under sub-alternative C 2e.1, a
preferred alternative, quota allocation
and/or quota share transfers would be
executed by the eligible vessel owners,
or their representatives. For example,
the two vessel owners involved in a
lease of quota or sale of quota share
could log into a password protected
web-based computer system (i.e., a
NMFS database), and execute the quota
allocation or quota share transfer.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Owner-executed transfers would
provide the quickest execution of a
transfer because any eligibility criteria
would be verified automatically via the
user log-in and password, and not
involve the submission or review of a
paper application for a transfer to/by
NMFS. This would result in short- and
long-term minor beneficial economic
impacts resulting from reduced
transactions costs.
Under sub-alternative C 2e.2, quota
and quota share transfers would be
executed by NMFS. For example, a
paper application for a sale of quota
share could be submitted by the two
vessel owners involved in the quota
share transaction, and NMFS would
review and approve the transaction
based on eligibility criteria (and enter
data into a computer database that
would track the transfers of quota). This
method would not include the use of a
web-based system, but would rely upon
mail or facsimile submission of
applications by the vessel owners to
NMFS. In comparison to sub-alternative
C 2e.1, this alternative may result in
some minor adverse economic impacts
if delays in NMFS’ review of
applications results in increased
transactions costs and fewer trades.
Under sub-alternative C 2f.1, there
would be no limit on the amount of
quota allocation an individual vessel
(Longline or Purse Seine) could lease
annually. This alternative would
provide flexibility for vessels to
purchase quota in a manner that could
accommodate various levels of
unintended catch of bluefin, and enable
the development of an unrestricted
market. Because the duration of a
temporary lease would be limited to a
single year, the impacts on an
unrestricted market for bluefin quota
would be limited in duration.
Information on this unrestricted market
could be used to develop future
restrictions if necessary. This alternative
would result in short- and long-term
minor beneficial economic impacts by
accommodating the various needs of
vessel owners for IBQ trades.
Under sub-alternative C 2f.2,the limit
on the amount of IBQ allocation that
may be leased annually would be the
combined Longline and Purse Seine
category allocations. This alternative
would provide flexibility for vessels to
purchase quota in a manner that could
accommodate various levels of
unintended catch of bluefin, and enable
the development of an unrestricted
market. Because the duration of a
temporary lease would be limited to a
single year, the impacts on an
unrestricted market for bluefin quota
would be limited in duration.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Information on this unrestricted market
could be used to develop future
restrictions (through proposed and final
rulemaking) if necessary. This
alternative would result in short- and
long-term minor beneficial economic
impacts by accommodating the various
needs of vessel owners for IBQ trades.
Sub-alternative C 2f.3, a preferred
alternative, would have NMFS consider
in the future the development of further
limits on the amount of quota allocation
an individual vessel (Longline or Purse
Seine), or the Longline or Purse Seine
category (in its entirety), could lease
annually. Setting a different limit than
the combined amount of Longline and
Purse Seine category allocations would
be difficult, as the market for bluefin
allocations is new and, as a
consequence, there are no data to inform
potential, alternative limits. Further,
NMFS does not believe there is a need
for a reduced limit. The IBQ Program
preferred alternatives are designed to
incentivize longline vessels to minimize
bluefin interactions, and only 25
percent of vessels are expected to need
to lease additional bluefin quota. In
recent years, the Purse Seine category
has not fished or not fully harvested the
amount of quota available. This
alternative could result in long-term
minor adverse economic impacts if the
limits cause some vessel owners to not
be able to acquire sufficient IBQs for
their fishing activity needs.
The measures under alternative C 2g
are based on the premise that the
success of an IBQ Program rests upon
the ability to track ownership of quota
shares and quota allocation holders;
allocate the appropriate amount of
annual harvest privileges (quota
allocation); reconcile landings and dead
discards against those privileges; and
then balance the amounts against the
total allowable quota. The current
pelagic longline reporting requirements
and the monitoring program that
provide data on pelagic longline bluefin
landings and dead discards were not
designed to support inseason
accounting of dead discards. More
timely information on catch would be
necessary in order to monitor a pelagic
longline IBQ, inclusive of dead discards.
VMS reporting Sub-alternative C 2g.1, a
preferred alternative, is the same
management alternative described in
Alternative D 1b. This alternative is
intended to support the implementation
of a pelagic longline IBQ. The economic
impacts are detailed in the section
below discussing Alternative D 1b.
Electronic monitoring sub-alternative
C 2g.2, a preferred alternative, is the
same management alternative described
in Alternative D 2b of this document.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
This alternative is intended to support
the implementation of a pelagic longline
IBQ. The economic impacts are detailed
in the section below discussing
Alternative D 2b.
Under sub-alternative C 2g.3, a
preferred alternative, in order to
conduct inseason quota monitoring and
estimate total bluefin dead discards and
landings, NMFS may extrapolate
observer-generated data (in-season)
regarding bluefin discards (rate,
number, location, etc.) by pelagic
longline vessels, based on reasonable
statistical methods, and available
observer data. This alternative would
not require a regulatory change, but
would inform the public that NMFS
would use this management practice if
warranted. NMFS would use this
observer information in conjunction
with, or in place of, vessel-generated
estimates of bluefin discards in order to
develop inseason estimates of total
bluefin landings and dead discards.
NMFS may use this method to estimate
dead discard rates of bluefin for
individual vessels in the context of an
IBQ Program. This sub-alternative
would address the potential for
uncertain dead discard data from the
pelagic longline fleet that may result
from challenges in the implementation
of new regulations, technical problems
relating to the reporting and monitoring
system, or time lags in the availability
of data. This alternative would
potentially have short-term minor or
neutral indirect beneficial economic
impacts by addressing the potential for
fishery disruptions if there are issues in
the transition to an IBQ monitoring
system.
Under sub-alternative C 2h.1, a
preferred alternative, NMFS would
formally evaluate the program after
three years of operation and provide the
HMS Advisory Panel with a publiclyavailable written document with its
findings. NMFS would utilize its
standardized economic performance
indicators as part of its review. This
would result in neutral economic
impacts because it is administrative in
nature.
Under sub-alternative C 2h.2, NMFS
would conduct a formal evaluation of
the IBQ Program after five years of
operation and provide the HMS
Advisory Panel with a written
document with its findings. As
described above, NMFS would utilize
its standardized economic performance
indicators (and associated standardized
definitions) as part of its review. This
alternative would result in neutral
economic and social impacts because it
is administrative in nature.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Under alternative C 2i, a preferred
alternative, NMFS would develop and
implement a cost recovery program of
up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of
fish harvested under the program, for
costs associated with the costs of
management, data collection and
analysis, and enforcement activities,
could result in direct long-term
moderate adverse economic impacts to
the industry. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act provides NMFS the authority for
cost recovery under § 303A(e). A cost
recovery program would not be
implemented until after the IBQ
Program evaluation described in
Alternative C 2h. Immediate
implementation of a cost recovery
program without the information
obtained from the operation of the
fishery under an IBQ Program would be
very difficult, and would increase costs
and uncertainty for fishing vessels
during a time period when the fishery
would be bearing other new costs and
sources of uncertainty. This alternative
could result in direct long-term
moderate adverse economic impacts to
the industry.
Alternative C 2j, a preferred
alternative, would implement an
appeals process for administrative
review of NMFS’ decisions regarding
initial allocation of quota shares for the
IBQ Program. The appeals process for
administrative review of NMFS’
decisions regarding initial allocation of
quota shares for the IBQ Program would
result in neutral economic impacts
because it would utilize the National
Appeals Office procedures and ensure a
standardized and centralized appeals
process, which would provide
procedural certainty to the participants.
If an IBQ Program is implemented,
preferred alternative C 2k would
implement a control date in conjunction
with the implementation (effective date)
of the IBQ Program. The control date
would serve as a reference date that may
be utilized with future management
measures, such as a modification to
aspects of the IBQ program as a result
of items identified during the 3-year
review of the IBQ program. The
implementation of a control date by
itself would have no effect, but would
provide NMFS with a potential
management tool that may be utilized if
necessary as part of a future
management measure. A control date is
typically used to discourage speculative
fishing behavior or speculative entry
into a fishery and notifies the public
that a date may be used in conjunction
with future management measures. This
alternative would likely have neutral
economic impacts and would only
result in beneficial short-term economic
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71577
impacts if it actually discouraged
speculative fishing behavior that may
have occurred without the control date.
Sub-alternative C 2l.1, the elimination
of target catch requirements is a
preferred alternative. Current target
catch requirements act at the level of an
individual trip to limit bluefin
retention, but do not prevent
interactions potentially resulting in
discarding bluefin dead (although it is
intended to dis-incentivize interactions
with bluefin by reducing any financial
incentive for such interactions by
limiting retention). The target catch
requirement therefore contributes to the
discarding of bluefin if the amount of
target catch species is insufficient to
retain the numbers of bluefin caught.
Under this sub-alternative C 2l.1a, the
current target catch requirements would
remain in effect. This would have
neutral economic impacts since it
would not change what is currently in
place.
Sub-alternative C 2l.1b, preferred
alternative, would eliminate the current
target catch requirements for pelagic
longline vessels. This alternative is
intended to work in conjunction with an
IBQ. The objective of this alternative is
to reduce bluefin dead discards and
optimize fishing opportunity for target
species. If an IBQ Program is
implemented, elimination of the target
catch requirement could reduce dead
discards, and enable vessels to fish for
target species in a more flexible manner.
A vessel that has caught some bluefin
but has insufficient target species to
meet the target catch requirement would
no longer have to choose between
discarding bluefin or fishing for more
target species; rather, the vessel would
use the annual individual bluefin quota
(IBQ). Thus, the IBQ would replace the
target catch requirement as the means of
limiting the amount of bluefin landed
and discarded dead per vessel on an
annual basis, instead of on a per trip
basis. This alternative would likely have
direct short- and long-term minor
beneficial economic impacts.
Sub-alternative C 2l.2a would
maintain the status quo regarding
retention of bluefin by pelagic longline
vessels. There would be no requirement
to retain commercial legal-sized bluefin
that are dead. Vessels would continue to
be able to discard bluefin even if they
are of commercial legal-size (i.e., 73″ or
greater) and dead. If the IBQ Program is
implemented, all dead discards would
be accounted for under that program.
This alternative would have neutral
economic impacts since it does not
change what is currently occurring.
Under sub-alternative C 2l.2b, a
preferred alternative, pelagic longline
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71578
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
vessels would be required to retain all
legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna that
are dead at haul-back. Because these
fish would be required to be retained,
legal discards and the waste of fish
would be decreased, and it would be
more likely that such fish are accurately
accounted for, and result in a positive
use (marketed, used for scientific
information, etc.). However, given that
current behavior may be to discard some
fish in order to optimize landings value
of bluefin, there could be minor adverse
economic impacts associated with this
alternative since vessel operators would
no longer have the option to discard
legal-sized bluefin.
Alternative C 3—Regional and Group
Quotas
Alternative C 3a would implement
annual bluefin quotas by region for
vessels possessing the Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit (combined
with the required shark and swordfish
limited access permits) that would
result in prohibiting the use of pelagic
longline gear when a particular region’s
annual bluefin quota has been caught.
Both bluefin landings and dead discards
would count toward the regional quota.
Annual bluefin quotas would be
associated with defined geographic
regions. While regional quotas may be
simpler than an IBQ system and have
advantages over a single quota allocated
for the entire Longline category, some
regions may face chronic shortages of
bluefin quota if that region experiences
increased fishing effort or bluefin
interaction rates. It is difficult to predict
the total amount of fishing effort that
would occur under regional quotas, and
the amount of bluefin quota that would
be caught. There is likely to be less
fishing effort under the Regional quota
control alternative (compared with the
No Action alternative) because a few
vessels could catch a large number of
bluefin, and because of the closure of
the entire area to the use of pelagic
longline gear. The historical data
indicate that the majority of bluefin
have been caught by relatively few
vessels. The amount of target species
catch such as swordfish and yellowfin
tuna, would depend primarily upon the
amount of fishing effort and whether the
regional quotas or IBQs become
constraining. If the regional quotas
reduce pelagic longline fishing effort,
there may be some minor adverse
economic and social impacts on
regional fishing communities where
effort is reduced.
Alternative C 3b would implement a
quota system for vessels possessing the
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
(combined with the required shark and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
swordfish limited access permits) that
would define three bluefin quota groups
and assign vessels with a valid permit
to one of the three groups. Both bluefin
landings and dead discards would count
toward the group quotas. Each active
vessel would be assigned to a quota
group based upon the associated
permit’s historical bluefin interactions
to ‘‘designated species’’ landings ratio.
Active vessels with relatively high
numbers of bluefin interactions would
be assigned to one quota group, active
vessels with a moderate level of bluefin
interactions would be assigned to a
second group, and the active vessels
with a low level of bluefin interactions
would be assigned to a third quota
group. Using the current quota
allocation (8.1%) and the 2012 Longline
category quota (74.8 mt) to illustrate, the
low avoider quota group would be
allocated 24.1 mt and the medium and
high avoider quota groups would be
allocated 25.1 mt. Although the three
quota groups have almost the identical
number of vessels assigned to them (53,
54, 54, respectively), as well as similar
quota, the average amount of bluefin
that they caught historically varies from
group to group. The number of bluefin
tuna interactions from 2006 to 2011 for
the low, medium, and high avoiders was
8,050, 1,348, and 95, respectively.
Converted to averages, the average
annual number of bluefin interactions
would be 1,342, 225, and 16. Utilizing
a rough conversion factor of a .125 mt
per fish, 225 fish is equivalent to 28 mt.
The high and medium avoider groups
are likely to have adequate quota,
whereas the low avoider group would
have inadequate quota if the future
interaction rate of the vessels is similar.
The average number of interactions
associated with the low avoider group
equates to approximately 168 mt. It is
likely that the group quota associated
with vessels with the highest historical
rate of bluefin interactions would be
attained first. This indicates that there
would be potentially significant direct
short- and long-term adverse economic
impacts to the low avoider group.
However, there could be moderate to
minor positive economic impacts to the
high and medium avoider groups.
Alternative C 4—NMFS Authority To
Close the Pelagic Longline Fishery
Under alternative C 4a, No Action, the
current regulatory situation would
continue, in which NMFS does not have
the authority to prohibit the use of
pelagic longline gear when the bluefin
quota is attained. When the quota is
projected to be reached, pelagic longline
vessels may no longer retain bluefin
tuna, but may continue to fish for their
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
target species, and must discard any
bluefin caught. The economic impacts
of this alternative would lead to shortand long-term direct minor economic
and social impacts due the loss of
revenue from bluefin tuna.
Under alternative C 4b, a preferred
alternative, NMFS would close the
pelagic longline fishery (i.e., prohibit
the use of pelagic longline gear) when
the total Longline category bluefin quota
is reached; projected to be reached; is
exceeded; or in order to prevent overharvest of the Longline category bluefin
quota and prevent further discarding of
bluefin; or when there is high
uncertainty regarding the estimated or
documented levels of bluefin catch. The
economic impacts of this alternative
would depend upon when the closure
occurred, ranging from January through
December. The time the pelagic longline
fishery would be closed would depend
upon many factors, including the size of
the Longline category quota, the type of
quota control alternative and other
alternatives implemented by
Amendment 7, and non-regulatory
factors. The range of quotas that would
be available to the Longline category
would depend upon the combination of
alternatives implemented.
Based on the Longline category being
closed in late spring and early summer
over the past few years and the 2013
closure occurring in June, NMFS
estimates that a June closure is a
plausible example to examine. A June
closure of the pelagic longline fishery
would result in a potential loss of
revenue of approximately $21.0 million,
or $156,000 per vessel per year. This
would result in a major short-term
adverse direct economic impact to the
pelagic longline fishery and this
economic impact would continue into
the long-term if landings and dead
discard rates continue along the current
trend.
Enhanced Reporting Measures
Alternative D 1—VMS Requirements
Alternative D 1a, the No Action
alternative, would have no requirement
under HMS regulations for an Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category vessel to
obtain a VMS unit and there would be
no change to the reporting requirements
applicable to purse seine vessels. There
would also be no additional VMS
requirements under HMS regulations for
a vessel using pelagic longline gear.
E–MTU VMS Installation and Operation
Alternative D 1b, a preferred
alternative, would require the three
vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse
Seine category permit to have an E–
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
MTU VMS unit installed by a qualified
marine electrician to remain eligible for
the Purse Seine permit. Purse seine
vessel owners would be required to
provide a hail-out declaration using
their E–MTU VMS units, indicating
target species and gear possessed
onboard the vessel when leaving port on
every trip. Purse seine vessel owners
would also be required to provide a
hail-in declaration, using their E–MTU
VMS units, providing information on
the timing and location of landing
before returning to port. The units
would be required to send position
information to NMFS every hour on a
24/7 basis, unless the vessel has
declared out of the fishery or been
granted a power-down exemption from
NMFS.
All of the three vessels that are
currently authorized to deploy purse
seine gear for Atlantic tunas have
already installed E–MTU VMS units in
compliance with regulations for other
Council-managed fisheries, including
Northeast Multispecies and/or Atlantic
scallop. If vessels have not already had
a type-approved E–MTU VMS unit
installed, or if permits were transferred
to vessels that have not yet installed E–
MTU VMS, they may be eligible for
reimbursement (up to $3,100) to offset
the costs of procuring a type-approved
unit subject to availability of funds. This
reimbursement would only cover the
cost of the E–MTU VMS and could not
be applied to offset installation costs by
a qualified marine electrician ($400) or
monthly communication costs ($44).
Initial costs, per vessel, for compliance
with E–MTU VMS requirements
included in this alternative would be
$3,500 if no reimbursement were
received, and $400 if a reimbursement
were received. On a monthly basis,
vessels would be required to establish a
communication service plan
corresponding to the type-approved E–
MTU VMS selected. Costs vary based on
the E–MTU VMS unit and
communication service provider that is
selected; however, these costs average
$44/month and include hourly
transmission reporting and a limited
amount of hail in and hail out
declarations. Charges vary by
communication service provider for
additional messaging or transmission of
data in excess of what allowed in their
individual plan. Furthermore, costs
might vary depending on how many
trips a vessel makes on a monthly basis
as the number of declarations (hail in/
hail out) increase proportionately. For
this analysis, all communication costs
were expected to be covered under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
baseline monthly plan costs (i.e., $44/
month).
If a vessel has already installed a typeapproved E–MTU VMS unit, this
alternative would have neutral direct
and indirect socioeconomic impacts in
the short and long-term as the only
expense would be monthly
communication service fees which they
are already paying for participation in a
Council-managed fishery. If vessels do
not have an E–MTU VMS unit installed
or an Atlantic tunas purse seine permit
is transferred to another vessel lacking
VMS, direct, adverse, short-term
socioeconomic impacts are expected as
a result of having to pay for the E–MTU
VMS unit and a qualified marine
electrician to install the unit. In the
long-term, direct economic impacts
would become minor, because monthly
communication service provider costs
($44) would be the only expense.
Economic impacts to shore-based
businesses, including fish dealers, bait
and gear suppliers, and other fishing
related industries are not expected.
Pelagic longline vessels are already
required to use an E–MTU VMS that has
been installed by a qualified marine
electrician to provide hourly position
reports and hail in/out declarations to
provide information on target species,
gear possessed, and expected time/
location of landing. Therefore, this
alternative would result in neutral
economic impacts in the short and long
term. Economic impacts to shore-based
businesses, including fish dealers, bait
and gear suppliers, and other fishing
related industries are not expected.
Reporting Bluefin Tuna Interactions
Using E–MTU VMS
Preferred alternative D 1b would also
require vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas
with pelagic longline or purse seine gear
to report daily the number of bluefin
retained, discarded (dead and alive),
fish disposition, and fishing effort
(number of sets, number of hooks,
respectively). This alternative is
intended to support the inseason
monitoring of the purse seine and
pelagic longline fisheries. Although
NMFS currently has the authority to
require logbook reporting for the purse
seine fishery, NMFS has not exercised
this authority (see Section 2.3.7).
Current information on the catch of the
purse seine fishery is limited to dealer
data on sold fish, and does not include
information of discarded bluefin or
other species caught or discarded.
Inseason information on catch,
including dead discards, would enhance
NMFS’ ability to monitor and manage
all quota categories.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71579
Purse Seine
The characteristics of the purse seine
fishery are unique. Many bluefin may be
caught by the fishery in a relatively
short period of time, and the proportion
of discarded to retained fish may be
high in some instances. Timely
information on discarded bluefin tuna,
and more timely information on
retained bluefin, would improve the
current monitoring of bluefin landings
and dead discards. This alternative
would provide timely information on
purse seine fishing effort, and improve
NMFS’ ability to interpret and utilize
the bluefin data in the context of the
fishery as a whole. Recently, there has
been limited effort in the Atlantic tunas
purse seine fishery for a variety of
reasons, including availability and
quantity of commercial size bluefin and/
or current permit holders are
participating in Council-managed
fisheries. This alternative would require
vessel operators to use their E–MTU
VMS to submit electronic reports
describing the number and size of
bluefin that were landed and discarded
dead.
Vessel operators fishing for Atlantic
tunas with purse seine gear are already
be required to have an E–MTU VMS
unit installed and capable of submitting
hourly position reports while fishing in
addition to hail out/in declarations
before and after fishing. This alternative
would, however, increase the amount of
information that vessel operators
provide using their E–MTU VMS units.
Typically, fishermen would make a
single declaration for each set that
details the quantity and size of bluefin
retained. This alternative would result
in neutral economic impacts in the short
and long-term because the vessel
owners would already be paying, on
average, $44 per month to cover the
costs of a communication service
provider. The number of additional
characters transmitted to report bluefin
retained and discarded dead are
expected to be less than 50 characters
per set, and are not expected to exceed
the typical monthly allowance for data
sent using the E–MTU VMS. Economic
impacts to shore-based businesses,
including fish dealers, bait and gear
suppliers, and other fishing related
industries are not expected.
Pelagic Longline
With respect to pelagic longline
vessels, this alternative is intended to
support the implementation of a pelagic
longline IBQ Program, whether
individual or regional, described under
Section 2.3. For example, under an IBQ
Program, each vessel must not harvest
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71580
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
more than is permitted by the total of
his/her quota share. The IBQ Program
would require vessel owners/operators
have the ability to track quota shares
and quota allocations, reconcile
landings against quota allocations, and
then balance the amounts against the
total allowable quota. Although the
current pelagic longline reporting
requirements and the monitoring
program provide data on pelagic
longline discards and landings, and
enable inseason monitoring and
management based upon landings, the
reporting requirements and monitoring
program were not designed to support
inseason monitoring of dead discards.
More timely information on dead
discards would be necessary in order to
monitor and enforce a pelagic longline
IBQ Program. Although the current
information on bluefin discards from
the pelagic longline fishery, which is
obtained through logbook data on effort
and catches from the observer program,
is sufficient to estimate bluefin dead
discards on an annual basis, the time lag
associated with the current information
is not useful for ‘‘real-time’’ in-season
monitoring of an IBQ Program.
Specifically, there is a time lag between
the time logbooks are submitted or the
field information is recorded by the
observer during the fishing trip, the time
the data are entered into a database, and
the time the data are finalized (after a
process of quality control) and available
for use. A trip declaration requirement
could be necessary in order for NMFS
to obtain timely information on pelagic
longline fishing effort, and interpret and
utilize the bluefin data in the context of
the fishery as a whole.
HMS logbook data (2006–2012)
indicate that, on average, pelagic
longline vessels have one interaction
(9,660 interactions/10,262 trips = 0.94
interactions/trip) with a bluefin per
vessel per trip. This alternative would
require all pelagic longline vessel
operators to report all interactions (kept,
discarded dead, discarded alive) and
estimate fish size (> or < than 73″ CFL)
using their E–MTU VMS within 12
hours of the completion of the haulback. Furthermore, additional
information on fishing effort, including
the number of hooks deployed on the
set that had a bluefin would also be
reported.
This alternative is expected to have
neutral to minor adverse economic
impacts on pelagic longline vessel
operators and owners in the short and
long-term. Economic impacts to shorebased businesses, including fish dealers,
bait and gear suppliers, and other
fishing related industries are not
expected. Existing regulations require
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
all pelagic longline vessel operators to
provide hail out/in declarations and
provide location reports on an hourly
basis at all times unless they have
declared out of the fishery or been
granted a power down exemption by
NMFS. In order to comply with these
regulations, vessel owners must
subscribe to a communication service
plan that includes an allowance for
sending similar declarations (hail out/
in) describing target species, fishing gear
possessed, and estimated time/location
of landing using their E–MTU VMS.
This alternative would require, on
average, 1 additional report per trip that
describe bluefin interactions and fishing
effort. Each report is expected to be
comprised of less than 50 characters.
Because of the minimal time
(approximately 5 minutes) required to
submit these short reports and the fact
that owners would likely already be
enrolled in a communication service
plan that would encompass
transmission of these additional
characters, adverse economic impacts
are not expected.
Alternative D 2—Electronic Monitoring
of Longline Category
Under alternative D2a, the No Action
alternative, NMFS would maintain the
status quo and would not pursue any
additional measures that would require
permitted pelagic longline vessels to
install electronic devices such as
cameras in order to support the
monitoring or verification of bluefin
catch under the IBQ Program. Currently,
pelagic longline vessels are required to
use E–MTU VMS units to provide
hourly position reports and to provide
hail out/in declarations describing target
species, fishing gear onboard, and time/
location of landing unless they have
declared out of the fishery or been
granted a power down exemption by
NMFS. Under this alternative, these
requirements would be maintained, and
no additional electronic monitoring
requirements would be implemented.
This alternative would not result in
economic impacts because it would
maintain existing requirements.
Alternative D 2b, a preferred
alternative, would require the use of
electronic monitoring, including video
cameras, by all vessels issued an
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
that intend to fish for highly migratory
species. Specifically, vessels would be
required to install and maintain video
cameras and associated data recording
and monitoring equipment in order to
record all longline catch and relevant
data regarding pelagic longline gear
retrieval and deployment.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
More specifically, this alternative
would require the installation of NMFSapproved equipment that may include
one to four video cameras, a recording
device, video monitor, hydraulic
pressure transducer, winch rotation
sensor, system control box, or other
equipment needed to achieve the
objectives. Vessel owner/operators
would be required to install, maintain,
facilitate inspection of the equipment by
NMFS, and obtain NMFS approval of
the equipment. The vessel owner/
operator would be required to store and
make the data available to NMFS for at
least 120 days, and facilitate the
submission of data to NMFS. The vessel
operator would be responsible for
ensuring that all catch is handled in a
manner than enables the electronic
monitoring system to record such fish,
and must identify a crew person or
employee responsible for ensuring that
all handling, retention, and sorting of
bluefin occurs in accordance with the
regulations.
While the electronic monitoring
program is being designed and
implemented, NMFS would continue to
use logbook, observer, and landings
information to assess catch by the
pelagic longline fleet. NMFS would
communicate in writing with the vessel
owners during all phases of the program
to provide information to assistant
vessel owners, and facilitate the
provision of technical assistance.
This alternative would require both
fixed and variable costs over the service
life of each camera installed onboard.
Fixed costs for vessel owners would
include purchasing the camera ($3,565)
and having it installed on the vessel
($500). Variable costs for vessel owners
include data retrieval ($45/hour; $4,500/
year); service ($45/hour; $270/year);
technician travel ($0.5/mile; $1,680/
year); fishing activity interpretation
($47/hour; $1,175 year); and catch data
interpretation ($1.5 hours per haul at a
labor rate of $47/hour, 1 haul per trip
and 100 trips; $7,050/year). The
estimated total variable costs would be
$14,663, and first year fixed costs would
be $4,065 for the purchase and
installation of the equipment. First year
fixed and variable costs total $18,728/
vessel for the first year. After the first
year, the annual variable costs of
operation are estimated to be $14,663/
vessel. The estimate provided here for
catch data interpretation is likely an
overestimate as the Agency is primarily
concerned with verification of bluefin
reports and no other species (i.e.,
yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin,
wahoo, etc.) being landed on pelagic
longline vessels. After purchasing the
camera and having it installed, expenses
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
would be limited to the variable costs
listed. This alternative would result in
direct and indirect adverse economic
impacts to pelagic longline vessel
owners in the short and long term.
NMFS is minimizing the economic
impacts of this alternative by paying for
the initial installation of the equipment,
as well as for some of the variable costs
such as review of the data.
Alternative D 3—Automated Catch
Reporting
The preferred alternative D 3 would
require Atlantic Tunas General,
Harpoon and HMS Charter/Headboat
permit holders to report their bluefin
catch (i.e., landings and discards) using
an expanded version of the bluefin
recreational automated landings
reporting system (ALRS). The
automated system includes two
reporting options, one that is web-based
and an interactive voice response
telephone system. The ‘‘No Action’’
alternative is not preferred because it
would not meet the Amendment 7
objectives, and would have no social or
economic impacts.
The primary impacts of the preferred
alternative are the amount of time the
new reporting requirement would take,
and the reporting costs, respectively.
NMFS estimated the potential annual
catch for each permit category based on
previous years data and multiplied it by
the 5 minutes it takes to complete a
report (NMFS 2013) for each fish to
estimate a total reporting burden of 607
hours for potentially 8,226 permit
holders as a result of this alternative.
Since the data are collected online or
via telephone, there are no monetary
costs to fishermen or direct economic
impacts to fishermen from this
alternative.
Adjustments to both the online and
IVR systems of the ALRS to implement
catch reporting for General, Harpoon,
and HMS Charter/Headboat category
permit holders are estimated to cost
NMFS a total of between $15,000 and
$35,000 (B. McHale, pers. comm.)
Annual maintenance would likely cost
approximately $8,700 per year, which is
the current cost for maintaining the
ALRS and the call-in system for reports
of other recreational HMS landings
(NMFS 2013). The economic impacts of
this alternative are minimized because
the online reporting requirement results
in a relatively low reporting burden.
Alternative D 4—Deployment of
Observers
Under alternative D 4a, the No Action
alternative, which is the preferred
alternative, there would be no changes
to the current observer coverage in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, Purse
Seine, Harpoon, or HMS Charter/
Headboat categories. Therefore, there
would be no additional cost to small
businesses.
Alternative D 4b would increase the
level of NMFS-funded observers on a
portion of trips by vessels fishing under
the Atlantic Tunas Longline, General,
Purse Seine, Harpoon, or HMS Charter/
Headboat categories. There might be
some minor costs to vessel operators
with the increased chance that they will
be selected for observer coverage and
will have to accommodate an observer.
Alternative D 5—Logbook Requirement
for Atlantic Tunas and HMS Category
Permit Holders
Alternative D 5, the No Action
alternative, is preferred and would make
no changes to the current logbook
requirements applicable to any of the
permit categories. It would have no
economic impact on fishing vessel
owners.
Alternative D 5b would require the
reporting of catch by Atlantic Tunas
General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/
Headboat category vessels targeting
bluefin through submission of an HMS
logbook to NMFS. The direct social and
economic impacts of this non-preferred
alternative include the amount of time
to complete logbook forms and the cost
of submission (i.e., mailing) for all
fishermen permitted in the affected
permit categories. These impacts would
be minor, adverse, and long-term. A
high-end proxy for the impacts of this
alternative is the current reporting
burden and cost for the entire HMS
logbook program, which have been
estimated for all commercial HMS
fisheries (28,614 permits, NMFS 2011a).
The annual reporting burden for the
entire program is estimated at 36,189
hours and costs are $94,779 for postage.
A more refined estimate is 6,735 hours,
which is based on the number of
fishermen likely to conduct directed
fishing trips for bluefin based on the
total number of General, Charter/
Headboat, and Harpoon category permit
holders in the states from Maine
through South Carolina. This is likely
also an over-estimate, since many
General and Charter/Headboat permit
holders in these states fish for yellowfin,
or other tunas rather than bluefin, or, for
Charter/Headboat permit holders, other
HMS. NMFS estimates this alternative
would have a total annual reporting
burden of 16,526 hours and a cost of
$8,263.
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71581
Alternative D 6—Expand the Scope of
the Large Pelagics Survey
‘‘No Action’’ is the preferred
alternative for the scope of the Large
Pelagics Survey, and would have no
social or economic impacts. The nonpreferred alternative would expand the
Large Pelagics Survey to include May,
November, and December, and add
surveys to the states south of Virginia,
including those bordering the Gulf of
Mexico, in order to increase the amount
of information available about the
recreational bluefin fishery, and further
refine recreational bluefin landings
estimates.
The direct economic impact of this
non-preferred alternative is the amount
of time that fishermen would expend
participating in the survey. The impacts
would be minor, adverse, and long-term.
There are no financial costs to
fishermen since the survey is conducted
in person and over the phone, and there
would be no direct economic impacts to
fishermen for this alternative. NMFS
estimates that the dockside survey takes
5 minutes on average, the phone survey
takes 8 minutes, and collection of
supplemental biological information
takes about 1 minute. Previously, NMFS
estimated that annual implementation
of the Large Pelagics Survey throughout
Atlantic and Gulf coastal states using
the current target sample-size of 7,870
for the dockside survey, 10,780 for the
phone survey and 1,500 for the
biological survey would result in a
reporting burden of 656 hours, 924
hours, and 25 hours respectively, for a
total reporting burden of 1,730 hours
(NMFS 2011b). This estimate could be
used as a high-end proxy for the
reporting burden associated with this
alternative. Another method for
estimating the reporting burden
associated with this alternative is to use
a ratio comparing the sample frame (i.e.,
number of permits) used in the
coastwide estimate with the sample
frame for the alternative (i.e., number of
permits in states south of VA). Using
this method, the reporting burden
estimate is 559 hours. Because of the
sampling design, adding the months of
May, November, and December is not
expected to add any reporting burden or
cost (Ron Salz, pers. comm.).
Other Measures
Alternative E 1—Modify General
Category Subquota Allocations
If no action is taken under Alternative
E 1a to modify the General category subperiod allocations, economic impacts
would be neutral and largely would
vary by geographic area, with continued
higher potential revenues during the
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71582
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
summer months in the northeast and
lower amounts to winter fishery
participants off the mid- and south
Atlantic states. General category
participants that fish in the January
bluefin fishery may continue to perceive
a disadvantage as the available quota for
that period is relatively small (5.3% of
the General category quota) and they do
not benefit from the rollover of unused
quota either inseason or from one time
period to the next. Nor do they benefit
from prior-year underharvest, because of
the timing of the annual final quota
specifications (published in the middle
of the year).
Alternative E 1b would establish a 12
equal monthly subquotas. It would
allow the General category to remain
open year-round, and would revise
subquotas so that they are evenly
distributed throughout the year (i.e., the
base quota of 435.1 mt would be divided
into monthly subquotas of 8.3 percent of
the General category base quota, or 36.1
mt). NMFS would continue to carry
forward unharvested General category
quota from one time period to the next
time period. This alternative would
result in increased harvest in the earlier
portions of the General category bluefin
season and decreased harvest in the
later portions of the season. For early
season (January–March) General
category participants, an additional 85.2
mt would be available (i.e., 108.3–23.1
mt). At $9.13/lb, this represents a
potential increase in revenue of
approximately $1.7 million overall
during this time period, nearly five
times the current amount. NMFS does
not have General category price/lb
information for April or May since there
is currently no General category fishing
during those months, but using $9.13/lb
as an estimate, potential revenues for
each of those months would be
$726,621. Potential revenues for the
current June–August and September
periods would decrease by
approximately $2.2 million (50%) and
$1.7 million (69%), given recent average
price ($9.13 and $9.61, respectively).
For October–November and for
December, potential revenues would
increase by approximately $317,000
(28%) and $287,000 (60%) at $9.21/lb
and $9.65/lb, respectively. Relative to
the No Action alternative, under
Alternative E 1b, there would generally
be substantially increased revenues for
January through May and October
through December and substantially
decreased revenues for June through
September, and total annual revenues
would decrease by approximately
$100,000 (1%).
Alternative E 1c, a preferred
alternative, is similar to Alternative E 1b
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
and could result in a shift in the
distribution of quota and thus fishing
opportunities to the earlier portion of
the year. For example, in 2011 and
2012, June through August General
category landings totaled 140.3 mt and
192.2 mt, out of an available (base)
quota of 217.6 mt. In 2010, June through
August General category landings
totaled 125.4 mt of an available
(adjusted) quota of 269.4 mt. If quota
that is anticipated to be unused in the
first part of the summer season is made
available to January period General
category participants and bluefin are
landed against the January period
subquota, it would potentially result in
improved and fuller use of the General
category quota. Also, because bluefin
price per lb is often higher in the
January period than during the summer,
shifting quota to this earlier period
would result in beneficial impacts to
early season General category
participants off the mid- and south
Atlantic states. It is possible, however,
that an increase of bluefin on the market
in the January period could reduce the
average price for that time of year.
Participants in the summer fishery may
perceive such quota transfer to be a shift
away from historical participants in the
traditional General category bluefin
fishing areas off New England and thus
adverse. However, because unused
quota rolls forward within a calendar
year from one period to the next, any
unused quota from the adjusted January
period would return to the June through
August period and onward if not used
completely during that period. Overall,
short-term, direct impacts depend on
the amount and timing of quota
transferred inseason and would be
expected to be neutral to minor,
beneficial for January fishery
participants and neutral to minor,
adverse impacts for participants in the
June through December General
category fishery. This alternative
minimizes economic impacts by
providing additional regulatory
flexibility for NMFS to transfer quota
among seasons, and respond to and
adapt to changes in the bluefin fishery.
This flexibility therefore enhances
NMFS’ ability to optimize quota
distribution among participants,
seasons, and regions.
Alternative E 2—NMFS Authority To
Adjust Harpoon Category Retention
Limits Inseason
Under the No Action alternative,
alternative E 2a, Harpoon category
participants would continue to have the
ability to retain and land up to four
large medium fish per vessel per day, as
well as unlimited giants. The economic
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
impact of the No Action alternative is
expected to be direct and neutral to
slightly beneficial and short-term, as
participants would continue to be able
to retain and land a 3rd and 4th large
medium bluefin, if available, and would
not have to discard these fish if caught
while targeting giant bluefin. In 2012,
the first year following implementation
of the four-fish limit on large mediums,
there were only two trips on which
three large mediums were landed and
two trips on which four large mediums
were landed, or 6% total of successful
trips. Harpoon quota revenues in 2012
were 24 percent lower than 2011 and 71
percent higher than in 2010.
Under alternative E 2b, a preferred
alternative, the daily retention limit of
large medium bluefin would range from
two to four bluefin, and the default large
medium limit would be set at two fish.
On a per-trip basis, there would be
minor short-term direct adverse social
and economic impacts that would
depend on availability of large mediums
to Harpoon category vessels on a per
trip basis and the actual retention limit
that NMFS sets inseason (or that is in
place by default). Looking at successful
2012 trips, NMFS can estimate potential
impacts of this change by determining
the number of trips on which three or
four large mediums were landed in
2012, and assume that those fish may
not be able to be landed under this
alternative. Using 2012 successful trip
data, if the limit was set at two large
mediums, the revenue from up to six
large mediums would be foregone for
the season, and with a three fish limit,
the revenue of up to two large mediums
would be foregone. At an average 2012
weight of 296 lbs. and an average price
of $9.13/lb for the Harpoon category, a
loss of one to six fish would be
approximately $2,702 to $16,215 for the
Harpoon category as a whole for the
year.
Potentially beneficial economic
impacts are possible if a lower limit at
the beginning of the season results in
the Harpoon category quota lasting
longer into the season, as the average
price/lb is generally higher in July and
August than it is in June. NMFS has not
needed to close the Harpoon category in
recent years (i.e., as a result of the quota
being met), but depending on the size of
the amount of quota available and the
number of Harpoon category
participants, this may be a
consideration. This alternative
minimizes economic impacts by
providing additional regulatory
flexibility for NMFS to set bluefin trip
limits, and respond to and adapt to
changes in the bluefin fishery.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Alternative E 3—Angling Category
Subquota Distribution
Under alternative E 3a, the No Action
alternative, Angling category
participants fishing south of 39°18′ N.
lat. (approximately, Great Egg Inlet, NJ)
would continue to have their landings
of trophy bluefin count toward a shared
66.7% of the Angling category large
medium and giant bluefin subquota.
The social impact of the No Action
alternative is expected to vary by
geographic area and be dependent on
the availability of trophy-sized bluefin
on the fishing grounds. If the pattern of
high activity off Virginia and North
Carolina continues, fishermen in the
mid-Atlantic may have greater
opportunities to land a bluefin and
participants in the Gulf of Mexico may
have no opportunity to land a bluefin
when the fish are in their area as the
southern trophy fishery may already be
closed for the year. For Angling and
Charter/Headboat fishermen, based on
the last two years, there would be direct,
beneficial, short-term social impacts in
the mid-Atlantic and direct, adverse,
short-term impacts for participants
south of that area, including the Gulf of
Mexico. The issue of economic costs for
Angling category participants is not
relevant as there is no sale of tunas by
Angling category participants. For
charter vessels, which sell fishing trips
to recreational fishermen, economic
impacts are expected to be neutral to
beneficial for those in the mid-Atlantic
and neutral to adverse for those south of
that area, including the Gulf of Mexico,
as the perceived opportunity to land a
trophy bluefin may be diminished. This
should be tempered in the Gulf of
Mexico, where there is no directed
fishing for bluefin allowed. Given that
the current southern trophy bluefin
subquota of 2.8 mt represents
approximately 17–30 individual fish,
impacts are expected to be minor.
Under Alternative E 3b, the preferred
alternative, a portion of the trophy south
subquota would be allocated
specifically for the Gulf of Mexico.
Specifically, the trophy subquota would
be divided as 33% each to the northern
area, the southern area outside the Gulf
of Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. At
the current average trophy fish weight,
this would allow annually up to 8
trophy bluefin to be landed in each of
the three areas.
There would be minor, short-term,
direct, beneficial social impacts to a
small number of vessels in the Gulf of
Mexico given the small amount of fish
that would be allowed to be landed (as
well as indirect beneficial economic
impacts for charter vessels), but the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
71583
perception of greater fairness among
southern area participants may result in
indirect, longer-term, beneficial, social
impacts. There would be minor, shortterm, direct and indirect adverse social
impacts (and economic impacts for
charter vessels) for those outside the
Gulf of Mexico as the perceived
opportunity to land a trophy bluefin
may be diminished.
the average price per pound was $5.96.
NMFS minimized the potential
economic impacts of this alternative by
altering this measure from that which
was proposed, to remove the default
start date of June 1, which was of
concern to handgear fishermen, but
instead will finalize an expanded range
of potential start dates to the Purse
Seine fishery.
Alternative E 4—Change Start Date of
Purse Seine Category to June 1
Under Alternative E 4a, the No Action
alternative, there would be no change to
the start date of the Purse Seine category
fishery, which is currently set at July 15.
Economic impacts would be expected to
be direct and neutral to adverse
depending on availability of schools of
bluefin for purse seine operators to
decide to make a set on. That is,
currently, if conditions would warrant
making a set (e.g., based on information
from spotter pilots) before July 15, purse
seine operators would not be able to fish
and would miss the economic
opportunity to land and sell bluefin
while the other commercial bluefin
fisheries are open. Social impacts would
be minor and neutral to adverse for
purse seine fishery participants and
would be minor and neutral to
beneficial for fishermen in other
categories due to reduced actual or
perceived gear conflict from June 1
through July 14.
Under the preferred alternative, E 4b,
extending the range of potential start
dates for the Purse Seine fishery,
beginning fishing on June 1, would
allow NMFS more flexibility in
determining when the appropriate start
date should be set, and the potential for
increased flexibility for purse seine
operators to choose when to fish, based
on availability of schools of appropriatesized bluefin and market price.
Economic impacts would be expected to
be direct and neutral to moderate and
beneficial depending on when
determines the start date should be, and
depending upon the availability of
schools of bluefin for purse seine
operators to decide to make a set on and
market conditions. Social impacts
would be minor and neutral to
beneficial for purse seine fishery
participants and would be minor and
neutral to adverse for fishermen in other
categories due to increased actual or
perceived gear conflict from June 1
through July 14. In 2012, the average
price per pound was $12.46, although
the price likely reflects the relatively
small amount of purse seine-caught
bluefin on the market that year. In 2009,
the last year in which there were
Atlantic purse seine bluefin landings,
Alternative E 5—Rule Regarding Permit
Category Changes
Under the No Action alternative, E 5a,
there would be no changes made to
current regulations regarding the ability
of an applicant to make a correction to
their open-access HMS permit category.
The current regulations prohibit a vessel
issued an open-access Atlantic Tunas or
an HMS permit from changing the
category of the permit after 10 calendar
days from the date of issuance. This No
Action alternative is administrative in
nature, and therefore the social and
economic impacts associated with it
would be neutral for most applicants.
However, for those applicants who
discover their permit category may not
allow the vessel to fish in a manner as
intended, they may experience
moderate adverse social and economic
impacts at an individual level. For
example, if a commercial fishermen
obtained an Angling category permit
(recreational) versus a General category
permit (commercial) and did not
discover the error until after the 10
calendar day window, their vessel
would not be allowed to fish
commercially for Atlantic tunas for the
remainder of that year. Likewise, if
recreational fishermen obtained a
General category permit (commercial)
versus an Angling category permit
(commercial) and did not discover the
error until after the 10 calendar
window, their vessel would not be
allowed to fish under the recreational
rules and regulations for the remainder
of the year. These two examples
demonstrate the potential in lost fishing
opportunities as a result of the No
Action alternative.
Under the preferred alternative, E 5b,
NMFS would allow category changes to
an open-access HMS permit for a time
period greater than 10 calendar days
(e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days), provided the
vessel has not fished as verified via
landings data. This alternative would
result in neutral social and economic
impacts for most applicants as there are
approximately 20 requests annually that
would fall outside the 10 calendar day
window. However, those applicants
who discover their permit category may
not allow the vessel to fish in a manner
as intended (∼20 per year), would
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71584
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
experience moderate beneficial social
and economic impacts provided they
discover the error in the liberalized
window (e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days). Using
the two examples illustrated above and
assuming no bluefin were caught in
either case, each applicant would be
allowed to correct their open-access
HMS permit category to match their
intended fishing practices for the
remainder of that year, thereby
mitigating the potential of lost fishing
opportunities, as well as potential
income.
Alternative E 6—North Atlantic
Albacore Tuna Quota
Alternative E 6a, the No Action
alternative, maintains the current
northern albacore tuna quota. In the last
10 years, U.S. catches reached or
exceeded the current U.S. initial quota
(527 mt for 2013) in 2004 with 646 mt
and in 2007 with 532 mt. However,
catches have been less than the adjusted
U.S. quotas (currently about 659 mt) for
the last several years. Under the No
Action alternative, there is no domestic
mechanism to limit annual catches of
northern albacore beyond the current
requirements for Atlantic tunas or HMS
vessel permits, authorized gear,
observers/logbooks, and time/area
closures. Therefore, expected shortterm, direct economic impacts and
social impacts under the No Action
alternative would be neutral. If future
overharvests result in the United States
being out of compliance with the ICCAT
recommendation, the United States
would need to put control measures in
place and neutral to adverse longer-term
direct economic and social impacts
could occur if the resulting annual
quota needs to be reduced by the
amount of the overharvest.
If, under preferred alternative, E 6b,
NMFS implements a domestic quota for
northern albacore and recent catch
levels continue, and the U.S. quota
(including the adjusted quota)
recommended by ICCAT is maintained
at the current amount, economic and
social impacts would not be expected.
However, if either the U.S. quota is
reduced as part of a new TAC
recommendation or catches increase
above the current adjusted U.S. quota,
there could be adverse impacts resulting
from reduced future fishing
opportunities and ex-vessel revenues.
At an average price of $1.29/lb for
commercially-landed albacore in 2011, a
reduction of one mt would represent
approximately $2,800 under a full quota
use situation. Actual impacts would
largely depend on the availability of
northern albacore and the ability of
fishery participants to harvest the quota.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
In addition, any adverse social and
economic impacts of exceeding the
TAC, which was adopted as part of the
overall ICCAT northern albacore
rebuilding program, would be reduced
and, in the long term, may be beneficial
for fishermen as the stock grows. There
may be slight differences in the level of
economic and social impacts
experienced by the specific individuals
of the northern albacore fishery, as well
as by participants within a particular
fishery sector.
NMFS has determined that
Amendment 7 does not require
reinitiation of consultation and that, per
ESA section 7(d), it would not result in
an ‘‘irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources’’ that would
have the effect of foreclosing the
formulation or implementation of any
reasonable and prudent alternative
measures during the ongoing
consultations.
On March 31, 2014, NMFS reinitiated
consultation for the pelagic longline
fishery. That fishery operates consistent
with a 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp)
that concluded that the Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery was not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s
ridley or olive ridley sea turtles but was
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of leatherback sea turtles.
NMFS implemented the Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) and Terms
and Conditions specified in that BiOp
(e.g., hook type, bait type, mandatory
workshops). On March 31, 2014, NMFS
requested reinitiation of consultation of
the pelagic longline BiOp due to new
information on mortality rates and total
mortality estimates for leatherback
turtles that exceed those specified in the
RPAs, changes in information about
leatherback and loggerhead populations,
and new information on sea turtle
mortality. While the mortality rate
measure needs to be re-evaluated, this
does not affect the overall ability of the
RPAs to avoid jeopardy during the
reinitiation.
NMFS is continuing to implement
these RPAs during the ongoing
consultation and has previously
determined that ongoing operations in
compliance with that BiOp are
consistent with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d)
of the ESA.
Implementation of this final rule will
not affect NMFS’ ability to comply with
the RPAs and RPMs in the 2004 BiOp,
and will not trigger additional ESA
requirements or considerations
pertaining to the pelagic longline fishery
and listed sea turtles and other species
covered in the 2004 BiOp. Amendment
7 measures (including those that could
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
reduce fishing effort) implemented in
conjunction with current measures in
the HMS fisheries would not change the
determination that ongoing operations
are unlikely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the right whale, humpback,
fin, or sperm whales, or Kemp’s ridley,
green, loggerhead, hawksbill or
leatherback sea turtles. A complete
discussion of the effect of the
alternatives applicable to the Longline
category on quota allocation and fishing
effort is located in Section 4.1.6.1 of the
FEIS.
On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a
final rule to list four Distinct
Populations Segments (DPS) of
scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna
lewini): Two as threatened (Central and
Southwest Atlantic DPS and Indo-West
Pacific DPS) and two as endangered
(Eastern Atlantic DPS and Eastern
Pacific DPS) under the Endangered
Species Act (79 FR 38214). The Central
and Southwest Atlantic DPS consists
primarily of the population found in the
Caribbean Sea and off the Atlantic coast
of Central and South America (includes
all waters of the Caribbean Sea,
including the U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
On August 27, 2014, NMFS published
a final rule to list the following 20 coral
species as threatened: Five in the
Caribbean including Florida and the
Gulf of Mexico (Dendrogyra cylindrus,
Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata,
Orbicella franksi, and Mycetophyllia
ferox); and 15 in the Indo-Pacific
(Acropora globiceps, Acropora
jacquelineae, Acropora lokani,
Acropora pharaonis, Acropora retusa,
Acropora rudis, Acropora speciosa,
Acropora tenella, Anacropora spinosa,
Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora
crateriformis, Montipora australiensis,
Pavona diffluens, Porites napopora, and
Seriatopora aculeata). Additionally, in
that August 2014 rule, two species that
had been previously listed as threatened
(Acropora cervicornis and Acropora
palmata) in the Caribbean were found to
still warrant listing as threatened.
The Central and Southwest Atlantic
DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks
and seven Caribbean species of corals
occur within the management area of
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
(HMS) commercial and recreational
fisheries which are managed by NMFS’s
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, HMS
Management Division. Following these
listings and based on the information
included in an October 2014 biological
evaluation, NMFS determined that
certain authorized Atlantic HMS gear
types may affect and are likely to
adversely affect scalloped hammerhead
sharks within the Central and
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Southwest Atlantic DPS. Additionally,
certain authorized Atlantic HMS gear
types may affect, but are not likely to
adversely affect, threatened Caribbean
coral species. Thus, on October 30,
2014, NMFS requested reinitiation of
ESA section 7 consultation for the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery
Management Plan activities, as amended
and as previously consulted on in the
2001 Atlantic HMS biological opinion
and the 2012 Shark and Smoothhound
biological opinion, to assess potential
adverse effects of certain gear types on
the Central and Southwest DPS of
scalloped hammerhead sharks and
seven threatened coral species.
With regard to the new listings, per
ESA section 7(d), NMFS has determined
that Amendment 7 would not result in
an ‘‘irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources’’ that would
have the effect of foreclosing the
formulation or implementation of any
reasonable and prudent alternative
measures during the ongoing
consultations. There are scalloped
hammerhead shark interactions in the
Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS,
based on Fisheries Logbook System and
Pelagic Observer Program data. The
number of interactions is consistent
with the conclusion that scalloped
hammerhead sharks in the Central and
Southwest Atlantic DPS are rarely
targeted and that recreational fishing
results in catch and release of low
numbers of under-sized scalloped
hammerhead sharks. Additionally,
Atlantic HMS gear types may affect but
are not likely to adversely affect,
threatened Caribbean coral species.
This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and
which has been approved by OMB
under control numbers 0648–0372,
0648–0328, and 0648–0677. Public
reporting burden for these collections of
information are estimated to average, as
follows:
1. Purse Seine VMS hail out & in,
OMB # 0648–0372, (5 min/response);
2. Pelagic Longline (PLL) and Purse
Seine (PS) VMS catch reports and
verification, OMB # 0648–0372, (5 min/
response for PLL; 15 min for PS)
3. Electronic Monitoring of Pelagic
Longline Vessels, Data Retrieval, OMB
# 0648–0328, (5 min/response)
4. General, Harpoon, and Charter/
Headboat reporting via automated
systems, OMB # 0648–0328, (5 min/
response)
5. Pelagic Longline appeal of
Performance Metrics, OMB # 0648–
0677, (2 hr/response)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
6. Pelagic Longline appeal of Quota
Shares, OMB # 0648–0677, (2 hr/
response)
7. Pelagic Longline and Purse Seine
IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking,
Transfer of Allocation, OMB # 0648–
0677, (2 min/response)
8. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking,
Online Account Initial Application,
OMB # 0648–0677, (10 min/response)
9. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking,
Online Account Renewal Application,
OMB # 0648–0677, (10 min/response)
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.
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. Copies of this final
rule and the compliance guide are
available upon request from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). Copies of the compliance
guide will also be available from the
Highly Migratory Species Management
Division Web site at https://
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.
This final rule does not conflict,
duplicate, or overlap with other relevant
Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)).
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
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ACTA, the
High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and the
Coastal Zone Management Act. We do
not believe that the new regulations
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
relevant regulations, Federal or
otherwise.
The State of Louisiana objected to the
consistency determination required by
15 CFR 930.39, and stated that the
potential biological benefits of the
Amendment are minimal compared to
the potentially large socio-economic
impacts for pelagic longline vessels,
especially those related to the IBQ
program. The State of Louisiana also
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71585
disagreed with the conclusion that the
proposed activity is consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with the
LCRP, claiming that the determination
lacks information sufficient to support
the consistency statement ‘‘as required
by federal regulations at 15 CFR
930.39(a) and as identified in the
enforceable policies of the Louisiana
Administrative Code, Title 43, Part I.’’
The State of Louisiana states that
Amendment 7 is inconsistent with
three, and is not fully consistent with
six, of the enforceable policies of the
Louisiana Administrative Code and
states that Amendment 7 lacks
comprehensive data and information
sufficient to support the consistency
statement. The specific factors of section
701 of the Louisiana Administrative
Code that the State of Louisiana states
are not fully consistent with
Amendment 7 are Section 701 F(5),
availability of feasible alternative sites
or methods of implementing the use;
F(7) economic need for use and extent
of impacts of use on economy of
locality; F(11) extent of impacts on
existing and traditional uses of the area
and on future uses for which the area is
suited; F(16) proximity to and extent of
impacts on public lands or works, or
historic, recreational, or cultural
resources; F(17) extent of impacts on
navigation, fishing, public access, and
recreational opportunities; and F(19)
extent of long term benefit or adverse
impacts.
After reviewing these concerns and,
in accordance with the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) regulations at
15 CFR 930.43(d)(2), NMFS has
concluded that the proposed action is
consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies
of the LCRP, as noted below, though the
State of Louisiana objects. Specifics on
this conclusion are as follows.
Regarding factor F(5), there are no
alternative sites for implementing the
use of pelagic longline fishing within
the Gulf of Mexico—pelagic longline
fishing already occurs within all
available federal and state waters. As
noted below, alternative methods of
reducing dead discards that were
analyzed included group or regional
quotas and would have had more
adverse impacts than the preferred
alternative. Regarding factor F(7), the
State of Louisiana correctly states that
pelagic longline fishing is an important
economic activity contributing to the
Louisiana economy. Pelagic longline
fishing will continue to be authorized
within the Gulf of Mexico, and valuable
target species such as swordfish and
yellowfin tuna are abundant in the
region such that, should pelagic
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71586
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
longline vessels continue to offload to
Louisiana-based federal dealers, pelagic
longline fishing will continue to
contribute to the Louisiana economy.
Regarding factor F(11), as stated
above, pelagic longline fishing will
continue to be authorized within the
Gulf of Mexico such that existing and
traditional uses as well as future uses of
the area will continue. Therefore, NMFS
believes that the proposed action is
consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies
of the LCRP.
Regarding factor F(16), productive
fishing grounds will still be available for
pelagic longline fishing within the Gulf
of Mexico even with the preferred
alternative that would implement the
Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs.
As noted in Chapter 4 of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
with redistribution of effort, NMFS
anticipates a reduction of approximately
$281,000 in ex-vessel value from
implementing the preferred alternative,
which, while approximately 3 percent
of the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline
fleet total ex-vessel value of $9.74
million, means that roughly 97 percent
of ex-vessel value within the Gulf of
Mexico will continue to contribute to
the State of Louisiana economy.
Therefore, NMFS believes that the
proposed action is consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of the LCRP.
Regarding factor F(17), the preferred
alternative to implement the Modified
Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA would
restrict access to two additional areas
within the Gulf of Mexico where bluefin
bycatch has consistently occurred from
2006–2012 and which comprise
approximately 11 percent of the area. In
combination with the DeSoto Canyon
pelagic longline closed areas, which
were closed to reduce bycatch of
juvenile swordfish and overfished
billfish and coastal sharks, and other
applicable HMS pelagic longline closed
areas, approximately 25 percent of the
Gulf of Mexico is restricted to pelagic
longline gear. While these measures
impact pelagic longline fishing, other
fishing activities, navigation, public
access, and recreational opportunities
would remain unaffected. Therefore,
NMFS believes that the proposed action
is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies
of the LCRP.
Regarding factor F(19),
implementation of Amendment 7
measures would provide different
benefits and adverse impacts for the
pelagic longline fleet within the Gulf of
Mexico depending on the measure. The
preferred Codified and Annual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Reallocation alternatives would provide
short and long term benefits to the
pelagic longline fishery through an
increased codified quota of 62 mt in
addition to potential for additional
quota as a result of the annual
reallocation alternative. Implementation
of IBQs, as noted above, would provide
approximately 75 percent of pelagic
longline vessels an allocation sufficient
for reported bluefin interactions. A
portion of Louisiana homeported vessels
would likely need to lease additional
bluefin quota or modify fishing behavior
to reduce bluefin interactions, although
implementation of the Modified Spring
Gulf of Mexico GRAs would limit access
to areas of high bluefin interactions,
thereby likely reducing bluefin
interactions without additional changes
by fishermen. Therefore, NMFS believes
that the proposed action is consistent to
the maximum extent practicable with
the enforceable policies of the LCRP.
The State of Louisiana also states that
Amendment 7 is inconsistent with the
enforceable policies of the Lousiana
Administrative Code’s Section 701G (2),
adverse economic impacts on the
locality of the used and affected
governmental bodies; (6), adverse
disruption of existing social patterns;
and (10), adverse effects of cumulative
impacts.
Regarding factors G(2) and (6), the
implementation of Amendment 7
measures would provide different
benefits and adverse impacts for the
pelagic longline fleet within the Gulf of
Mexico depending on the measure.
While some impacts are expected to be
short-and long-term moderate adverse
impacts, NMFS has balanced the overall
impacts to the pelagic longline fleet as
well as other user groups to achieve
Amendment 7 objectives in a fair and
appropriate manner, and as described in
Chapters 5, 7, and 8 of the FEIS, has
minimized adverse social and economic
impacts to the extent practicable,
consistent with the National
Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and CZMA. Providing
additional codified quota as well as the
potential of additional quota through
annual reallocation, in combination
with GRAs where bluefin interactions
have been historically high and IBQs
that provide 75 percent of the fleet with
sufficient quota to continue current
fishing practices- balances the need to
reduce dead discards with providing
fishing opportunities to all user groups.
The adverse impacts to 13 Louisiana
homeported vessels that would likely
need to lease approximately 7 metric
tons of bluefin are warranted given the
long-term benefits to the overall pelagic
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
longline fleet under the combination of
all preferred alternatives.
Regarding G(10), the Gulf of Mexico
pelagic longline fleet is a heavily
regulated fishery and has experienced
several natural and man-made adverse
impacts as well as regulatory changes in
recent years. Several regulatory
measures have been implemented to
reduce bycatch of threatened or
endangered species (i.e., circle hooks in
2004) and overfished species such as
bluefin (e.g., weak hooks in 2011) or
coastal sharks (i.e., sandbar sharks in
2008 and scalloped hammerhead sharks
in 2013). These measures often have
short term adverse impacts but are
ultimately needed for the sustainability
of the fishery in the long term. In each
of these actions, NMFS has minimized
adverse impacts to the extent
practicable while still meeting
conservation objectives, consistent with
applicable law.
Furthermore, the FEIS analysis
demonstrates that NMFS utilized many
of the factors cited by the State of
Louisiana as lacking in NMFS’s
evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the
best available logbook, dealer, and
observer data, conducted vessel-specific
analyses for preferred alternatives on
gear restricted areas and IBQ measures,
and relied on relevant recent scientific
information. NMFS also explored the
availability of alternative methods of
achieving the Amendment 7 objectives,
and considered the economic impacts,
as well as the long term benefits of the
measures. The alternative methods to
reduce dead discards of no action or
group or regional quotas would have
more adverse impacts and be less
effective in achieving Amendment 7
objectives to reduce dead discards and
maximize fishing opportunity. The
design of the IBQ management measures
and other aspects of Amendment 7
minimize the significant adverse
economic impacts, disruption of social
patterns, and adverse cumulative
impacts, to the extent practicable,
relative to other methods analyzed
while also meeting Amendment 7
objectives.
As explained in Chapter 5 of the
FEISit includes limited state specific
analyses of the impacts of the preferred
codified and IBQ measures. Due to the
nature of the bluefin fisheries (widely
distributed and highly variable), the
FEIS analyses are principally at a
fishery-wide, or permit category level.
The IBQ analyses show that
approximately 75 percent of the pelagic
longline fleet would receive an initial
allocation that would be consistent with
their historical reported landings such
that they would be able to continue to
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
operate without having to acquire
additional quota. Under the preferred
137 mt alternative (see Table 5.26), the
total additional amount of quota needed
to continue fishing at historical levels is
estimated to total 51.3 metric tons
across all the vessels needing additional
quota. Many vessels, however, would
not need their full initial IBQ allocation
to continue fishing at their historic
levels. The total of this surplus quota
across all vessels likely not fully use
their initial IBQ allocation is estimated
to be 82.8 mt in the context of the
preferred 137 mt alternative. The total
surplus of quota exceeds the total
amount needed under the preferred 137
mt alternative, so the transfer of quota
among pelagic longline vessels should
reduce potential economic impacts of
the IBQ program.
The states with the largest amount of
additional IBQ needed include
Louisiana, New York, and Florida,
while vessels with home ports in
Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana
would have the most surplus quota
available to trade. Specific to pelagic
longline vessels homeported in
Louisiana, NMFS estimates that
approximately 12 vessels would receive
an initial allocation either at or above
their historical reported landings and
would have approximately 10.4 mt of
surplus allocation. Conversely,
approximately 13 vessels would need
additional quota of 17.4 mt to maintain
current fishing practices. Therefore, the
total quota need among State of
Louisiana homeported vessels would be
7 mt. Vessels may change their fishing
practices such that the amount of quota
they need is reduced or they may be
able to lease quota from other vessels
with surplus quota. Therefore, the
adverse impacts to State of Louisiana
homeported vessels would be
minimized to the extent practicable
while still meeting the objectives of
Amendment 7.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 902
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels,
Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Treaties.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Dated: November 21, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
71587
b. Add the definitions of ‘‘Cape
Hatteras gear restricted area,’’ ‘‘In
transit,’’ ‘‘Spring Gulf of Mexico gear
restricted area,’’ and ‘‘Transiting’’ in
alphabetical order.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR
part 635 are amended as follows:
§ 635.2
Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade
*
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
Bottom longline means a longline that
PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION
is deployed with enough weights and/
COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER or anchors to maintain contact with the
THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT:
ocean bottom. For the purposes of this
OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
part, a vessel is considered to have
bottom longline gear on board when a
■ 1. The authority citation for part 902
power-operated longline hauler, a
continues to read as follows:
mainline, weights and/or anchors
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 350 et seq.
capable of maintaining contact between
the mainline and the ocean bottom, and
■ 2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph (b)
leaders (gangions) with hooks are on
under 50 CFR is amended by adding
board. Removal of any of these elements
new entries in numerical order for
constitutes removal of bottom longline
§§ 635.5(a)(4), 635.9(e), 635.14(d),
gear. Bottom longline vessels may have
635.15(a)(2), (c)(2) and (k)(4), and
a limited number of floats and/or high
635.69(a) and (e)(4) to read as follows:
flyers onboard for the purposes of
§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned
marking the location of the gear but
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
removal of these floats does not
constitute removal of bottom longline
*
*
*
*
*
gear.
(b) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
CFR Part or
Cape Hatteras gear restricted area
section where the
means the area within the Atlantic
Current OMB control
information
number (all numbers
Ocean bounded by straight lines
collection
begin with 0648–)
connecting the following coordinates in
requirement is
located
the order stated: 34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′ W.
long.; 35°40′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. long.;
35°40′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.; 37°10′ N.
*
*
*
*
*
50 CFR:
........................................ lat., 75°00′ W. long.; 37°10′ N. lat.,
74°20′ W. long.; 34°30′ N. lat., 74°20′ W.
long.; 34°50′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long;
*
*
*
*
*
635.5(a)(4) .....
–0328 34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′ W.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Green-stick gear means an actively
635.9(e) .........
–0328 trolled mainline attached to a vessel and
635.14(d) .......
–0677
elevated or suspended above the surface
635.15(a)(2),
of the water with no more than 10 hooks
(c)(2) and
(k)(4) ..........
–0677 or gangions attached to the mainline.
The suspended line, attached gangions
and/or hooks, and catch may be
*
*
*
*
*
635.69(a) and
retrieved collectively by hand or
(e)(4) ..........
–0372 mechanical means. Green-stick does not
constitute a pelagic longline or a bottom
*
*
*
*
*
longline as defined in this section.
In transit means non-stop progression
Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries
through an area without any fishing
activity occurring.
PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY
*
*
*
*
*
MIGRATORY SPECIES
Pelagic longline means a longline that
is suspended by floats in the water
■ 3. The authority citation for part 635
column and that is not fixed to or in
continues to read as follows:
contact with the ocean bottom. For the
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C.
purposes of this part, a vessel is
1801 et seq.
considered to have pelagic longline gear
■ 4. In § 635.2:
on board when a power-operated
■ a. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Bottom
longline hauler, a mainline, floats
longline,’’ ‘‘Green-stick gear,’’ and
capable of supporting the mainline, and
‘‘Pelagic longline,’’ and
leaders (gangions) with hooks are on
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71588
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
board. Removal of any of these elements
constitutes removal of pelagic longline
gear.
*
*
*
*
*
Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted
area means two areas within the Gulf of
Mexico described here. The first area is
bounded by straight lines connecting
the following coordinates in the order
stated: 26°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long.;
27°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long.; 27°30′ N.
lat., 89° W. long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 89° W.
long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long. The
second area is bounded by straight lines
connecting the following coordinates in
the order stated: 27°40′ N. lat., 88° W.
long.; 28° N. lat., 88° W. long.; 28° N.
lat., 86° W. long.; 27°40′ N. lat., 86° W.
long.; 27°40′N. lat., 88° W. long.
*
*
*
*
*
Transiting means progressing through
an area without any fishing activity
occurring.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 635.4 revise paragraphs (j)(3)
and (o)(4) to read as follows:
§ 635.4
Permits and fees.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(3) A vessel owner issued an Atlantic
Tunas permit in the General, Harpoon,
or Trap category or an Atlantic HMS
permit in the Angling or Charter/
Headboat category under paragraph (b),
(c), or (d) of this section may change the
category of the vessel permit once
within 45 calendar days of the date of
issuance of the permit, provided the
vessel has not landed bluefin tuna
during those 45 calendar days as
verified by NMFS via landings data.
After 45 calendar days from the date of
issuance of the permit, the vessel owner
may not change the permit category
until the following fishing season.
*
*
*
*
*
(o) * * *
(4) The owner of a vessel issued an
HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit may fish for, take, retain, or
possess only BAYS tunas, Atlantic
swordfish, and Atlantic sharks, subject
to the trip limits specified at § 635.24.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 635.5:
■ a. Paragraph (a)(3) is revised;
■ b. Paragraph (a)(4) is redesignated as
paragraph (a)(5);
■ c. New paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6) are
added;
■ d. Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) is revised;
■ e. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is added; and
■ f. Paragraph (c)(1) is revised.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 635.5
*
*
Recordkeeping and reporting.
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
(a) * * *
(3) Bluefin tuna landed by a
commercial vessel and not sold. If a
person who catches and lands a large
medium or giant bluefin tuna from a
vessel issued a permit in any of the
commercial categories for Atlantic tunas
does not sell or otherwise transfer the
bluefin tuna to a dealer who has a dealer
permit for Atlantic tunas, the person
must contact a NMFS enforcement
agent, at a number designated by NMFS,
immediately upon landing such bluefin
tuna, provide the information needed
for the reports required under paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section, and, if requested,
make the tuna available so that a NMFS
enforcement agent or authorized officer
may inspect the fish and attach a tag to
it. Alternatively, such reporting
requirement may be fulfilled if a dealer
who has a dealer permit for Atlantic
tunas affixes a dealer tag as required
under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section
and reports the bluefin tuna as being
landed but not sold on the reports
required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section. If a vessel is placed on a trailer,
the person must contact a NMFS
enforcement agent, or the bluefin tuna
must have a dealer tag affixed to it by
a permitted Atlantic tunas dealer,
immediately upon the vessel being
removed from the water. All bluefin
tuna landed but not sold will be applied
to the quota category according to the
permit category of the vessel from
which it was landed.
(4) Bluefin tuna discarded dead, or
landed by a commercial vessel and sold.
The owner of a vessel that has been
permitted or that is required to be
permitted under § 635.4 in the Atlantic
Tunas General or Harpoon categories, or
has been permitted or is required to be
permitted under § 635.4 under the HMS
Charter/Headboat category and fishing
under the General category quotas and
daily limits as specified at § 635.23(c),
must report all discards and/or landings
of bluefin tuna through the NMFS
electronic catch reporting system within
24 hours of the landings or the end of
trip. Such reports may be made by
either calling a phone number
designated by NMFS or by submitting
the required information online to a
Web site designated by NMFS. The
owner of a vessel that has been
permitted in a different bluefin tuna
category must report as specified
elsewhere in this section (§ 635.5).
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Atlantic Tunas permitted vessels.
The owner or operator of an Atlantic
Tunas vessel fishing with pelagic
longline gear or an Atlantic Tunas Purse
Seine category participant is subject to
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the VMS reporting requirements under
§ 635.69(e)(4) and the applicable
Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program
and/or leasing requirements under
§ 635.15(a)(2).
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Landing reports. Each dealer with
a valid Atlantic Tunas dealer permit
issued under § 635.4 must submit the
landing reports to NMFS for each
bluefin received from a U.S. fishing
vessel. Such reports must be submitted
electronically by sending a facsimile to
a number designated by NMFS not later
than 24 hours after receipt of the
bluefin. Landing reports must include
the name and permit number of the
vessel that landed the bluefin and other
information regarding the catch as
instructed by NMFS. Landing reports
submitted via facsimile must be signed
by the permitted vessel owner or
operator immediately upon transfer of
the bluefin. When purchasing bluefin
tuna from eligible IBQ Program
participants or Atlantic Tunas Purse
Seine category participants, permitted
Atlantic Tunas dealers must also enter
landing reports into the electronic IBQ
System established under 635.15, not
later than 24 hours after receipt of the
bluefin. The vessel owner or operator
must confirm that the IBQ System
landing report information is accurate
by entering a unique PIN when the
dealer report is submitted. The dealer
must inspect the vessel’s permit to
verify that it is a commercial category,
the required vessel name and permit
number as listed on the permit are
correctly recorded on the landing report,
and that the vessel permit has not
expired.
*
*
*
*
*
(iii) Dealers must comply with dealer
requirements related to the Individual
Bluefin Quota Program under
§ 635.15(a)(4)(iii).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Bluefin tuna. The owner of a
vessel permitted, or required to be
permitted in the Atlantic HMS Angling
or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat
category under § 635.4 must report the
catch of all bluefin tuna discarded dead
and/or retained under the Angling
category quota designated at § 635.27(a)
through the NMFS electronic catch
reporting system within 24 hours of the
landing.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. Add § 635.9 to subpart A—with
paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (e)(1) effective
June 1, 2015—to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 635.9
Electronic monitoring.
(a) Applicability. An owner or
operator of a commercial vessel
permitted or required to be permitted in
the Atlantic Tunas Longline category
under § 635.4, and that has pelagic
longline gear on board, is required to
have installed, operate, and maintain an
electronic monitoring (EM) system on
the vessel, as specified in this section.
Vessel owner or operators can contact
NMFS or a NMFS-approved contractor
for more details on procuring an EM
system.
(b) EM Installation. (1) NMFS or a
NMFS-approved contractor will assess
individual Atlantic Tunas Longline
permitted vessels that are currently
eligible for IBQ share, install and test all
EM systems; provide training to vessel
owners or operators or their designees;
and develop in consultation with vessel
owners or operators or their designees
required operational plans (Vessel
Monitoring Plan or VMP) for the EM
systems, as described in paragraph (e)(2)
of this section.
(2) Vessel owners or operators, as
instructed by NMFS, will be required to
coordinate with NMFS or a NMFSapproved contractor to schedule a date
or range of dates for EM installation,
and/or may be required to steam to a
designated port for EM installation on
NMFS-determined dates. NMFS may
require vessel owners to make minor
modifications to vessel equipment to
facilitate installation and operation of
the EM system, such as, but not limited
to, installation of a fitting for the
pressure side of the line of the drum
hydraulic system, a power supply for
the EM system and power switches/
connections, additional lighting, and/or
a mounting structure(s) for installation
of the camera(s). EM installation must
be completed by June 1, 2015 in order
to fish with pelagic longline gear after
that date.
(i) Certificate of Installation. After
confirming that an EM system that
meets the requirements of this section is
properly installed, the system has been
tested, and training and a required
operational plan (VMP) are completed,
NMFS or the NMFS-approved
contractor will provide a Certificate of
Installation to the vessel owner or
operator.
(ii) Vessels described under paragraph
(a) of this section may not depart on a
fishing trip without having a valid
Certificate of Installation and VMP on
board.
(c) EM System Components. The EM
system installed by the NMFS-approved
contractor must be comprised of video
camera(s), recording equipment, and
other related equipment and must have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
the following components and
capabilities:
(1) Video camera(s). (i) Video cameras
must be mounted and placed so as to
provide clear, unobstructed views of the
area(s) where the pelagic longline gear
is retrieved and of catch being removed
from hooks prior to being placed in the
hold or discarded. There must be
lighting sufficient to illuminate clearly
individual fish.
(ii) Video camera(s) must be in
sufficient numbers (a minimum of two
and up to four), with sufficient
resolution (no less than 720p (1280 ×
720)) for NMFS, the USCG, and their
authorized officers and designees, or
any individual authorized by NMFS to
determine the number and species of
fish harvested. To obtain the views
described in paragraph (c)(1)(i), at least
one camera must be mounted to record
close-up images of fish being retained
on the deck at the haulback station, and
at least one camera must be mounted to
record activity at the waterline along the
side of the vessel at the haul back
station. NMFS or the NMFS-approved
contractor will determine if more
cameras are needed.
(iii) The EM system must be capable
of initiating video recording at the time
gear retrieval starts. It must record all
periods of time when the gear is being
retrieved and catch is removed from the
hooks until it is placed in the hold or
discarded.
(2) GPS receiver. A GPS receiver is
required to produce output, which
includes location coordinates, velocity,
and heading data, and is directly logged
continuously by the control box. The
GPS receiver must be installed and
remain in a location where it receives a
strong signal continuously.
(3) Hydraulic and drum rotation
sensors. Hydraulic sensors are required
to continuously monitor the hydraulic
pressure and a drum rotation sensor
must continuously monitor drum
rotations.
(4) EM control box. The system must
include a control box that receives and
stores the raw data provided by the
sensors and cameras. The control box
must contain removable hard drives and
storage systems adequate for a trip
lasting 30 days.
(5) EM systems monitor. A
wheelhouse monitor must provide a
graphical user interface for harvester to
monitor the state and performance of
the control box and provide information
on the current date and time
synchronized via GPS, GPS coordinates,
current hydraulic pressure reading,
presence of a data disk, percentage used
of the data disk, and video recording
status.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71589
(6) The EM system must have
software that enables the system to be
tested for functionality and that records
the outcome of the tests.
(d) Data maintenance, storage, and
viewing. The EM system must have the
capacity to allow NMFS, the USCG, and
their authorized officers and designees,
or any NMFS-approved contractor to
observe the live video on the EM
systems monitor as described in
paragraph (c)(5) of this section. Vessel
owner or operators must provide access
to the system, including the data upon
request.
(e) Operation. (1) Unless otherwise
authorized by NMFS in writing, a vessel
described in paragraph (a) of this
section must collect video and sensor
data in accordance with the
requirements in this section, in order to
fish with pelagic longline gear.
(2) Vessel monitoring plan. The vessel
owner or operator must have available
onboard a written VMP for its system,
which is an operational plan developed
by the NMFS-approved contractor
containing the standardized procedures
relating to the vessel’s EM system.
VMPs may include, but are not limited
to, information on the locations of EM
system components; contact information
for technical support; instructions on
how to conduct a pre-trip system test;
instructions on how to verify proper
system functions; location(s) on deck
where fish retrieval should occur to
remain in view of the cameras;
procedures for how to manage EM
system hard drives; catch handling
procedures; a size reference for
facilitating determination of fish size;
periodic checks of the monitor during
the retrieval of gear to verify proper
functioning; reporting procedures. The
VMP should minimize to the extent
practicable any impact on the current
operating procedures of the vessel, and
should help ensure the safety of the
crew.
(3) Handling of fish and duties of
care. The vessel owner or operator must
ensure that all fish that are caught, even
those that are released, are handled in
a manner that enables the video system
to record such fish, and must ensure
that all handling and retention of
bluefin tuna occurs in accordance with
relevant regulations and the operational
procedures outlined in the VMP. The
vessel owner or operator is responsible
for ensuring the proper continuous
functioning of the EM system, including
that the EM system must remain
powered on for the duration of each
fishing trip from the time of departure
to time of return; cameras must be
cleaned routinely; and EM system
components must not be tampered with.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71590
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(4) Completion of trip. Within 48
hours of completing a fishing trip,, the
vessel owner or operator must mail the
removable EM system hard drive(s)
containing all data to NMFS or NMFSapproved contractor, according to
instructions provided by NMFS. The
vessel owner or operator is responsible
for using shipping materials suitable to
protect the hard drives (e.g.,, bubble
wrap), tracking the package, and
including a self-addressed mailing label
for the next port of call so replacement
hard drives can be mailed back to the
vessel owner or operator. Prior to
departing on a subsequent trip, the
vessel owner or operator must install a
replacement EM system hard drive(s) to
enable data collection and video
recording. The vessel owner or operator
is responsible for contacting NMFS or
NMFS-approved contractor if they have
requested but not received a
replacement hard drive(s) and for
informing NMFS or NMFS-approved
contractor of any lapse in the hard drive
management procedures described in
the VMP.
(f) Failure to adequately monitor the
gear and catch. The vessel owner or
operator must monitor and maintain the
EM system in working condition, which
includes ensuring the proper
continuous functioning of the EM
system, cameras provide clear
unobstructed views, and video picture
quality is clear. Prior to departing on a
trip with pelagic longline gear on board,
the vessel owner or operator must test
the functionality of the system and
contact NMFS or the NMFS-approved
contractor if the system is not
functioning properly. In that case, or if
NMFS independently determines that
an EM system fails to meet the
requirements of this section, the vessel
cannot leave port unless and until
NMFS provides written authorization.
NMFS may grant such authorization
after confirming that an EM system is
functioning properly or other
circumstances as determined by NMFS
warrant authorization.
(g) Repair and replacement. If the
vessel owner or operator becomes aware
that the EM system on the vessel is not
functioning properly at sea, the vessel
owner or operator must contact NMFS
and follow the instructions given. Such
instructions may include but are not
limited to returning to port until the EM
system is repaired. Once in port, an EM
system must be functioning properly
(e.g., repaired, reinstalled, or replaced)
consistent with the installation
requirements in this section before the
vessel can fish with pelagic longline
gear.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Subpart B—Individual Vessel
Measures
8. Revise the subpart B heading to
read as set forth above.
■ 9. Add § 635.14 to subpart B to read
as follows:
■
§ 635.14
Performance metrics.
(a) General. For purposes of
§ 635.21(c)(3), NMFS will determine
‘‘qualified’’ vessels based on the
performance metrics in paragraph (b) of
this section. Specifically, NMFS will
use fishery dependent and fishery
independent data to evaluate vessel
performance based on avoidance of
bluefin tuna interactions while fishing
with a pelagic longline gear and history
of compliance with the observer and
logbook requirements of §§ 635.7 and
635.5, respectively.
(b) Calculation of performance
metrics. In year one of implementation,
NMFS will analyze the relevant data
from the period 2006 to 2012 to
determine a vessel’s score and
qualification status. Subsequently,
NMFS will analyze available data from
the most recent complete three
consecutive year period to determine a
vessel’s score and qualification status.
NMFS will communicate the results of
the annual determination to individual
permit holders in writing. NMFS may
revise, through the framework
procedures under § 635.34, the scoring
system to reflect changes in the fishery
or ensure that it provides the desired
incentives and meets the goals of this
program. The process used to calculate
the performance metrics are described
fully in Amendment 7 to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP. The main
metrics are summarized below.
(1) Bluefin tuna interactions
performance metric. The basis for the
bluefin tuna interactions performance
metric is the ratio of the number of
bluefin tuna interactions (i.e., the
number of fish landed, discarded dead,
and discarded alive) to the total weight
of designated target species landings (in
pounds). For the purposes of this
section, the designated target species
are: Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye,
albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin;
wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin mako,
and thresher sharks. A relatively low
bluefin tuna interaction to designated
species ratio (‘bluefin tuna ratio’)
indicates that the vessel has
successfully avoided catching bluefin
tuna while fishing with pelagic longline
gear in the performance metric period.
(2) Observer compliance performance
metric. NMFS will score vessels based
on both the vessel owner’s and the
operator’s compliance with the observer
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requirements outlined in § 635.7 of this
part and § 600.746 of this chapter. In
addition, the scoring system will
consider the number of trips for which
an individual vessel was selected to
carry an observer, the number of trips
actually observed, the reason why a
particular trip was not observed, and
other relevant observer information. The
scoring system is neutral with respect to
valid reasons that a vessel may have
been selected by the observer program,
but did not take an observer (e.g., no
observer was available or the vessel was
not fishing with pelagic longline gear).
The scoring system is designed to weigh
trips that were not observed due to
noncompliance with the
communication requirements more
heavily than those not observed due to
noncompliance with the safety and
accommodation requirements. The
scoring system is also designed to
consider evidence of fishing activity
that may have occurred without
required communication or observer
coverage.
(3) Logbook compliance performance
metric. NMFS will score vessels based
on both the vessel owner’s and vessel
operator’s compliance with the logbook
reporting requirements outlined in
§ 635.5. This metric will reflect the
timeliness of the submission of the
logbooks (for example, the amount of
time elapsed between the offloading of
the catch and the logbook submission).
(4) Combining performance metrics.
The performance metrics described
under paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of
this section will be combined through
the use of a decision formula described
in Amendment 7 to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP. The decision
formula will result in a designation for
each vessel of ‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘not
qualified.’’
(c) Annual notification. NMFS will
notify permitted vessel owners annually
of the score of their vessel (i.e.,
‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘not qualified’’) by
certified mail. The score applies for only
one year. NMFS will make aggregate
data regarding access to gear restricted
areas available to the general public.
(d) Appeals. Permitted vessel owners
can appeal their performance score
determinations pursuant to the
procedures, timing, and other
requirements at § 635.15(k)(4)(i), (ii),
and (iv). Any initial administrative
determination or appeal would be
evaluated based upon the following
criteria:
(1) The accuracy of NMFS records
regarding the relevant information; and
(2) correct assignment of historical
data to the vessel owner/permit holder.
The current owner of a permitted vessel
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
may also appeal on the basis of
historical changes in vessel ownership
or permit transfers. Appeals based on
hardship factors will not be considered.
■ 10. Add § 635.15 to subpart B—with
paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(5)(i)
effective January 1, 2016—to read as
follows:
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 635.15
Individual bluefin tuna quotas.
(a) General. This section establishes
an IBQ Program for eligible Atlantic
Tunas Longline permit holders that use
pelagic longline gear under this part and
addresses Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine
category leasing.
(1) Overview. Under the IBQ Program,
NMFS will assign eligible Atlantic
Tunas Longline permit holders initial
IBQ shares equivalent to a percentage of
the annual Longline category quota.
Purse Seine Category quota shares are
allocated separately pursuant to
§ 635.27(a)(4).
(2) Electronic IBQ System. IBQ
Program participants, Atlantic Tunas
Purse Seine category participants, and
other permit holders eligible to lease
IBQ allocations under paragraph (c) of
this section, must have access to the
electronic IBQ system and set up an IBQ
account on that system as instructed by
NMFS.
(b) IBQ allocation and usage. An IBQ
quota allocation is the amount of bluefin
tuna (whole weight) in metric tons (mt),
which an IBQ Program participant is
allotted to account for incidental catch
of bluefin tuna during a given calendar
year. Unless otherwise required under
paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permitted
vessel’s initial IBQ allocation for a
particular year is derived by multiplying
its IBQ share (percentage) by the
Longline category quota for that year.
(1) Annual calculation and
notification of IBQ allocations.
Annually, as described in detail in
paragraph (f) of this section, NMFS will
notify IBQ share recipients of their IBQ
allocation for the next calendar year.
IBQ allocations expire at the end of each
calendar year.
(2) Regional designations. As
described further under paragraph (k)(3)
of this section, all IBQ shares and
resultant allocations are designated as
either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or ‘‘Atlantic’’
based upon the geographic location of
sets as reported to NMFS under the
requirements of § 635.5. Regional
percentages determine the share and
allocation within the two pelagic
longline (PLL) share categories: Gulf of
Mexico (PLL GOM) and Atlantic (PLL
ATL). PLL GOM shares and resultant
allocations can be used to fish with
pelagic longline gear in either the Gulf
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
of Mexico or the Atlantic regions. PLL
ATL shares and resultant allocations
can only be used to fish with pelagic
longline gear in the Atlantic region.
Purse Seine category annual allocations
can only be used to fish in the Atlantic
region, even if leased to a PLL
participant. For the purposes of this
section, the Gulf of Mexico region
includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west
and north of the boundary stipulated at
50 CFR 600.105(c) and the Atlantic
region includes all other waters of the
Atlantic Ocean with the exception
regarding fishing taking place in the
Northeast Distant (NED) gear restricted
area defined at § 635.2 and is further
described in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section.
(3) Minimum IBQ allocation. Before
departing on a fishing trip, a vessel with
an eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit that fishes with or has
pelagic longline gear onboard, must
have the minimum IBQ allocation for
either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic,
depending on fishing location. The
minimum IBQ allocation for a vessel
fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, or
departing for a fishing trip in the Gulf
of Mexico, is 0.25 mt ww (551 lb ww).
The minimum IBQ allocation for a
vessel fishing in the Atlantic or
departing for a fishing trip in the
Atlantic is 0.125 mt ww (276 lb ww). A
vessel owner or operator may not
declare into or depart on a fishing trip
with pelagic longline gear onboard
unless it has the relevant required
minimum IBQ allocation for the region
in which the fishing activity will occur.
(4) Accounting for bluefin tuna
caught. (i) With the exception of vessels
fishing in the NED, in compliance with
the requirements of paragraph (b)(8) of
this section, all bluefin tuna catch (dead
discards and landings) must be
accounted for and deducted from the
vessel’s IBQ allocation.
(ii) If the amount of bluefin tuna catch
on a particular trip exceeds the amount
of the vessel’s IBQ allocation, the vessel
may continue to fish and complete the
trip, but must resolve any quota debt
(see paragraph (b)(5) of this section
before declaring into or departing on a
subsequent fishing trip with pelagic
longline gear onboard by acquiring
additional IBQ allocation through
leasing, as described in paragraph (c) of
this section.
(iii) IBQ Program participants,
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category
participants, and dealers must comply
with reporting requirements at
§ 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). The vessel owner or
operator of a vessel that caught bluefin
tuna must enter dead discard
information from the trip
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71591
simultaneously with the dealer entering
that trip’s landings information into the
electronic IBQ system (pursuant to
§ 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A)). The vessel owner or
operator must also confirm the accuracy
of the dealer reported data at the time
of entry in the electronic IBQ System.
No IBQ transactions will be processed
between 6 p.m. eastern time on
December 31 and 2 p.m. Eastern Time
on January 1 of each year to provide
NMFS time to reconcile IBQ accounts
and update IBQ shares and allocations
for the upcoming fishing year.
(5) Exceeding an available allocation.
This paragraph (b)(5) applies to a vessel
with, or an permit holder of, an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit or an
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category
permit unless otherwise specified. If the
amount of bluefin tuna catch for a
particular trip (as defined at § 600.10 of
this chapter) exceeds the amount of
allocation available to the vessel, the
permitted vessel is considered to have a
‘‘quota debt’’ equal to the difference
between the catch and the allocation.
For example, if a vessel has an
allocation of 0.40 mt (882 lb), and
catches 0.50 mt (1,102 lb) of bluefin
tuna on a trip, that vessel would have
a quota debt of 0.10 mt (220 lb).
(i) Trip level quota debt. Vessels with
a quota debt cannot fish with or have
gear for which the vessel is permitted
onboard until the quota debt is settled
by leasing allocation for the appropriate
region (per paragraph (c) of this section)
and applying the leased allocation to
settle the quota debt or through
additional allocation (per paragraph (f)
of this section) such that the permitted
vessel has at least the minimum quota
allocation required to fish as specified
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) Annual level quota debt. If, by the
end of the fishing year, a permit holder
does not have adequate allocation
(obtained either through leasing under
paragraph (c) of this section) or
additional allocation under paragraph
(f) of this section to settle their vessel’s
quota debt, the vessel’s allocation will
be reduced in the amount equal to the
quota debt in the subsequent year or
years until the quota debt is fully
accounted for. A vessel may not fish if
it has outstanding quota debt, even
across fishing years.
(iii) Association with permit. Quota
debt is associated with the vessel’s
permit, and remains associated with the
permit if/when the permit is transferred
or sold. At the end of the year, if an
owner with multiple permitted vessels
has a quota debt on one or more vessels
owned, the IBQ system will apply any
remaining unused allocation associated
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71592
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
with that owner’s other vessels to
resolve the quota debt.
(6) Duration. IBQ allocation issued
under this section is valid for the
relevant fishing year unless it is
revoked, suspended, or modified or
unless the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category quota is closed per § 635.28(a).
(7) Unused IBQ allocation. Any IBQ
allocation that is unused at the end of
the fishing year may not be carried
forward by a permit-holder to the
following year, but would remain
associated with the Longline category as
a whole, and subject to the quota
regulations under § 635.27, including
annual quota adjustments.
(8) The IBQ Program and the
Northeast Distant Area (NED). The
following restrictions apply to vessels
fishing with pelagic longline gear in the
NED:
(i) When NED bluefin quota is
available. Permitted vessels fishing with
pelagic longline gear may fish in the
NED, and any bluefin catch will count
toward the ICCAT-allocated separate
NED quota until the NED quota has been
filled. Permitted vessels fishing in the
NED are still required to have the
minimum IBQ allocation, specified
under paragraph (b)(3) of this section to
depart on a trip using pelagic longline
gear.
(ii) When NED bluefin quota is filled.
Permitted vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear may fish in the NED after
the ICCAT-allocated separate NED quota
has been filled but the permitted vessels
must abide by all the requirements of
the IBQ program. Bluefin catch will be
accounted for using the vessel’s IBQ
allocation, as described under
paragraphs (b)(2) and (k)(3) of this
section.
(c) IBQ Allocation Leasing—(1)
Eligibility. The permit holders of vessels
issued valid Atlantic Tunas Longline
permits and participants in the Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category are eligible
to lease IBQ allocation to and/or from
each other. A person who holds an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that is
not associated with a vessel may not
lease IBQ allocation.
(2) Application to lease—(i)
Application information requirements.
All IBQ allocation leases must occur
electronically through the electronic
IBQ system, and include all information
required by NMFS.
(ii) Approval of lease application.
Unless NMFS denies an application to
lease IBQ allocation according to
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, the
electronic IBQ system will provide an
approval code to the IBQ lessee
confirming the transaction.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
(iii) Denial of lease application.
NMFS may deny an application to lease
IBQ allocation for any of the following
reasons, including, but not limited to:
The application is incomplete; the IBQ
lessor or IBQ lessee is not eligible to
lease per paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
the IBQ lessor or IBQ lessee permits is
sanctioned pursuant to an enforcement
proceeding; or the IBQ lessor has an
insufficient IBQ allocation available to
lease (i.e., the requested amount of lease
may not exceed the amount of IBQ
allocation associated with the lessor).
As the electronic IBQ system is
automated, if any of the criteria above
are applicable, the lease transaction will
not be allowed to proceed. The decision
by NMFS is the final agency decision;
there is no opportunity for an
administrative appeal.
(3) Conditions and restrictions of
leased IBQ allocation—(i) Subleasing. In
a fishing year, an IBQ allocation may be
leased numerous times following the
process specified in paragraph (c)(2) of
this section.
(ii) History of leased IBQ allocation
use. The fishing history associated with
the catch of bluefin tuna will be
associated with the vessel that caught
the bluefin tuna regardless of how the
vessel acquired the IBQ allocation (e.g.,
through initial allocation or lease), for
the purpose of calculation of the
performance metrics described under
§ 635.14(b), or other relevant restrictions
based upon bluefin catch.
(iii) Duration of IBQ allocation lease.
IBQ allocations expire at the end of each
calendar year. Thus, an IBQ lessee may
only use the leased IBQ allocation
during the fishing year in which the IBQ
allocation is applicable.
(iv) Temporary prohibition of leasing
IBQ allocation. No leasing of IBQ
allocation is permitted between 6 p.m.
eastern time on December 31 of one year
and 2 p.m. Eastern Time on January 1
of the next. . This period is necessary to
provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ
accounts, and update IBQ shares and
allocations for the upcoming fishing
year.
(v) Related restrictions. Other
regulations specific to the Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category are set forth
at § 635.27(a)(4)(v).
(d) Sale of IBQ shares. Sale of IBQ
shares currently not permitted.
(e) Changes in vessel and permit
ownership. In accordance with the
regulations specified under § 635.4(l), a
vessel owner that has an IBQ share may
transfer the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit to another vessel that he
or she owns or transfer the permit to
another person. The IBQ share as
described under this section would
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
transfer with the permit to the new
vessel, and remain associated with that
permit. Within a fishing year, when an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit transfer
occurs (from one vessel to another), the
associated IBQ shares are transferred
with the permit, however IBQ allocation
is not, unless the IBQ allocation is also
transferred through a separate
transaction within the electronic IBQ
system. As described under paragraphs
(c)(1) and (k)(1) of this section, a person
or entity that holds an Atlantic Tunas
Longline permit that is not associated
with a vessel may not receive or lease
IBQ allocation.
(f) Annual notification of shares and
allocations. On January 1 of each year,
NMFS will notify eligible IBQ
Participants, as specified in paragraph
(k)(1) of this section, of their IBQ share
and the resulting IBQ allocation (mt) for
the relevant fishing year, as well as the
regional designations based on the
available Atlantic Tunas Longline
category quota, and any existing quota
debt. NMFS will provide this
information through the electronic IBQ
system and via annual permit holder
letters. Unless specified otherwise,
those IBQ shares and resultant
allocations will be available for use at
the start of each fishing year. Permit
holders (of eligible Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permits) that have not
completed the process of permit
renewal or permit transfer as of
December 31 will be issued IBQ
allocation upon completion of the
permit renewal or permit transfer,
provided the eligible permit is
associated with a vessel.
(g) Evaluation. NMFS will continually
monitor the IBQ Program with respect to
the objectives listed in the FEIS and
make any changes through future
rulemakings as deemed necessary to
meet those objectives. Three years after
full implementation, NMFS will publish
a written report describing any findings.
(h) Property rights. IBQ shares and
resultant allocations issued pursuant to
this part may be revoked, limited,
modified or suspended at any time
subject to the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, or other
applicable law. Such IBQ shares and
resultant allocations do not confer any
right to compensation and do not create
any right, title, or interest in any bluefin
tuna until it is landed or discarded
dead.
(i) Enforcement and monitoring.
NMFS will enforce and monitor the IBQ
Program through the use of the reporting
and record keeping requirements
described under § 635.5, the monitoring
requirements under §§ 635.9 and
635.69, and its authority to close the
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
pelagic longline fishery specified under
§ 635.28.
(j) Cost recovery. In a future action,
NMFS will develop and implement cost
recovery for the IBQ program that will
cover costs of management, data
collection and analysis, and
enforcement activities. Fees shall be
collected from quota share and/or
allocation holders for the IBQ program
pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act
sections 303A(e) and 304(d)(2). Such
fees shall not exceed 3 percent of the exvessel value of fish harvested under the
program.
(k) Initial IBQ shares. During year one
of implementation of the IBQ Program
described in this section, NMFS will
issue IBQ shares to eligible Atlantic
Tunas Longline permit holders, as
specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
section. New entrants to the pelagic
longline fishery would need to obtain an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, as well
as other required limited access permits,
as described under § 635.4(l), and would
need to lease IBQ allocations per
paragraph (c) of this section if the
permits acquired did not qualify for an
initial IBQ share.
(1) Eligible IBQ share Recipients. (i)
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
holders whose valid permit was
associated with a vessel as of August 21,
2013, and that was determined to be
‘‘active’’ would be eligible to receive an
initial IBQ share. ‘‘Active’’ vessels are
those vessels that have used pelagic
longline gear on at least one set between
2006 and 2012 as reported to NMFS on
logbooks, per the requirements of
§ 635.5. In determining a permitted
vessel’s initial IBQ share eligibility and
calculating the initial IBQ share, NMFS
used the data associated with the
qualifying vessel’s history (and not the
permit). Therefore, for the purposes of
this section, the vessel owner at the time
of reporting is not relevant. If the
logbook reports indicate that a
particular vessel used pelagic longline
gear for at least one set between 2006
and 2012, and the vessel was issued a
valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit as of August 21, 2013, the
current permit holder is qualified to
receive an initial IBQ share.
(ii) Except as described in paragraph
(k)(4) of this section regarding appeals,
if the logbook reports indicate that a
particular vessel did not use pelagic
longline gear for at least one set between
2006 and 2012, and/or the vessel was
not issued a valid Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit on August 21,
2013, the current permit holder is not
eligible to receive an initial IBQ share
even if the current permit holder fished
with pelagic longline gear on a different
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
vessel between 2006 and 2012. Persons
that held an Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit that was not associated
with a vessel as of August 21, 2013 are
not eligible for an initial IBQ share.
Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permits holders that are ineligible to
receive an initial IBQ share would need
to lease IBQ allocation per paragraph (c)
of this section, as well as meet all other
applicable requirements, before the
vessel could fish with or possess pelagic
longline gear onboard.
(2) IBQ share determination (i) Initial
IBQ shares. NMFS has reviewed each
permitted vessel’s reported bluefin tuna
interactions (all discards and landings)
and landings of designated species
(swordfish, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore,
and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and
porbeagle, shortfin mako and thresher
sharks) and placed each permitted
vessel into one of three tiers: Low,
medium and high based on the ratio of
bluefin tuna interactions. The IBQ share
will be assigned based on the three tiers.
(ii) Appeals to initial IBQ shares.
When NMFS determines that all appeals
pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of this
section have been resolved, NMFS may
adjust the initial IBQ share percentages
described under paragraph (k)(2)(i) as
necessary to accommodate those
appellants that have been deemed
eligible for an initial IBQ share or are
provided an increased IBQ share.
(3) Regional designations. All initial
IBQ shares and resultant allocations are
designated as either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or
‘‘Atlantic’’ based upon the geographic
location of sets as reported to NMFS
under the requirements of § 635.5.
Eligible permit holders may use Gulf of
Mexico IBQ shares and resultant
allocations to fish in either the Gulf of
Mexico or the Atlantic regions. Eligible
permit holders may use Atlantic IBQ
shares and resultant allocations only to
fish in the Atlantic region. If a permitted
vessel had fishing history in both the
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, it may
receive both the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic IBQ shares, depending upon
the amount of IBQ share and the
proportion of fishing history in the two
areas. Based on the procedures
described under paragraphs (k)(1) and
(2) of this section, if a permit holder
would be issued a regional IBQ share
that results in a regional allocation less
than a minimum amount for a particular
area (i.e., less than 0.125 mt for the
Atlantic or less than 0.25 mt for the Gulf
of Mexico), the de minimis regional IBQ
share and resultant allocation would be
designated to the other regional
designation.
(4) Appeals of initial IBQ share.
Atlantic Tunas Longline Permit holders
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71593
may appeal their initial IBQ shares
through the two-step process described
below. NMFS will provide further
explanation on how to submit an appeal
when it informs permit holders of their
initial IBQ shares.
(i) Initial administrative
determination (IAD). The HMS
Management Division will evaluate
requests from Atlantic Tunas Longline
Permit holders regarding their initial
IBQ shares. Any request must be
postmarked no later than March 2, 2015,
be in writing, and indicate the reason
for the request, and contain
documentation supporting the request
(see paragraphs (k)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this
section). The HMS Management
Division will evaluate the request and
supporting documentation, and notify
the appellant by a written IAD regarding
a decision to approve or deny the
request. The IAD will explain the basis
for any denial decision.
(ii) Appeal of IAD. Within 90 days
after the date of issuance of the IAD, the
permit holder may appeal the IAD to the
NMFS National Appeals Office,
pursuant to procedures at 15 CFR part
906.
(iii) Items subject to IAD and appeal.
The only items subject to an IAD or
appeal are: Initial IBQ share eligibility
based on ownership of an active vessel
with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit combined with the
required shark and swordfish limited
access permits; the accuracy of NMFS
records regarding that vessel’s amount
of designated species landings and/or
bluefin interactions; and correct
assignment of target species landings
and bluefin interactions to the vessel
owner/permit holder. As described
under paragraph (k)(1) of this section,
the IBQ share formulas are based upon
historical data associated with a
permitted vessel. Because vessels may
have changed ownership or permits may
have been transferred during 2006
through 2012, the current owner of a
permitted vessel may also appeal on the
basis of historical changes in vessel
ownership or permit transfers. Appeals
based on hardship factors (e.g., illness of
vessel owner, divorce, etc.) will not be
considered.
(iv) Supporting documentation for
IAD or appeal. NMFS will consider
official NMFS logbook records or
weighout slips for landings between
January 1, 2006, through December 31,
2012, that were submitted to NMFS
prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the
cutoff date for eligible landings) and
verifiable sales slips, receipts from
registered dealers, state landings
records, and permit records as
supporting documentation for a request
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71594
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
or appeal under paragraph (k)(4) of this
section. NMFS will count only those
designated species landings that were
landed legally when the owner had a
valid permit. No other proof of catch
history or species interactions will be
considered, except for NMFS logbook
records, observer data, or other NMFS
data. NMFS permit records will be the
sole basis for determining permit
transfers. Copies of documents may be
submitted, provided they are of equal
legibility and quality as the originals,
and such copies shall have the same
force and effect as if they were originals.
NMFS may request the originals at a
later date. NMFS may refer any
submitted materials that are of
questionable authenticity to the NMFS
Office of Enforcement for investigation.
■ 11. Add § 635.19 to subpart C to read
as follows:
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 635.19
Authorized gears.
(a) General. No person may fish for,
catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic
HMS with gears other than the primary
gears specifically authorized in this
part. Consistent with § 635.21(a),
secondary gears may be used at boat
side to aid and assist in subduing, or
bringing on board a vessel, Atlantic
HMS that have first been caught or
captured using primary gears. For
purposes of this part, secondary gears
include, but are not limited to, dart
harpoons, gaffs, flying gaffs, tail ropes,
etc. Secondary gears may not be used to
capture, or attempt to capture, freeswimming or undersized HMS. Except
for vessels permitted under § 635.4(o) or
as specified in this section, a vessel
using or having onboard in the Atlantic
Ocean any unauthorized gear may not
possess an Atlantic HMS on board.
(b) Atlantic tunas. A person that
fishes for, retains, or possesses an
Atlantic bluefin tuna may not have on
board a vessel or use on board a vessel
any primary gear other than those
authorized for the category for which
the Atlantic tunas or HMS permit has
been issued for such vessel. Primary
gears are the gears specifically
authorized in this section. When fishing
for Atlantic tunas other than bluefin
tuna, primary gear authorized for any
Atlantic Tunas permit category may be
used, except that purse seine gear may
be used only on board vessels permitted
in the Purse Seine category and pelagic
longline gear may be used only on board
vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category tuna permit, a LAP
other than handgear for swordfish, and
a LAP for sharks. A person issued an
HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit who fishes for, retains, or
possesses BAYS tunas in the U.S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2 of this
chapter, may have on board and use
handline, harpoon, rod and reel, bandit
gear, green-stick gear, and buoy gear.
(1) Angling. Speargun (for BAYS
tunas only), and rod and reel (including
downriggers) and handline (for all
tunas).
(2) Charter/headboat. Rod and reel
(including downriggers), bandit gear,
handline, and green-stick gear are
authorized for all recreational and
commercial Atlantic tuna fisheries.
Speargun is authorized for recreational
Atlantic BAYS tuna fisheries only.
(3) General. Rod and reel (including
downriggers), handline, harpoon, bandit
gear, and green-stick.
(4) Harpoon. Harpoon.
(5) Longline. Longline and green-stick.
(6) Purse seine. Purse seine.
(7) Trap. Pound net and fish weir.
(c) Billfish. (1) Only persons who have
been issued a valid HMS Angling or
valid Charter/Headboat permit, or who
have been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas
General category or Swordfish General
Commercial permit and are
participating in a tournament as
provided in § 635.4(c), may possess a
blue marlin, white marlin, or roundscale
spearfish in, or take a blue marlin, white
marlin, or roundscale spearfish from, its
management unit. Blue marlin, white
marlin, or roundscale spearfish may
only be harvested by rod and reel.
(2) Only persons who have been
issued a valid HMS Angling or valid
Charter/Headboat permit, or who have
been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas
General category or Swordfish General
Commercial permit and are
participating in a tournament as
provided in § 635.4(c), may possess or
take a sailfish shoreward of the outer
boundary of the Atlantic EEZ. Sailfish
may only be harvested by rod and reel.
(d) Sharks. No person may possess a
shark in the EEZ taken from its
management unit without a permit
issued under § 635.4. No person issued
a Federal Atlantic commercial shark
permit under § 635.4 may possess a
shark taken by any gear other than rod
and reel, handline, bandit gear, longline,
or gillnet. No person issued an HMS
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit may possess a shark taken from
the U.S. Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2
of this chapter, by any gear other than
with rod and reel, handline or bandit
gear. No person issued an HMS Angling
permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat
permit under § 635.4 may possess a
shark if the shark was taken from its
management unit by any gear other than
rod and reel or handline, except that
persons on a vessel issued both an HMS
Charter/Headboat permit and a Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Atlantic commercial shark permit may
possess sharks taken with rod and reel,
handline, bandit gear, longline, or
gillnet if the vessel is not engaged in a
for-hire fishing trip.
(e) Swordfish. (1) No person may
possess north Atlantic swordfish taken
from its management unit by any gear
other than handgear, green-stick, or
longline, except that such swordfish
taken incidentally while fishing with a
squid trawl may be retained by a vessel
issued a valid Incidental HMS squid
trawl permit, subject to restrictions
specified in § 635.24(b)(2). No person
may possess south Atlantic swordfish
taken from its management unit by any
gear other than longline.
(2) An Atlantic swordfish may not be
retained or possessed on board a vessel
with a gillnet. A swordfish will be
deemed to have been harvested by
gillnet when it is onboard, or offloaded
from, a vessel fishing with or having on
board a gillnet.
(3) A person aboard a vessel issued or
required to be issued a valid directed
handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish or
an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small
Boat permit may not fish for swordfish
with any gear other than handgear. A
swordfish will be deemed to have been
harvested by longline when the fish is
on board or offloaded from a vessel
fishing with or having on board longline
gear. Only vessels that have been issued
a valid directed or handgear swordfish
LAP or an HMS Commercial Caribbean
Small Boat permit under this part may
utilize or possess buoy gear.
(4) Except for persons aboard a vessel
that has been issued a directed,
incidental, or handgear limited access
swordfish permit, a Swordfish General
Commercial permit, an Incidental HMS
squid trawl permit, or an HMS
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit under § 635.4, no person may
fish for North Atlantic swordfish with,
or possess a North Atlantic swordfish
taken by, any gear other than handline
or rod and reel.
(5) A person aboard a vessel issued or
required to be issued a valid Swordfish
General Commercial permit may only
possess North Atlantic swordfish taken
from its management unit by rod and
reel, handline, bandit gear, green-stick,
or harpoon gear.
■ 12. Section 635.21 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 635.21 Gear operation, restricted areas,
and deployment restrictions.
(a) All Atlantic HMS fishing gears. (1)
An Atlantic HMS harvested from its
management unit that is not retained
must be released in a manner that will
ensure maximum probability of
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
survival, but without removing the fish
from the water.
(2) If a billfish is caught by a hook and
not retained, the fish must be released
by cutting the line near the hook or by
using a dehooking device, in either case
without removing the fish from the
water.
(3) Restricted gear and closed areas
for all Atlantic HMS fishing gears. (i) No
person may fish for, catch, possess, or
retain any Atlantic HMS or anchor a
fishing vessel that has been issued a
permit or is required to be permitted
under this part, in the areas and seasons
designated at § 622.34(a)(3) of this
chapter.
(ii) From November through April of
each year, no vessel issued, or required
to be issued, a permit under this part
may fish or deploy any type of fishing
gear in the Madison-Swanson closed
area or the Steamboat Lumps closed
area, as defined in § 635.2.
(iii) From May through October of
each year, no vessel issued, or required
to be issued, a permit under this part
may fish or deploy any type of fishing
gear in the Madison-Swanson or the
Steamboat Lumps closed areas except
for surface trolling. For the purposes of
this section, surface trolling is defined
as fishing with lines trailing behind a
vessel which is in constant motion at
speeds in excess of four knots with a
visible wake. Such trolling may not
involve the use of down riggers, wire
lines, planers, or similar devices.
(iv) From January through April of
each year, no vessel issued, or required
to be issued, a permit under this part
may fish or deploy any type of fishing
gear in the Edges 40 Fathom Contour
closed area, as defined in § 635.2.
(b) Longline—general restrictions. (1)
All vessels that have pelagic or bottom
longline gear onboard and that have
been issued, or are required to have, a
limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna
Longline category permit for use in the
Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean
Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must
possess inside the wheelhouse the
document provided by NMFS entitled
‘‘Careful Release Protocols for Sea
Turtle Release with Minimal Injury,’’
and must also post inside the
wheelhouse the sea turtle handling and
release guidelines provided by NMFS.
(2) Transiting and gear stowage: If a
vessel issued a permit under this part is
in a closed or gear restricted area
described in this section with pelagic or
bottom longline gear on board, it is a
rebuttable presumption that any fish on
board such a vessel were taken with
pelagic or bottom longline in the closed
or gear restricted area except where
such possession is aboard a vessel
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
transiting a closed area with all fishing
gear stowed appropriately. Longline
gear is stowed appropriately if all
gangions and hooks are disconnected
from the mainline and are stowed on or
below deck, hooks are not baited, and
all buoys and weights are disconnected
from the mainline and drum (buoys may
remain on deck).
(3) When a marine mammal or sea
turtle is hooked or entangled by pelagic
or bottom longline gear, the operator of
the vessel must immediately release the
animal, retrieve the pelagic or bottom
longline gear, and move at least 1 nm
(2 km) from the location of the incident
before resuming fishing. Similarly,
when a smalltooth sawfish is hooked or
entangled by bottom longline gear, the
operator of the vessel must immediately
release the animal, retrieve the bottom
longline gear, and move at least 1 nm
(2 km) from the location of the incident
before resuming fishing. Reports of
marine mammal entanglements must be
submitted to NMFS consistent with
regulations in § 229.6 of this title.
(4) Vessels that have pelagic or bottom
longline gear on board and that have
been issued, or are required to have
been issued, a permit under this part
must have only corrodible hooks on
board.
(c) Pelagic longlines. (1) If a vessel
issued or required to be issued a permit
under this part:
(i) Is in a closed area designated under
paragraph (c)(2) of this section and has
bottom longline gear onboard, the vessel
may not, at any time, possess or land
any pelagic species listed in table 2 of
appendix A to this part in excess of 5
percent, by weight, of the total weight
of pelagic and demersal species
possessed or landed, that are listed in
tables 2 and 3 of appendix A to this
part.
(ii) Has pelagic longline gear on
board, persons aboard that vessel may
not possess, retain, transship, land, sell,
or store silky sharks, oceanic whitetip
sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great
hammerhead sharks.
(2) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(3)
of this section, if pelagic longline gear
is on board a vessel issued or required
to be issued a permit under this part,
persons aboard that vessel may not fish
or deploy any type of fishing gear:
(i) In the Northeastern United States
closed area from June 1 through June 30
each calendar year;
(ii) In the Charleston Bump closed
area from February 1 through April 30
each calendar year;
(iii) In the East Florida Coast closed
area at any time;
(iv) In the Desoto Canyon closed area
at any time;
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71595
(v) In the Cape Hatteras gear restricted
area from December 1 through April 30
each year;
(vi) In the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear
restricted area from April 1 through May
30 each year;
(vii) In the Northeast Distant gear
restricted area at any time, unless
persons onboard the vessel complies
with the following:
(A) The vessel is limited to possessing
onboard and/or using only 18/0 or larger
circle hooks with an offset not to exceed
10 degrees. The outer diameter of the
circle hook at its widest point must be
no smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm)
when measured with the eye on the
hook on the vertical axis (y-axis) and
perpendicular to the horizontal axis
(x-axis), and the distance between the
circle hook point and the shank (i.e., the
gap) must be no larger than 1.13 inches
(28.8 mm). The allowable offset is
measured from the barbed end of the
hook and is relative to the parallel plane
of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook
when laid on its side. The only
allowable offset circle hooks are those
that are offset by the hook manufacturer.
If green-stick gear, as defined at § 635.2,
is onboard, a vessel may possess up to
20 J-hooks. J-hooks may be used only
with green-stick gear, and no more than
10 hooks may be used at one time with
each green-stick gear. J-hooks used with
green-stick gear may be no smaller than
1.5 inch (38.1 mm) when measured in
a straight line over the longest distance
from the eye to any other part of the
hook; and,
(B) The vessel is limited, at all times,
to possessing onboard and/or using only
whole Atlantic mackerel and/or squid
bait, except that artificial bait may be
possessed and used only with greenstick gear, as defined at § 635.2, if greenstick gear is onboard; and,
(C) Vessels must possess, inside the
wheelhouse, a document provided by
NMFS entitled, ‘‘Careful Release
Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with
Minimal Injury,’’ and must post, inside
the wheelhouse, sea turtle handling and
release guidelines provided by NMFS;
and,
(D) Required sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear, which NMFS has
approved under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of
this section, on the initial list of
‘‘NMFS-Approved Models For
Equipment Needed For The Careful
Release of Sea Turtles Caught In Hook
And Line Fisheries,’’ must be carried
onboard, and must be used in
accordance with the handling
requirements specified in paragraphs
(c)(2)(vii)(E) through (G) of this section;
and,
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71596
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(E) Sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear,
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of
this section, must be used to disengage
any hooked or entangled sea turtles that
cannot be brought on board, and to
facilitate access, safe handling,
disentanglement, and hook removal or
hook cutting from sea turtles that can be
brought on board, where feasible. Sea
turtles must be handled, and bycatch
mitigation gear must be used, in
accordance with the careful release
protocols and handling/release
guidelines specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and in
accordance with the onboard handling
and resuscitation requirements specified
in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title.
(F) Boated turtles: When practicable,
active and comatose sea turtles must be
brought on board, with a minimum of
injury, using a dipnet approved on the
initial list specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All turtles
less than 3 ft. (.91 m) carapace length
should be boated, if sea conditions
permit. A boated turtle should be placed
on a standard automobile tire, or
cushioned surface, in an upright
orientation to immobilize it and
facilitate gear removal. Then, it should
be determined if the hook can be
removed without causing further injury.
All externally embedded hooks should
be removed, unless hook removal would
result in further injury to the turtle. No
attempt to remove a hook should be
made if the hook has been swallowed
and the insertion point is not visible, or
if it is determined that removal would
result in further injury. If a hook cannot
be removed, as much line as possible
should be removed from the turtle using
approved monofilament line cutters
from the initial list specified in
paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section,
and the hook should be cut as close as
possible to the insertion point, using
bolt cutters from that list, before
releasing the turtle. If a hook can be
removed, an effective technique may be
to cut off either the barb, or the eye, of
the hook using bolt cutters, and then to
slide the hook out. When the hook is
visible in the front of the mouth, an
approved mouth-opener from the initial
list specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D)
of this section may facilitate opening the
turtle’s mouth, and an approved gag
from that list may facilitate keeping the
mouth open. Short-handled dehookers
for ingested hooks, long-nose pliers, or
needle-nose pliers from the initial list
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of
this section should be used to remove
visible hooks that have not been
swallowed from the mouth of boated
turtles, as appropriate. As much gear as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
possible must be removed from the
turtle without causing further injury
prior to its release. Refer to the careful
release protocols and handling/release
guidelines required in paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and the
handling and resuscitation requirements
specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title,
for additional information.
(G) Non-boated turtles: If a sea turtle
is too large, or hooked in a manner that
precludes safe boating without causing
further damage or injury to the turtle,
sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear,
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of
this section, must be used to disentangle
sea turtles from fishing gear and
disengage any hooks, or to clip the line
and remove as much line as possible
from a hook that cannot be removed,
prior to releasing the turtle, in
accordance with the protocols specified
in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this
section. Non-boated turtles should be
brought close to the boat and provided
with time to calm down. Then, it must
be determined whether or not the hook
can be removed without causing further
injury. A front flipper or flippers of the
turtle must be secured, if possible, with
an approved turtle control device from
the list specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All
externally embedded hooks must be
removed, unless hook removal would
result in further injury to the turtle. No
attempt should be made to remove a
hook if it has been swallowed, or if it
is determined that removal would result
in further injury. If the hook cannot be
removed and/or if the animal is
entangled, as much line as possible
must be removed prior to release, using
an approved line cutter from the list
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of
this section. If the hook can be removed,
it must be removed using a longhandled dehooker from the initial list
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of
this section. Without causing further
injury, as much gear as possible must be
removed from the turtle prior to its
release. Refer to the careful release
protocols and handling/release
guidelines required in paragraph
(c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and the
handling and resuscitation requirements
specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title,
for additional information.
(3) Restricted access to the Cape
Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. A vessel
that has been issued, or is required to
have been issued, a limited access
permit under this part may fish with
pelagic longline gear in the Cape
Hatteras gear restricted area described in
paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section,
provided the vessel has been
determined by NMFS to be ‘‘qualified,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(for the relevant year) using the
performance metrics described in
§ 635.14.
(4) In the Gulf of Mexico, pelagic
longline gear may not be fished or
deployed from a vessel issued or
required to have been issued a limited
access permit under this part with live
bait affixed to the hooks; and, a person
aboard a vessel issued or required to
have been issued a limited access
permit under this part that has pelagic
longline gear on board may not possess
live baitfish, maintain live baitfish in
any tank or well on board the vessel, or
set up or attach an aeration or water
circulation device in or to any such tank
or well. For the purposes of this section,
the Gulf of Mexico includes all waters
of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the
boundary stipulated at 50 CFR
600.105(c).
(5) The operator of a vessel permitted
or required to be permitted under this
part and that has pelagic longline gear
on board must undertake the following
sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures:
(i) Possession and use of required
mitigation gear. Required sea turtle
bycatch mitigation gear, which NMFS
has approved under paragraph (c)(5)(iv)
of this section as meeting the minimum
design standards specified in
paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (M) of
this section, must be carried onboard,
and must be used to disengage any
hooked or entangled sea turtles in
accordance with the handling
requirements specified in paragraph
(c)(5)(ii) of this section.
(A) Long-handled line clipper or
cutter. Line cutters are intended to cut
high test monofilament line as close as
possible to the hook, and assist in
removing line from entangled sea turtles
to minimize any remaining gear upon
release. NMFS has established
minimum design standards for the line
cutters, which may be purchased or
fabricated from readily available and
low-cost materials. The LaForce line
cutter and the Arceneaux line clipper
are models that meet these minimum
design standards. One long-handled line
clipper or cutter meeting the minimum
design standards, and a set of
replacement blades, are required to be
onboard. The minimum design
standards for line cutters are as follows:
(1) A protected and secured cutting
blade. The cutting blade(s) must be
capable of cutting 2.0–2.1 mm (0.078
in.–0.083 in.) monofilament line (400-lb
test) or polypropylene multistrand
material, known as braided or tarred
mainline, and must be maintained in
working order. The cutting blade must
be curved, recessed, contained in a
holder, or otherwise designed to
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
facilitate its safe use so that direct
contact between the cutting surface and
the sea turtle or the user is prevented.
The cutting instrument must be securely
attached to an extended reach handle
and be easily replaceable. One extra set
of replacement blades meeting these
standards must also be carried on board
to replace all cutting surfaces on the line
cutter or clipper.
(2) An extended reach handle. The
line cutter blade(s) must be securely
fastened to an extended reach handle or
pole with a minimum length equal to,
or greater than, 150 percent of the height
of the vessel’s freeboard, or 6 feet
(1.83 m), whichever is greater. It is
recommended, but not required, that the
handle break down into sections. There
is no restriction on the type of material
used to construct this handle as long as
it is sturdy and facilitates the secure
attachment of the cutting blade.
(B) Long-handled dehooker for
ingested hooks. A long-handled
dehooking device is intended to remove
ingested hooks from sea turtles that
cannot be boated. It should also be used
to engage a loose hook when a turtle is
entangled but not hooked, and line is
being removed. The design must shield
the barb of the hook and prevent it from
re-engaging during the removal process.
One long-handled device, meeting the
minimum design standards, is required
onboard to remove ingested hooks. The
minimum design standards are as
follows:
(1) Hook removal device. The hook
removal device must be constructed of
5/16-inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless
steel and have a dehooking end no
larger than 1–7/8-inches (4.76 cm)
outside diameter. The device must
securely engage and control the leader
while shielding the barb to prevent the
hook from re-engaging during removal.
It may not have any unprotected
terminal points (including blunt ones),
as these could cause injury to the
esophagus during hook removal. The
device must be of a size appropriate to
secure the range of hook sizes and styles
used in the pelagic longline fishery
targeting swordfish and tuna.
(2) Extended reach handle. The
dehooking end must be securely
fastened to an extended reach handle or
pole with a minimum length equal to or
greater than 150 percent of the height of
the vessel’s freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m),
whichever is greater. It is recommended,
but not required, that the handle break
down into sections. The handle must be
sturdy and strong enough to facilitate
the secure attachment of the hook
removal device.
(C) Long-handled dehooker for
external hooks. A long-handled
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
dehooker, meeting the minimum design
standards, is required onboard for use
on externally-hooked sea turtles that
cannot be boated. The long-handled
dehooker for ingested hooks described
in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this section
would meet this requirement. The
minimum design standards are as
follows:
(1) Construction. A long-handled
dehooker must be constructed of 5/16inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless steel rod.
A 5-inch (12.7-cm) tube T-handle of 1inch (2.54 cm) outside diameter is
recommended, but not required. The
design should be such that a fish hook
can be rotated out, without pulling it
out at an angle. The dehooking end
must be blunt with all edges rounded.
The device must be of a size appropriate
to secure the range of hook sizes and
styles used in the pelagic longline
fishery targeting swordfish and tuna.
(2) Extended reach handle. The
handle must be a minimum length equal
to the height of the vessel’s freeboard or
6 ft. (1.83 m), whichever is greater.
(D) Long-handled device to pull an
‘‘inverted V.’’ This tool is used to pull
a ‘‘V’’ in the fishing line when
implementing the ‘‘inverted V’’
dehooking technique, as described in
the document entitled ‘‘Careful Release
Protocols for Sea Turtle Release With
Minimal Injury,’’ required under
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, for
disentangling and dehooking entangled
sea turtles. One long-handled device to
pull an ‘‘inverted V’’, meeting the
minimum design standards, is required
onboard. If a 6-ft (1.83 m) J-style
dehooker is used to comply with
paragraph (c)(5)(i)(C) of this section, it
will also satisfy this requirement.
Minimum design standards are as
follows:
(1) Hook end. This device, such as a
standard boat hook or gaff, must be
constructed of stainless steel or
aluminum. A sharp point, such as on a
gaff hook, is to be used only for holding
the monofilament fishing line and
should never contact the sea turtle.
(2) Extended reach handle. The
handle must have a minimum length
equal to the height of the vessel’s
freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m), whichever is
greater. The handle must be sturdy and
strong enough to facilitate the secure
attachment of the gaff hook.
(E) Dipnet. One dipnet, meeting the
minimum design standards, is required
onboard. Dipnets are to be used to
facilitate safe handling of sea turtles by
allowing them to be brought onboard for
fishing gear removal, without causing
further injury to the animal. Turtles
must not be brought onboard without
the use of a dipnet. The minimum
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71597
design standards for dipnets are as
follows:
(1) Size of dipnet. The dipnet must
have a sturdy net hoop of at least 31
inches (78.74 cm) inside diameter and a
bag depth of at least 38 inches (96.52
cm) to accommodate turtles below 3 ft.
(0.914 m) carapace length. The bag mesh
openings may not exceed 3 inches (7.62
cm). There must be no sharp edges or
burrs on the hoop, or where the hoop is
attached to the handle.
(2) Extended reach handle. The
dipnet hoop must be securely fastened
to an extended reach handle or pole
with a minimum length equal to, or
greater than, 150 percent of the height
of the vessel’s freeboard, or at least 6 ft
(1.83 m), whichever is greater. The
handle must made of a rigid material
strong enough to facilitate the sturdy
attachment of the net hoop and able to
support a minimum of 100 lbs (34.1 kg)
without breaking or significant bending
or distortion. It is recommended, but not
required, that the extended reach handle
break down into sections.
(F) Tire. A minimum of one tire is
required onboard for supporting a turtle
in an upright orientation while it is
onboard, although an assortment of
sizes is recommended to accommodate
a range of turtle sizes. The required tire
must be a standard passenger vehicle
tire, and must be free of exposed steel
belts.
(G) Short-handled dehooker for
ingested hooks. One short-handled
device, meeting the minimum design
standards, is required onboard for
removing ingested hooks. This dehooker
is designed to remove ingested hooks
from boated sea turtles. It can also be
used on external hooks or hooks in the
front of the mouth. Minimum design
standards are as follows:
(1) Hook removal device. The hook
removal device must be constructed of
1⁄4-inch (6.35 mm) 316 L stainless steel,
and must allow the hook to be secured
and the barb shielded without reengaging during the removal process. It
must be no larger than 15⁄16 inch (3.33
cm) outside diameter. It may not have
any unprotected terminal points
(including blunt ones), as this could
cause injury to the esophagus during
hook removal. A sliding PVC bite block
must be used to protect the beak and
facilitate hook removal if the turtle bites
down on the dehooking device. The bite
block should be constructed of a 3⁄4-inch
(1.91 cm) inside diameter high impact
plastic cylinder (e.g., Schedule 80 PVC)
that is 10 inches (25.4 cm) long to allow
for 5 inches (12.7 cm) of slide along the
shaft. The device must be of a size
appropriate to secure the range of hook
sizes and styles used in the pelagic
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71598
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
longline fishery targeting swordfish and
tuna.
(2) Handle length. The handle should
be approximately 16–24 inches (40.64
cm–60.69 cm) in length, with
approximately a 5-inch (12.7 cm) long
tube T-handle of approximately 1 inch
(2.54 cm) in diameter.
(H) Short-handled dehooker for
external hooks. One short-handled
dehooker for external hooks, meeting
the minimum design standards, is
required onboard. The short-handled
dehooker for ingested hooks required to
comply with paragraph (c)(5)(i)(G) of
this section will also satisfy this
requirement. Minimum design
standards are as follows:
(1) Hook removal device. The
dehooker must be constructed of 5⁄16inch (7.94 cm) 316 L stainless steel, and
the design must be such that a hook can
be rotated out without pulling it out at
an angle. The dehooking end must be
blunt, and all edges rounded. The
device must be of a size appropriate to
secure the range of hook sizes and styles
used in the pelagic longline fishery
targeting swordfish and tuna.
(2) Handle length. The handle should
be approximately 16–24 inches (40.64
cm–60.69 cm) long with approximately
a 5-inch (12.7 cm) long tube T-handle of
approximately 1 inch (2.54 cm) in
diameter.
(I) Long-nose or needle-nose pliers.
One pair of long-nose or needle-nose
pliers, meeting the minimum design
standards, is required on board.
Required long-nose or needle-nose
pliers can be used to remove deeply
embedded hooks from the turtle’s flesh
that must be twisted during removal.
They can also hold PVC splice
couplings, when used as mouth
openers, in place. To meet the minimum
design standards such pliers must
generally be approximately 12 inches
(30.48 cm) in length, and should be
constructed of stainless steel material.
(J) Bolt cutters. One pair of bolt
cutters, meeting the minimum design
standards, is required on board.
Required bolt cutters may be used to cut
hooks to facilitate their removal. They
should be used to cut off the eye or barb
of a hook, so that it can safely be pushed
through a sea turtle without causing
further injury. They should also be used
to cut off as much of the hook as
possible, when the remainder of the
hook cannot be removed. To meet the
minimum design standards such bolt
cutters must generally be approximately
17 inches (43.18 cm) in total length,
with 4-inch (10.16 cm) long blades that
are 21⁄4 inches (5.72 cm) wide, when
closed, and with 13-inch (33.02 cm)
long handles. Required bolt cutters must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
be able to cut hard metals, such as
stainless or carbon steel hooks, up to 1⁄4inch (6.35 mm) diameter.
(K) Monofilament line cutters. One
pair of monofilament line cutters is
required on board. Required
monofilament line cutters must be used
to remove fishing line as close to the eye
of the hook as possible, if the hook is
swallowed or cannot be removed. To
meet the minimum design standards
such monofilament line cutters must
generally be approximately 71⁄2 inches
(19.05 cm) in length. The blades must be
1 in (4.45 cm) in length and 5⁄8-in (1.59
cm) wide, when closed, and are
recommended to be coated with Teflon
(a trademark owned by E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company Corp.).
(L) Mouth openers/mouth gags.
Required mouth openers and mouth
gags are used to open sea turtle mouths,
and to keep them open when removing
ingested hooks from boated turtles.
They must allow access to the hook or
line without causing further injury to
the turtle. Design standards are included
in the item descriptions. At least two of
the seven different types of mouth
openers/gags described below are
required:
(1) A block of hard wood. Placed in
the corner of the jaw, a block of hard
wood may be used to gag open a turtle’s
mouth. A smooth block of hard wood of
a type that does not splinter (e.g. maple)
with rounded edges should be sanded
smooth, if necessary, and soaked in
water to soften the wood. The
dimensions should be approximately 11
inches (27.94 cm) 1 inch (2.54 cm) 1
inch (2.54 cm). A long-handled, wire
shoe brush with a wooden handle, and
with the wires removed, is an
inexpensive, effective and practical
mouth-opening device that meets these
requirements.
(2) A set of three canine mouth gags.
Canine mouth gags are highly
recommended to hold a turtle’s mouth
open, because the gag locks into an open
position to allow for hands-free
operation after it is in place. A set of
canine mouth gags must include one of
each of the following sizes: small (5
inches) (12.7 cm), medium (6 inches)
(15.24 cm), and large (7 inches) (17.78
cm). They must be constructed of
stainless steel. A 1-inch (4.45 cm) piece
of vinyl tubing (3⁄4-inch (1.91 cm)
outside diameter and 5⁄8-inch (1.59 cm)
inside diameter) must be placed over
the ends to protect the turtle’s beak.
(3) A set of two sturdy dog chew
bones. Placed in the corner of a turtle’s
jaw, canine chew bones are used to gag
open a sea turtle’s mouth. Required
canine chews must be constructed of
durable nylon, zylene resin, or
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
thermoplastic polymer, and strong
enough to withstand biting without
splintering. To accommodate a variety
of turtle beak sizes, a set must include
one large (51⁄2–8 inches (13.97 cm–20.32
cm) in length), and one small (31⁄2–41⁄2
inches (8.89 cm–11.43 cm) in length)
canine chew bones.
(4) A set of two rope loops covered
with hose. A set of two rope loops
covered with a piece of hose can be
used as a mouth opener, and to keep a
turtle’s mouth open during hook and/or
line removal. A required set consists of
two 3-foot (0.91 m) lengths of poly braid
rope (3⁄8-inch (9.52 mm) diameter
suggested), each covered with an 8-inch
(20.32 cm) section of 1⁄2-inch (1.27 cm)
or 3⁄4-inch (1.91 cm) light-duty garden
hose, and each tied into a loop. The
upper loop of rope covered with hose is
secured on the upper beak to give
control with one hand, and the second
piece of rope covered with hose is
secured on the lower beak to give
control with the user’s foot.
(5) A hank of rope. Placed in the
corner of a turtle’s jaw, a hank of rope
can be used to gag open a sea turtle’s
mouth. A 6-foot (1.83 m) lanyard of
approximately 3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm)
braided nylon rope may be folded to
create a hank, or looped bundle, of rope.
Any size soft-braided nylon rope is
allowed, however it must create a hank
of approximately 2–4 inches (5.08 cm–
10.16 cm) in thickness.
(6) A set of four PVC splice couplings.
PVC splice couplings can be positioned
inside a turtle’s mouth to allow access
to the back of the mouth for hook and
line removal. They are to be held in
place with the needle-nose pliers. To
ensure proper fit and access, a required
set must consist of the following
Schedule 40 PVC splice coupling sizes:
1 inch (2.54 cm), 11⁄4 inch (3.18 cm), 11⁄2
inch (3.81 cm), and 2 inches (5.08 cm).
(7) A large avian oral speculum. A
large avian oral speculum provides the
ability to hold a turtle’s mouth open and
to control the head with one hand,
while removing a hook with the other
hand. The avian oral speculum must be
9-inches (22.86 cm) long, and
constructed of 3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) wire
diameter surgical stainless steel (Type
304). It must be covered with 8 inches
(20.32 cm) of clear vinyl tubing (5⁄16inch (7.9 mm) outside diameter,
3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) inside diameter).
(M) Turtle control devices. One turtle
control device, as described in
paragraph (c)(5)(i)(M)(1) or (2) of this
section, and meeting the minimum
design standards, is required onboard
and must be used to secure a front
flipper of the sea turtle so that the
animal can be controlled at the side of
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the vessel. It is strongly recommended
that a pair of turtle control devices be
used to secure both front flippers when
crew size and conditions allow.
Minimum design standards consist of:
(1) Turtle tether and extended reach
handle. Approximately 15–20 feet of 1⁄2inch hard lay negative buoyance line is
used to make an approximately 30-inch
loop to slip over the flipper. The line is
fed through a 3⁄4-inch fair lead, eyelet,
or eyebolt at the working end of a pole
and through a 3⁄4-inch eyelet or eyebolt
in the midsection. A 1⁄2-inch quick
release cleat holds the line in place near
the end of the pole. A final 3⁄4-inch
eyelet or eyebolt should be positioned
approximately 7-inches behind the cleat
to secure the line, while allowing a safe
working distance to avoid injury when
releasing the line from the cleat. The
line must be securely fastened to an
extended reach handle or pole with a
minimum length equal to, or greater
than, 150 percent of the height of the
vessel’s freeboard, or a minimum of 6
feet (1.83 m), whichever is greater.
There is no restriction on the type of
material used to construct this handle,
as long as it is sturdy. The handle must
include a tag line to attach the tether to
the vessel to prevent the turtle from
breaking away with the tether still
attached.
(2) T&G ninja sticks and extended
reach handles. Approximately 30–35
feet of 1⁄2-inch to 5⁄8-inch soft lay
polypropylene or nylon line or similar
is fed through 2 PVC conduit, fiberglass,
or similar sturdy poles and knotted
using an overhand (recommended) knot
at the end of both poles or otherwise
secured. There should be approximately
18–24 inches of exposed rope between
the poles to be used as a working
surface to capture and secure the
flipper. Knot the line at the ends of both
poles to prevent line slippage if they are
not otherwise secured. The remaining
line is used to tether the apparatus to
the boat unless an additional tag line is
used. Two lengths of sunlight resistant
3⁄4-inch schedule 40 PVC electrical
conduit, fiberglass, aluminum, or
similar material should be used to
construct the apparatus with a
minimum length equal to, or greater
than, 150 percent of the height of the
vessel’s freeboard, or 6 feet (1.83 m),
whichever is greater.
(ii) Handling and release
requirements. (A) Sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear, as required by
paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (D) of
this section, must be used to disengage
any hooked or entangled sea turtles that
cannot be brought onboard. Sea turtle
bycatch mitigation gear, as required by
paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E) through (M) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
this section, must be used to facilitate
access, safe handling, disentanglement,
and hook removal or hook cutting of sea
turtles that can be brought onboard,
where feasible. Sea turtles must be
handled, and bycatch mitigation gear
must be used, in accordance with the
careful release protocols and handling/
release guidelines specified in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and in
accordance with the onboard handling
and resuscitation requirements specified
in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title.
(B) Boated turtles. When practicable,
active and comatose sea turtles must be
brought on board, with a minimum of
injury, using a dipnet as required by
paragraph (c)(5)(i)(E) of this section. All
turtles less than 3 ft. (.91 m) carapace
length should be boated, if sea
conditions permit.
(1) A boated turtle should be placed
on a standard automobile tire, or
cushioned surface, in an upright
orientation to immobilize it and
facilitate gear removal. Then, it should
be determined if the hook can be
removed without causing further injury.
(2) All externally embedded hooks
should be removed, unless hook
removal would result in further injury
to the turtle. No attempt to remove a
hook should be made if it has been
swallowed and the insertion point is not
visible, or if it is determined that
removal would result in further injury.
(3) If a hook cannot be removed, as
much line as possible should be
removed from the turtle using
monofilament cutters as required by
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, and
the hook should be cut as close as
possible to the insertion point before
releasing the turtle, using boltcutters as
required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this
section.
(4) If a hook can be removed, an
effective technique may be to cut off
either the barb, or the eye, of the hook
using bolt cutters, and then to slide the
hook out. When the hook is visible in
the front of the mouth, a mouth-opener,
as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this
section, may facilitate opening the
turtle’s mouth and a gag may facilitate
keeping the mouth open. Short-handled
dehookers for ingested hooks, long-nose
pliers, or needle-nose pliers, as required
by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section,
should be used to remove visible hooks
from the mouth that have not been
swallowed on boated turtles, as
appropriate.
(5) As much gear as possible must be
removed from the turtle without causing
further injury prior to its release. Refer
to the careful release protocols and
handling/release guidelines required in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71599
handling and resuscitation requirements
specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title,
for additional information.
(C) Non-boated turtles. If a sea turtle
is too large, or hooked in a manner that
precludes safe boating without causing
further damage or injury to the turtle,
sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear
required by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A)
through (D) of this section must be used
to disentangle sea turtles from fishing
gear and disengage any hooks, or to clip
the line and remove as much line as
possible from a hook that cannot be
removed, prior to releasing the turtle, in
accordance with the protocols specified
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(1) Non-boated turtles should be
brought close to the boat and provided
with time to calm down. Then, it must
be determined whether or not the hook
can be removed without causing further
injury. A front flipper or flippers of the
turtle must be secured with an approved
turtle control device from the list
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(D) of
this section.
(2) All externally embedded hooks
must be removed, unless hook removal
would result in further injury to the
turtle. No attempt should be made to
remove a hook if it has been swallowed,
or if it is determined that removal
would result in further injury. If the
hook cannot be removed and/or if the
animal is entangled, as much line as
possible must be removed prior to
release, using a line cutter as required
by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. If
the hook can be removed, it must be
removed using a long-handled dehooker
as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this
section.
(3) Without causing further injury, as
much gear as possible must be removed
from the turtle prior to its release. Refer
to the careful release protocols and
handling/release guidelines required in
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the
handling and resuscitation requirements
specified in § 223.206(d)(1) for
additional information.
(iii) Gear modifications. The
following measures are required of
vessel operators to reduce the incidental
capture and mortality of sea turtles:
(A) Gangion length. The length of any
gangion on vessels that have pelagic
longline gear on board and that have
been issued, or are required to have, a
limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna
Longline category permit for use in the
Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean
Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must be at
least 10 percent longer than any
floatline length if the total length of any
gangion plus the total length of any
floatline is less than 100 meters.
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71600
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(B) Hook size, type, and bait. Vessels
fishing outside of the NED gear
restricted area, as defined at § 635.2,
that have pelagic longline gear on board,
and that have been issued, or are
required to have, a limited access
swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit for use in the
Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean
Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, are limited,
at all times, to possessing on board and/
or using only whole finfish and/or squid
bait, and the following types and sizes
of fishing hooks:
(1) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an
offset not to exceed 10°; and/or,
(2) 16/0 or larger non-offset circle
hooks.
(i) For purposes of paragraphs
(c)(5)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of this section,
the outer diameter of an 18/0 circle
hook at its widest point must be no
smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm), and
the outer diameter of a 16/0 circle hook
at its widest point must be no smaller
than 1.74 inches (44.3 mm), when
measured with the eye of the hook on
the vertical axis (y-axis) and
perpendicular to the horizontal axis (xaxis). The distance between the hook
point and the shank (i.e., the gap) on an
18/0 circle hook must be no larger than
1.13 inches (28.8 mm), and the gap on
a 16/0 circle hook must be no larger
than 1.01 inches (25.8 mm). The
allowable offset is measured from the
barbed end of the hook, and is relative
to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or
shank, of the hook when laid on its side.
The only allowable offset circle hooks
are those that are offset by the hook
manufacturer. In the Gulf of Mexico, as
described at § 600.105(c) of this chapter,
circle hooks also must be constructed of
corrodible round wire stock that is no
larger than 3.65 mm in diameter.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) If green-stick gear, as defined at
§ 635.2, is onboard, a vessel may possess
up to 20 J-hooks. J-hooks may be used
only with green-stick gear, and no more
than 10 hooks may be used at one time
with each green-stick gear. J-hooks used
with green-stick gear may be no smaller
than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) when measured
in a straight line over the longest
distance from the eye to any other part
of the hook. If green-stick gear is
onboard, artificial bait may be
possessed, but may be used only with
green-stick gear.
(iv) Approval of sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear. NMFS will file with the
Office of the Federal Register for
publication an initial list of required sea
turtle bycatch mitigation gear that
NMFS has approved as meeting the
minimum design standards specified
under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Other devices proposed for use as line
clippers or cutters or dehookers, as
specified under paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A),
(B), (C), (G), (H), and (K) of this section,
must be approved as meeting the
minimum design standards before being
used. NMFS will examine new devices,
as they become available, to determine
if they meet the minimum design
standards, and will file with the Office
of the Federal Register for publication
notification of any new devices that are
approved as meeting the standards.
(d) Bottom longlines. (1) If bottom
longline gear is onboard a vessel issued
a permit under this part, persons aboard
that vessel may not fish or deploy any
type of fishing gear in the following
areas:
(i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed area
from January 1 through July 31 each
calendar year;
(ii) The areas designated at
§ 622.33(a)(1) through (3) of this
chapter, year-round; and
(iii) The areas described in paragraphs
(d)(1)(iii)(A) through (H) of this section,
year-round.
(A) Snowy Grouper Wreck. Bounded
by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the
following points: 33°25′ N. lat.,
77°04.75′ W. long.; 33°34.75′ N. lat.,
76°51.3′ W. long.; 33°25.5′ N. lat.,
76°46.5′ W. long.; 33°15.75′ N. lat.,
77°00.0′ W. long.; 33°25′ N. lat.,
77°04.75′ W. long.
(B) Northern South Carolina.
Bounded on the north by 32°53.5′ N.
lat.; on the south by 32°48.5′ N. lat.; on
the east by 78°04.75′ W. long.; and on
the west by 78°16.75′ W. long.
(C) Edisto. Bounded on the north by
32°24′ N. lat.; on the south by 32°18.5′
N. lat.; on the east by 78°54.0′ W. long.;
and on the west by 79°06.0′ W. long.
(D) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef.
Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in
order, the following points: 32°04′ N.
lat., 79°12′ W. long.; 32°08.5′ N. lat.,
79°07.5′ W. long.; 32°06′ N. lat., 79°05′
W. long.; 32°01.5′ N. lat., 79°09.3′ W.
long.; 32°04′ N. lat., 79°12′ W. long.
(E) Georgia. Bounded by rhumb lines
connecting, in order, the following
points: 31°43′ N. lat., 79°31′ W. long.;
31°43′ N. lat., 79°21′ W. long.; 31°34′ N.
lat., 79°29′ W. long.; 31°34′ N. lat.,
79°39′ W. long; 31°43′ N. lat., 79°31′ W.
long.
(F) North Florida. Bounded on the
north by 30°29′ N. lat.; on the south by
30°19′ N. lat.; on the east by 80°02′ W.
long.; and on the west by 80°14′ W.
long.
(G) St. Lucie Hump. Bounded on the
north by 27°08′ N. lat.; on the south by
27°04′ N. lat.; on the east by 79°58′ W.
long.; and on the west by 80°00′ W.
long.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(H) East Hump. Bounded by rhumb
lines connecting, in order, the following
points: 24°36.5′ N. lat., 80°45.5′ W.
long.; 24°32′ N. lat., 80°36′ W. long;
24°27.5′ N. lat., 80°38.5′ W. long;
24°32.5′ N. lat., 80°48′ W. long.; 24°36.5′
N. lat., 80°45.5′ W. long.
(2) The operator of a vessel required
to be permitted under this part and that
has bottom longline gear on board must
undertake the following bycatch
mitigation measures to release sea
turtles, prohibited sharks, or smalltooth
sawfish, as appropriate.
(i) Possession and use of required
mitigation gear. The equipment listed in
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section must
be carried on board and must be used
to handle, release, and disentangle
hooked or entangled sea turtles,
prohibited sharks, or smalltooth sawfish
in accordance with requirements
specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this
section.
(ii) Handling and release
requirements. Sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear, as required by
paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, must
be used to disengage any hooked or
entangled sea turtle as stated in
paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This
mitigation gear should also be employed
to disengage any hooked or entangled
species of prohibited sharks as listed
under heading D of Table 1 of appendix
A of this part, any hooked or entangled
species of sharks that exceed the
retention limits as specified in
§ 635.24(a), and any hooked or
entangled smalltooth sawfish. In
addition, if a smalltooth sawfish is
caught, the fish should be kept in the
water while maintaining water flow
over the gills and the fish should be
examined for research tags. All
smalltooth sawfish must be released in
a manner that will ensure maximum
probability of survival, but without
removing the fish from the water or any
research tags from the fish.
(3) If a vessel issued or required to be
issued a permit under this part is in a
closed area designated under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section and has pelagic
longline gear onboard, the vessel may
not, at any time, possess or land any
demersal species listed in Table 3 of
Appendix A to this part in excess of 5
percent, by weight, of the total weight
of pelagic and demersal species
possessed or landed, that are listed in
Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this
part.
(e) Purse seine—(1) Mesh size. A
purse seine used in directed fishing for
bluefin tuna must have a mesh size
equal to or smaller than 4.5 inches (11.4
cm) in the main body (stretched when
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
wet) and must have at least 24-count
thread throughout the net.
(2) Inspection of purse seine vessels.
Persons that own or operate an Atlantic
Tunas purse seine vessel must have
their fishing gear inspected for mesh
size by an enforcement agent of NMFS
prior to commencing fishing for the
season in any fishery that may result in
the harvest of Atlantic tunas. Such
persons must request such inspection at
least 24 hours before commencement of
the first fishing trip of the season. If
NMFS does not inspect the vessel
within 24 hours of such notification, the
inspection requirement is waived. In
addition, at least 24 hours before
commencement of offloading any
bluefin tuna after a fishing trip, such
persons must request an inspection of
the vessel and catch by notifying NMFS.
If, after notification by the vessel, NMFS
does not arrange to inspect the vessel
and catch at offloading, the inspection
requirement is waived.
(f) Rod and reel. Persons who have
been issued or are required to be issued
a permit under this part and who are
participating in a ‘‘tournament,’’ as
defined in § 635.2, that bestows points,
prizes, or awards for Atlantic billfish
must deploy only non-offset circle
hooks when using natural bait or natural
bait/artificial lure combinations, and
may not deploy a J-hook or an offset
circle hook in combination with natural
bait or a natural bait/artificial lure
combination.
(g) Gillnet. (1) Persons fishing with
gillnet gear must comply with the
provisions implementing the Atlantic
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, the
Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction
Plan, the Harbor Porpoise Take
Reduction Plan, and any other relevant
Take Reduction Plan set forth in
§§ 229.32 through 229.35 of this title. If
a listed whale is taken, the vessel
operator must cease fishing operations
immediately and contact NOAA
Fisheries as required under part 229 of
this title.
(2) While fishing with a gillnet for or
in possession of any of the large coastal,
small coastal, and pelagic sharks listed
in section A, B, and/or C of table 1 of
appendix A of this part, the gillnet must
remain attached to at least one vessel at
one end, except during net checks.
(3) Vessel operators fishing with
gillnet for, or in possession of, any of
the large coastal, small coastal, and
pelagic sharks listed in sections A, B,
and/or C of table 1 of appendix A of this
part are required to conduct net checks
every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and
remove any sea turtles, marine
mammals, or smalltooth sawfish.
Smalltooth sawfish should not be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
removed from the water while being
removed from the net.
(h) Buoy gear. Vessels utilizing buoy
gear may not possess or deploy more
than 35 floatation devices, and may not
deploy more than 35 individual buoy
gears per vessel. Buoy gear must be
constructed and deployed so that the
hooks and/or gangions are attached to
the vertical portion of the mainline.
Floatation devices may be attached to
one but not both ends of the mainline,
and no hooks or gangions may be
attached to any floatation device or
horizontal portion of the mainline. If
more than one floatation device is
attached to a buoy gear, no hook or
gangion may be attached to the mainline
between them. Individual buoy gears
may not be linked, clipped, or
connected together in any way. Buoy
gears must be released and retrieved by
hand. All deployed buoy gear must have
some type of monitoring equipment
affixed to it including, but not limited
to, radar reflectors, beeper devices,
lights, or reflective tape. If only
reflective tape is affixed, the vessel
deploying the buoy gear must possess
on board an operable spotlight capable
of illuminating deployed floatation
devices. If a gear monitoring device is
positively buoyant, and rigged to be
attached to a fishing gear, it is included
in the 35 floatation device vessel limit
and must be marked appropriately.
(i) Speargun fishing gear. Speargun
fishing gear may only be utilized when
recreational fishing for Atlantic BAYS
tunas and only from vessels issued
either a valid HMS Angling or valid
HMS Charter/Headboat permit. Persons
fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas using
speargun gear, as specified in § 635.19,
must be physically in the water when
the speargun is fired or discharged, and
may freedive, use SCUBA, or other
underwater breathing devices. Only
free-swimming BAYS tunas, not those
restricted by fishing lines or other
means, may be taken by speargun
fishing gear. ‘‘Powerheads,’’ as defined
at § 600.10 of this chapter, or any other
explosive devices, may not be used to
harvest or fish for BAYS tunas with
speargun fishing gear.
(j) Green-stick gear. Green-stick gear
may only be utilized when fishing from
vessels issued a valid Atlantic Tunas
General, Swordfish General
Commercial, HMS Charter/Headboat, or
Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit. The gear must be attached to the
vessel, actively trolled with the
mainline at or above the water’s surface,
and may not be deployed with more
than 10 hooks or gangions attached.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71601
13. In § 635.23, the section heading
and paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are
revised to read as follows:
■
§ 635.23
Retention limits for bluefin tuna.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Harpoon category. Persons aboard
a vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas
Harpoon category may retain, possess,
or land an unlimited number of giant
bluefin tuna per day. An incidental
catch of two large medium bluefin tuna
per vessel per day may be retained,
possessed, or landed, unless the
retention limits is increased by NMFS
through an inseason adjustment to
three, or a maximum of four, large
medium bluefin tuna per vessel per day,
based upon the criteria under
§ 635.27(a)(8). NMFS will implement an
adjustment via publication in the
Federal Register. If adjusted upwards to
three or four large medium bluefin tuna
per vessel per day, NMFS may
subsequently decrease the retention
limit down to the default level of two,
based on the criteria under
§ 635.27(a)(8).
(e) Purse Seine category. Persons
aboard a vessel permitted in the Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category may retain
giant bluefin tuna (81 inches and larger),
and smaller bluefin, as restricted by
paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section,
up to the amount of individual quota
allocated under § 635.27(a)(4)(ii). Purse
seine vessel owners who, through
landing and/or leasing, have no
remaining bluefin tuna quota allocation
may not use their permitted vessels in
any fishery in which Atlantic bluefin
tuna might be caught, regardless of
whether bluefin tuna are retained,
unless such vessel owners lease
additional allocation through the
Individual Bluefin Quota Allocation
Leasing Program, under § 635.15(c).
Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category,
(1) May retain, possess, land, or sell
large medium bluefin in amounts not
exceeding 15 percent, by weight, of the
total amount of giant bluefin landed
during that fishing year.
(2) May retain, possess, or land
bluefin smaller than the large medium
size class that are taken incidentally
when fishing for skipjack tuna in an
amount not exceeding 1 percent, by
weight, of the skipjack tuna and
yellowfin tuna landed on that trip.
Landings of bluefin smaller than the
large medium size class may not be sold
and are counted against the Purse Seine
category bluefin quota allocated to that
vessel.
(3) May fish for yellowfin, bigeye,
albacore, or skipjack tuna at any time;
however, landings of bluefin tuna taken
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71602
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
incidental to fisheries targeting other
Atlantic tunas or in any fishery in
which bluefin tuna might be caught will
be deducted from the individual vessel’s
quota.
(f) Longline category. Persons aboard
a vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas
Longline category are subject to the
bluefin tuna retention restrictions in
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) A vessel fishing with pelagic
longline gear may retain, possess, land
and sell large medium and giant bluefin
tuna taken incidentally when fishing for
other species if in compliance with all
the IBQ requirements of § 635.15,
including the requirement that a vessel
may not declare into or depart on a
fishing trip with pelagic longline
onboard unless it has the required
minimum bluefin tuna IBQ allocation
required for the region where fishing
activity will occur.
(2) A vessel with pelagic longline gear
onboard must retain all dead bluefin
tuna that are 73 inches or greater CFL.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. In § 635.27:
■ a. Paragraphs (a) introductory text,
(a)(1) through (3), and (a)(4)(i) through
(iv) are revised;
■ b. Paragraph (a)(4)(v) is added;
■ c. Paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), (a)(7)
heading, and (a)(7)(i) are revised;
■ d. Paragraphs (a)(8)(x) through (xiv)
are added;
■ e. Paragraphs (a)(9), and (a)(10)(i)
through (iii) are revised; and
■ f. Paragraph (e) is added.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 635.27
Quotas.
(a) Bluefin tuna. Consistent with
ICCAT recommendations, and with
paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section,
NMFS may subtract the most recent,
complete, and available estimate of dead
discards from the annual U.S. bluefin
tuna quota, and make the remainder
available to be retained, possessed, or
landed by persons and vessels subject to
U.S. jurisdiction. The remaining
baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota
will be allocated among the General,
Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine,
Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories,
as described in this section. The
baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota
is 923.7 mt ww, not including an
additional annual 25 mt ww allocation
provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this
section. The bluefin quota for the quota
categories is calculated through the
following process. First, 68 mt ww is
subtracted from the baseline annual U.S.
bluefin tuna quota and allocated to the
Longline category quota. Second, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
remaining quota is divided among the
categories according to the following
percentages: General—47.1 percent (403
mt ww); Angling—19.7 percent (168.6
mt ww), which includes the school
bluefin tuna held in reserve as described
under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section;
Harpoon—3.9 percent (33.4 mt ww);
Purse Seine—18.6 percent (159.1 mt
ww); Longline—8.1 percent (69.3 mt
ww) plus the 68 mt ww allocation
(137.3 mt ww total not including 25 mt
ww allocation from paragraph (a)(3));
Trap—0.1 percent (0.9 mt ww); and
Reserve—2.5 percent (21.4, mt ww).
NMFS may make inseason and annual
adjustments to quotas as specified in
paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this
section, including quota adjustments as
a result of the annual reallocation of
Purse Seine quota described under
paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section.
Bluefin tuna quotas are specified in
whole weight.
(1) General category quota. (i) Catches
from vessels for which General category
Atlantic Tunas permits have been
issued, catches from vessels issued an
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit fishing
under the provisions of
§ 635.21(c)(3)(vi)(B), and certain catches
from vessels for which an HMS Charter/
Headboat permit has been issued are
counted against the General category
quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3).
Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section,
the amount of large medium and giant
bluefin tuna that may be caught,
retained, possessed, landed, or sold
under the General category quota is 403
mt ww, and is apportioned as follows,
unless modified as described under
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section:
(A) January 1 through the effective
date of a closure notice filed by NMFS
announcing that the January subquota is
reached, or projected to be reached
under § 635.28(a)(1), or until March 31,
whichever comes first—5.3 percent
(21.4 mt ww);
(B) June 1 through August 31—50
percent (201.5 mt ww);
(C) September 1 through September
30—26.5 percent (106.8 mt ww);
(D) October 1 through November 30—
13 percent (52.4 mt ww); and
(E) December 1 through December
31—5.2 percent (21 mt ww).
(ii) NMFS may adjust each period’s
apportionment based on overharvest or
underharvest in the prior period, and
may transfer subquota from one time
period to another time period, earlier in
the year, through inseason action or
annual specifications. For example,
subquota could be transferred from the
December 1 through December 31 time
period to the January time period; or
from the October 1 through November
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
30 time period to the September time
period. This inseason adjustment may
occur prior to the start of that year. In
other words, although subject to the
inseason criteria under paragraph (a)(8)
of this section, the adjustment could
occur prior to the start of the fishing
year. For example, an inseason action
transferring the 2016 December 1
through December 31 time period
subquota to the 2016 January 1 time
period subquota could be filed in 2015.
(iii) When the General category
fishery has been closed in any quota
period specified under paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of this section, NMFS will
publish a closure action as specified in
§ 635.28. The subsequent time-period
subquota will automatically open in
accordance with the dates specified
under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
(2) Angling category quota. In
accordance with the framework
procedures of the Consolidated HMS
FMP, prior to each fishing year, or as
early as feasible, NMFS will establish
the Angling category daily retention
limits. In accordance with paragraph (a)
of this section, the total amount of
bluefin tuna that may be caught,
retained, possessed, and landed by
anglers aboard vessels for which an
HMS Angling permit or an HMS
Charter/Headboat permit has been
issued is 168.6 mt ww. No more than
2.3 percent (3.9 mt ww) of the annual
Angling category quota may be large
medium or giant bluefin tuna. In
addition, over each 2-consecutive-year
period (starting in 2011, inclusive), no
more than 10 percent of the annual U.S.
bluefin tuna quota, inclusive of the
allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section, may be school bluefin
tuna (i.e., 94.9 mt ww). The Angling
category quota includes the amount of
school bluefin tuna held in reserve
under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section.
The size class subquotas for bluefin tuna
are further subdivided as follows:
(i) After adjustment for the school
bluefin tuna quota held in reserve
(under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this
section), 52.8 percent (40.8 mt ww) of
the school bluefin tuna Angling category
quota may be caught, retained,
possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N.
lat. The remaining school bluefin tuna
Angling category quota (36.5 mt ww)
may be caught, retained, possessed or
landed north of 39°18′ N. lat.
(ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent
(36.9 mt ww) of the large school/small
medium bluefin tuna Angling category
quota may be caught, retained,
possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N.
lat. The remaining large school/small
medium bluefin tuna Angling category
quota (32.9 mt ww) may be caught,
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
retained, possessed or landed north of
39°18′ N. lat.
(iii) One third (1.3 mt ww) of the large
medium and giant bluefin tuna Angling
category quota may be caught retained,
possessed, or landed, in each of the
three following geographic areas: North
of 39°18′ N. lat.; south of 39°18′ N. lat.,
and outside of the Gulf of Mexico; and
in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes
of this section, the Gulf of Mexico
region includes all waters of the U.S.
EEZ west and north of the boundary
stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c).
(3) Longline category quota. Pursuant
to paragraph (a) of this section, the total
amount of large medium and giant
bluefin tuna that may be caught,
discarded dead, or retained, possessed,
or landed by vessels that possess
Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permits is 137.3 mt ww. In addition, 25
mt ww shall be allocated for incidental
catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing
in the Northeast Distant gear restricted
area, and subject to the restrictions
under § 635.15(b)(8).
(4) * * *
(i) Baseline Purse Seine quota.
Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section,
the baseline amount of large medium
and giant bluefin tuna that may be
caught, retained, possessed, or landed
by vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas
Purse Seine category permits is 159.1 mt
ww, unless adjusted as a result of
inseason and/or annual adjustments to
quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9)
and (10) of this section; or adjusted
(prior to allocation to individual
participants) based on the previous
year’s catch as described under
paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section.
Annually, NMFS will make a
determination when the Purse Seine
fishery will start, based on variations in
seasonal distribution, abundance or
migration patterns of bluefin tuna,
cumulative and projected landings in
other commercial fishing categories, the
potential for gear conflicts on the fishing
grounds, or market impacts due to
oversupply. NMFS will start the bluefin
tuna purse seine season between June 1
and August 15, by filing an action with
the Office of the Federal Register, and
notifying the public. The Purse Seine
category fishery closes on December 31
of each year.
(ii) Allocation of bluefin quota to
Purse Seine category participants.
Annually, NMFS will make equal
allocations of the baseline Purse Seine
category quota described under
paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section to
individual Purse Seine participants (i.e.,
38.1 mt each), then make further
determinations regarding the allocations
per paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
Allocations of individual bluefin quota
to individual Purse Seine participants
may only be transferred through leasing
in accordance with procedures and
requirements at § 635.15(c) and other
requirements under this paragraph
(a)(4).
(iii) Duration. Bluefin tuna quota
allocation issued under this section is
valid for the relevant fishing year unless
it is revoked, suspended, or modified or
unless the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine
category quota is closed per § 635.28(a).
(iv) Unused bluefin allocation. Any
quota allocation that is unused at the
end of the fishing year may not be
carried forward by a Purse Seine
participant to the following year, but
would remain associated with the Purse
Seine category as a whole, and subject
to the quota regulations under § 635.27,
including annual quota adjustments.
(v) Annual reallocation of Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category quota. (A)
By the end of each year, NMFS will
determine the amount of quota available
to each Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine
category participant for the upcoming
fishing year, based on his/her bluefin
catch (landings and dead discards).
Specifically, NMFS will allocate each
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category
participant either 100 percent, 75
percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent of his/
her individual baseline quota allocation,
described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this
section, according to the following
criteria: if the Purse Seine participant’s
catch in year one ranges from 0 to 20
percent of his/her individual baseline
quota allocation, as described under
paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, the
Purse Seine category participant would
be allocated 25 percent of his/her
individual baseline quota allocation in
year two, and 75 percent of his/her
individual allocation would be
reallocated to the Reserve category for
that year. Similarly, if the Purse Seine
participant’s catch in year one is from
greater than 20 percent up to 45 percent
of his/her individual baseline quota
allocation, that Purse Seine category
participant would be allocated 50
percent of his/her individual baseline
quota allocation in year two, and 50
percent of his/her individual allocation
would be reallocated to the Reserve
category for that year. If the Purse Seine
participant’s catch in year one is from
greater than 45 percent up to 70 percent
of his/her individual baseline quota
allocation, that Purse Seine category
participant would be allocated 75
percent of his/her individual baseline
quota allocation in year two, and 25
percent of his/her individual allocation
would be transferred to the Reserve
category for that year. If the Purse Seine
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71603
participant’s catch in year one is greater
than 70 percent of his/her individual
baseline quota allocation, that Purse
Seine category participant would be
allocated 100 percent of his/her
individual baseline quota allocation in
year two, and no quota would be
transferred to the Reserve category for
that year. These criteria would apply
following the same pattern in years two
and beyond.
(B) Purse Seine category participants
may only lease to eligible IBQ
participants allocated quota available to
them that year, consistent with the
purse seine allocation availability
provisions in this section. For example,
if a Purse Seine category participant was
allocated 50 percent of his/her baseline
quota, he/she would be able to catch
and/or lease that allocation to an
eligible IBQ participant. The individual
participant’s remaining baseline quota
would not be available to lease but
would be transferred to the Reserve
category. Allocation of less than 100%
of a participant’s baseline quota (i.e., 25
percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent) does
not preclude the participant from
leasing additional quota, as needed,
consistent with § 635.15(c).
(C) NMFS will inform each Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category participant
annually of its determination regarding
the amount of individual quota
allocated for the subsequent year
through the electronic IBQ system
established under § 635.15 and in
writing via a permit holder letter, when
NMFS has the complete catch data for
the Purse Seine fishery.
(5) Harpoon category quota. The total
amount of large medium and giant
bluefin tuna that may be caught,
retained, possessed, landed, or sold by
vessels that possess Harpoon category
Atlantic Tunas permits is 33.4 mt ww.
The Harpoon category fishery
commences on June 1 of each year, and
closes on November 15 of each year.
(6) Trap category quota. The total
amount of large medium and giant
bluefin tuna that may be caught,
retained, possessed, or landed by
vessels that possess Trap category
Atlantic Tunas permits is 0.9 mt ww.
(7) Reserve category quota. (i) The
total amount of bluefin tuna that is held
in reserve for inseason or annual
adjustments and research using quota or
subquotas is 21.4 mt ww, which may be
augmented by allowable underharvest
from the previous year, or annual
reallocation of Purse Seine category
quota as described under paragraph
(a)(4)(v) of this section. Consistent with
paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10) of
this section, NMFS may allocate any
portion of the Reserve category quota for
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71604
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
inseason or annual adjustments to any
fishing category quota.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) * * *
(x) Optimize fishing opportunity.
(xi) Account for dead discards.
(xii) Facilitate quota accounting.
(xiii) Support other fishing
monitoring programs through quota
allocations and/or generation of
revenue.
(xiv) Support research through quota
allocations and/or generation of
revenue.
(9) Inseason adjustments. To be
effective for all, or a part of a fishing
year, NMFS may transfer quotas
specified under this section, among
fishing categories or, as appropriate,
subcategories, based on the criteria in
paragraph (a)(8) of this section.
(10) Annual adjustments. (i)
Adjustments to category quotas
specified under paragraphs (a) (1)
through (7) of this section may be made
in accordance with the restrictions of
this paragraph and ICCAT
recommendations. Based on landing,
catch statistics, other available
information, and in consideration of the
criteria in paragraph (a)(8) of this
section, if NMFS determines that a
bluefin quota for any category or, as
appropriate, subcategory has been
exceeded (overharvest), NMFS may
subtract all or a portion of the
overharvest from that quota category or
subcategory for the following fishing
year. If NMFS determines that a bluefin
quota for any category or, as
appropriate, subcategory has not been
reached (underharvest), NMFS may add
all or a portion of the underharvest to,
that quota category or subcategory, and/
or the Reserve category for the following
fishing year. The underharvest that is
carried forward may not exceed 100
percent of each category’s baseline
allocation specified in paragraph (a) of
this section, and the total of the adjusted
fishing category quotas and the Reserve
category quota are consistent with
ICCAT recommendations. Although
quota may be carried over for the
Longline or Purse Seine categories as a
whole (at the category level), individual
fishery participants that have been
allocated individual quota may not
carry over such quota from one year to
the next, as specified under
§ 635.15(b)(6) and (7) for the pelagic
longline fishery, and under paragraph
(a)(4)(iv) of this section for the purse
seine fishery.
(ii) NMFS may allocate any quota
remaining in the Reserve category at the
end of a fishing year to any fishing
category, provided such allocation is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
consistent with the determination
criteria specified in paragraph (a)(8) of
this section.
(iii) Regardless of the estimated
landings in any year, NMFS may adjust
the annual school bluefin quota to
ensure that the average take of school
bluefin over each ICCAT-recommended
balancing period does not exceed 10
percent by weight of the total annual
U.S. bluefin quota, inclusive of the
allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section (NED), for that period,
consistent with ICCAT
recommendations.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) Northern albacore tuna—(1)
Annual quota. Consistent with ICCAT
recommendations and domestic
management objectives, the total
baseline annual fishery quota is 527 mt
ww. The total quota, after any
adjustments made per paragraph (e)(2)
of this section, is the fishing year’s total
amount of northern albacore tuna that
may be landed by persons and vessels
subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
(2) Annual adjustments. Consistent
with ICCAT recommendations and
domestic management objectives, and
based on landings statistics and other
information as appropriate, if for a
particular year the total landings are
above or below the annual quota for that
year, the difference between the annual
quota and the landings will be
subtracted from, or added to, the
following year’s quota, respectively, or
subtracted or added through a delayed,
or multi-year adjustment. Carryover
adjustments shall be limited to 25
percent of the baseline quota allocation
for that year. NMFS will file with the
Office of the Federal Register for
publication any adjustment or
apportionment made under this
paragraph (e)(2).
■ 15. In § 635.28, paragraph (a) is
revised; and paragraphs (b)(6), (c)(3),
and (d) are added to read as follows:
§ 635.28
Fishery closures.
(a) Bluefin tuna. (1) When a bluefin
tuna quota specified in § 635.27(a), is
reached, or is projected to be reached,
NMFS will file a closure action with the
Office of the Federal Register for
publication. On and after the effective
date and time of such action, for the
remainder of the fishing year or for a
specified period as indicated in the
notice, fishing for, retaining, possessing,
or landing bluefin tuna under that quota
is prohibited until the opening of the
subsequent quota period or until such
date as specified in the notice.
(2) If NMFS determines that variations
in seasonal distribution, abundance, or
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
migration patterns of bluefin, or the
catch rate in one area, precludes
participants in another area from a
reasonable opportunity to harvest any
allocated domestic category quota, as
stated in § 635.27(a), NMFS may close
all or part of the fishery under that
category. NMFS may reopen the fishery
at a later date if NMFS determines that
reasonable fishing opportunities are
available, e.g., bluefin have migrated
into the area or weather is conducive for
fishing. In determining the need for any
such interim closure or area closure,
NMFS will also take into consideration
the criteria specified in § 635.27(a)(8).
(3) When the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category quota is reached, projected to
be reached, or exceeded, or when there
is high uncertainty regarding the
estimated or documented levels of
bluefin tuna catch, NMFS will file a
closure action with the Office of the
Federal Register for publication. On and
after the effective date and time of such
action, for the remainder of the fishing
year or for a specified period as
indicated in the closure action, vessels
that have been issued or are required to
have a limited access permit under
§ 635.4 and that have pelagic longline
gear onboard are prohibited from
leaving port, regardless of the amount of
bluefin tuna quota allocation remaining
to each vessel or the amount of fishery
quota remaining for other species. In
addition to providing notice in the
Federal Register, NMFS will also notify
vessels of any closures and their timing
via VMS and may use other electronic
methods, such as email. Vessels would
be required to return to port prior to the
closure date/time. When considering
whether to close or reopen the Longline
category quota, NMFS may consider the
following factors:
(i) Total estimated bluefin tuna catch
(landings and dead discards) in relation
to the quota;
(ii) The estimated amount by which
the bluefin tuna quota might be
exceeded;
(iii) The usefulness of data relevant to
monitoring the quota;
(iv) The uncertainty in the
documented or estimated dead discards
or landings of bluefin tuna;
(v) The amount of bluefin tuna
landings or dead discards within a short
time;
(vi) The effects of continued fishing
on bluefin tuna rebuilding and
overfishing;
(vii) The provision of reasonable
opportunity for pelagic longline vessels
to pursue the target species;
(viii) The variations in seasonal
distribution, abundance or migration
patterns of bluefin tuna; and
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(viii) Other relevant factors.
(b) * * *
(6) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category quota is closed as specified in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels
that have pelagic longline gear on board
cannot possess or land sharks.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) Bluefin tuna Longline category
closure. If the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category quota is closed as specified in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels
that have pelagic longline gear on board
cannot possess or land any North
Atlantic swordfish or bluefin tuna.
(d) Northern albacore tuna—When
the annual fishery quota specified in
§ 635.27(e) is reached, or is projected to
be reached, NMFS will file a closure
action with the Office of the Federal
Register for publication. When the
fishery for northern albacore tuna is
closed, northern albacore tuna may not
be retained. If the Atlantic Tunas
Longline category quota is closed as
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this
section, vessels that have pelagic
longline gear on board cannot possess or
land any northern albacore tuna.
■ 16. In § 635.31, paragraphs (a)(1) and
(2), (c)(1) and (4), and (d)(1) and (2) are
revised to read as follows:
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and
purchase.
(a) * * *
(1) A person that owns or operates a
vessel from which an Atlantic tuna is
landed or offloaded may sell such
Atlantic tuna only if that vessel has a
valid HMS Charter/Headboat permit; a
valid General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse
Seine, or Trap category permit for
Atlantic tunas; or a valid HMS
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit issued under this part and the
appropriate category has not been
closed, as specified at § 635.28(a).
However, no person may sell a bluefin
tuna smaller than the large medium size
class. Also, no large medium or giant
bluefin tuna taken by a person aboard a
vessel with an Atlantic HMS Charter/
Headboat permit fishing in the Gulf of
Mexico at any time, or fishing outside
the Gulf of Mexico when the fishery
under the General category has been
closed, may be sold (see § 635.23(c)). A
person may sell Atlantic bluefin tuna
only to a dealer that has a valid permit
for purchasing Atlantic bluefin tuna
issued under this part. A person may
not sell or purchase Atlantic tunas
harvested with speargun fishing gear.
(2) Dealers may purchase Atlantic
tunas only from a vessel that has a valid
commercial permit for Atlantic tunas
issued under this part in the appropriate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
category and the appropriate category
has not been closed, as specified at
§ 635.28(a).
(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. Vessel owners
and operators of vessels that have been
issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit can sell bluefin tuna
and dealers can purchase bluefin tuna
from such vessels only if the Longline
category is open, per § 635.28(a) and if:
(A) The vessel has met the minimum
quota allocation and accounting
requirements at § 635.15(b)(4) and (5)
for vessels departing on a trip with
pelagic longline gear aboard, and
(B) The dealer and vessel have met
the IBQ program participant
requirements at § 635.15(a)(2).
(ii) Dealers may first receive BAYS
tunas only if they have submitted
reports to NMFS according to reporting
requirements at § 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. Vessel owners and
operators of vessels that have been
issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit can sell BAYS tunas
and dealers can purchase BAYS tunas
from such vessels only if the Longline
category is open per § 635.28(a).
Individuals issued a valid HMS
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit, and operating in the U.S.
Caribbean as defined at § 622.2 of this
chapter, may sell their trip limits of
BAYS tunas, codified at § 635.24(c), to
dealers and non-dealers. Persons may
only sell albacore tuna and dealers may
only first receive albacore tuna if the
northern albacore tuna fishery has not
been closed as specified at § 635.28 (d).
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a
vessel that possesses a shark from the
management unit may sell such shark
only if the vessel has a valid commercial
shark permit issued under this part.
Persons may possess and sell a shark
only to a federally-permitted dealer and
only when the fishery for that species,
management group, and/or region has
not been closed, as specified in
§ 635.28(b). Persons that own or operate
a vessel that has pelagic longline gear
onboard can only possess and sell a
shark if the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category has not been closed, as
specified in § 635.28(a).
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Only dealers who have a valid a
Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit and
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71605
who have submitted reports to NMFS
according to reporting requirements at
§ 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. Atlantic
shark dealers may purchase, trade for,
barter for, or receive a shark from an
owner or operator of a vessel who 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 who has a
valid commercial shark permit issued
under this part only when the fishery
for that species, management group,
and/or region has not been closed, as
specified in § 635.28(b). Atlantic shark
dealers may first receive a shark from a
vessel that has pelagic longline gear
onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas
Longline category has not been closed,
as specified in § 635.28(a).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a
vessel on which a swordfish in or from
the Atlantic Ocean is possessed may sell
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; except that
individuals issued a valid HMS
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit, and operating in the U.S.
Caribbean as defined at § 622.2 of this
chapter, may sell swordfish, as specified
at § 635.24(b)(3), to non-dealers. Persons
that own or operate a vessel that has
pelagic longline gear onboard can only
possess and sell a swordfish if the
Atlantic Tunas Longline category has
not been closed, as specified in
§ 635.28(a)(4).
(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). Atlantic swordfish
dealers may first receive a swordfish
from a vessel that has pelagic longline
gear onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71606
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Longline category has not been closed,
as specified in § 635.28(a)(4).
■ 17. In § 635.34, paragraphs (a), (b) and
(d) are revised to read as follows:
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 635.34 Adjustment of management
measures.
(a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares
or resultant allocations for bluefin tuna,
as specified in § 635.15; catch limits for
bluefin tuna, as specified in § 635.23;
the quotas for bluefin tuna, shark,
swordfish, and northern albacore tuna,
as specified in § 635.27; the regional
retention limits for Swordfish General
Commercial permit holders, as specified
at § 635.24; the marlin landing limit, as
specified in § 635.27(d); and the
minimum sizes for Atlantic blue marlin,
white marlin, and roundscale spearfish,
as specified in § 635.20.
(b) In accordance with the framework
procedures in the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or
modify for species or species groups of
Atlantic HMS the following
management measures: Maximum
sustainable yield or optimum yield
based on the latest stock assessment or
updates in the SAFE report; domestic
quotas; recreational and commercial
retention limits, including target catch
requirements; size limits; fishing years
or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions
or regional quotas; species in the
management unit and the specification
of the species groups to which they
belong; species in the prohibited shark
species group; classification system
within shark species groups; permitting
and reporting requirements; workshop
requirements; the IBQ shares or
resultant allocations for bluefin tuna;
administration of the IBQ Program
(including but not limited to
requirements pertaining to leasing of
IBQ allocations, regional or minimum
IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps
(individual or by category), permanent
sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.);
time/area restrictions; allocations among
user groups; gear prohibitions,
modifications, or use restriction; effort
restrictions; observer coverage
requirements; EM requirements;
essential fish habitat; and actions to
implement ICCAT recommendations, as
appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) When considering a framework
adjustment to add, change, or modify
time/area closures and/or gear restricted
areas, NMFS will consider, consistent
with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and other applicable law, but is not
limited to the following criteria: Any
Endangered Species Act related issues,
concerns, or requirements, including
applicable BiOps; bycatch rates of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
protected species, prohibited HMS, or
non-target species both within the
specified or potential closure area(s) and
throughout the fishery; bycatch rates
and post-release mortality rates of
bycatch species associated with
different gear types; new or updated
landings, bycatch, and fishing effort
data; evidence or research indicating
that changes to fishing gear and/or
fishing practices can significantly
reduce bycatch; social and economic
impacts; and the practicability of
implementing new or modified closures
compared to other bycatch reduction
options. If the species is an ICCAT
managed species, NMFS will also
consider the overall effect of the U.S.’s
catch on that species before
implementing time/area closures, gear
restricted areas, or access to closed
areas.
■ 18. In § 635.69, paragraph (a)
introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1)
and (4) are revised; and paragraph (e)(4)
is added to read as follows:
§ 635.69
Vessel monitoring systems.
(a) Applicability. To facilitate
enforcement of time/area and fishery
closures, enhance reporting, and
support the IBQ Program (§ 635.15), an
owner or operator of a commercial
vessel permitted, or required to be
permitted, to fish for Atlantic HMS
under § 635.4 and that fishes with
pelagic or bottom longline, gillnet, or
purse seine gear, is required to install a
NMFS-approved enhanced mobile
transmitting unit (E–MTU) vessel
monitoring system (VMS) on board the
vessel and operate the VMS unit under
the circumstances listed in paragraphs
(a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section. For
purposes of this section, a NMFSapproved E–MTU VMS is one that has
been approved by NMFS as satisfying its
type approval listing for E–MTU VMS
units. Those requirements are published
in the Federal Register and may be
updated periodically.
(1) Whenever the vessel has pelagic
longline or purse seine gear on board;
*
*
*
*
*
(4) A vessel is considered to have
pelagic or bottom longline gear on
board, for the purposes of this section,
when the gear components as specified
at § 635.2 are on board. A vessel is
considered to have gillnet gear on board,
for the purposes of this section, when
gillnet, as defined in § 600.10 of this
chapter, is on board a vessel that has
been issued a shark LAP. A vessel is
considered to have purse seine gear on
board, for the purposes of this section,
when the gear as defined at § 600.10 is
onboard a vessel that has been issued an
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category
permit.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(4) Bluefin tuna and fishing effort
reporting requirements for vessels
fishing either with pelagic longline gear
or purse seine gear—(i) Pelagic longline
gear. The vessel owner or operator of a
vessel that has pelagic longline gear on
board must report to NMFS using the
attached VMS terminal, or using an
alternative method specified by NMFS
as follows: For each set, as instructed by
NMFS, the date and area of the set, the
number of hooks and the length of all
bluefin retained (actual), and the length
of all bluefin tuna discarded dead or
alive (approximate), must be reported
within 12 hours of the completion each
pelagic longline haul-back.
(ii) Purse Seine gear. The vessel
owner or operator of a vessel that has
purse seine gear on board must report to
NMFS using the attached VMS terminal,
or using an alternative method specified
by NMFS as follows: For each purse
seine set, as instructed by NMFS, the
date and area of the set, and the length
of all bluefin retained (actual), and the
length of all bluefin tuna discarded dead
or alive (approximate), must be reported
within 12 hours of the completion of the
retrieval of each set.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 19. In § 635.71:
■ a. Paragraphs (a)(14), (a)(19), (a)(23),
(a)(31), (a)(33), (a)(34), and (a)(40) are
revised;
■ b. Paragraphs (a)(57) through (60) are
added;
■ c. Paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8),
(b)(13), (b)(17), (b)(23), (b)(36), and
(b)(38) are revised;
■ d. Paragraphs (b)(41) through (59) are
added; and
■ e. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (7), (d)(12)
and (13), and (e)(8), (e)(11), (e)(16) and
(e)(18) are revised.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 635.71
Prohibitions
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(14) Fail to install, activate, repair, or
replace a NMFS-approved E–MTU
vessel monitoring system prior to
leaving port with pelagic longline gear,
bottom longline gear, gillnet gear, or
purse seine gear on board the vessel as
specified in § 635.69.
*
*
*
*
*
(19) Utilize secondary gears as
specified in § 635.19(a) to capture, or
attempt to capture, any undersized or
free swimming Atlantic HMS, or fail to
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
release a captured Atlantic HMS in the
manner specified in § 635.21(a).
*
*
*
*
*
(23) Fail to comply with the
restrictions on use of pelagic longline,
bottom longline, gillnet, buoy gear,
speargun gear, or green-stick gear as
specified in § 635.21.
*
*
*
*
*
(31) Deploy or fish with any fishing
gear from a vessel with a pelagic
longline on board in any closed or gear
restricted areas during the time period
specified at § 635.21(c), except under
the conditions listed at § 635.21 (c)(3).
*
*
*
*
*
(33) Deploy or fish with any fishing
gear from a vessel with pelagic or
bottom longline gear on board without
carrying the required sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear, as specified at
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i) for pelagic longline gear
and § 635.21(d)(2) for bottom longline
gear. This equipment must be utilized in
accordance with § 635.21(c)(5)(ii) and
(d)(2) for pelagic and bottom longline
gear, respectively.
(34) Fail to disengage any hooked or
entangled sea turtle with the least harm
possible to the sea turtle as specified at
§ 635.21 (c)(5) or (d)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(40) Deploy or fish with any fishing
gear, from a vessel with bottom longline
gear on board, without carrying a
dipnet, line clipper, and dehooking
device as specified at § 635.21(d)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(57) Fail to appropriately stow
longline gear when transiting a closed or
gear restricted area, as specified in
§ 635.21(b)(2).
(58) Fish with pelagic longline gear in
the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted area if
not determined by NMFS to be
‘‘qualified’’ under § 635.21(c)(3).
(59) Fish for, retain, possess, or land
any HMS from a vessel with a pelagic
longline on board when the Atlantic
Tunas Longline category fishery is
closed, as specified in § 635.28(a)(3),
(b)(6), (c)(3), and (d).
(60) Buy, trade, or barter for any HMS
from a vessel with pelagic longline gear
is on board when the Atlantic Tunas
Longline category fishery is closed, as
specified in § 635.31(a)(2), (c), and (d).
(b) * * *
(5) Fail to report a large medium or
giant bluefin tuna that is not sold, as
specified in § 635.5(a)(3), or fail to
report a bluefin tuna that is sold, as
specified in § 635.5(a)(4).
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Fish for, catch, retain, or possess
a bluefin tuna with gear not authorized
for the category permit issued to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
vessel or to have such gear on board
when in possession of a bluefin tuna, as
specified in § 635.19(b).
(8) Fail to request an inspection of a
purse seine vessel, as specified in
§ 635.21(e)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
(13) As a vessel with an Atlantic
Tunas General category permit, fail to
immediately cease fishing and
immediately return to port after
catching the applicable limit of large
medium or giant bluefin tuna on a
commercial fishing day, as specified in
§ 635.23(a)(3).
*
*
*
*
*
(17) As a vessel with an Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category permit,
catch, possess, retain, or land bluefin in
excess of its allocation of the Purse
Seine category quota as specified in
§ 635.23(e), or fish for bluefin under that
allocation prior to the commencement
date of the directed bluefin purse seine
fishery as specified in § 635.27(a)(4).
*
*
*
*
*
(23) Fish for, catch, possess, or retain
a bluefin tuna, except as specified under
§ 635.23(f), or if taken incidental to
recreational fishing for other species
and retained in accordance with
§ 635.23(b) and (c).
*
*
*
*
*
(36) Possess J-hooks onboard a vessel
that has pelagic longline gear onboard,
and that has been issued, or is required
to have, a limited access swordfish,
shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit for use in the Atlantic
Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and
the Gulf of Mexico, except when greenstick gear is onboard, as specified at
§ 635.21(c)(2)(vii)(A) and (c)(5)(iii)(C)(3).
*
*
*
*
*
(38) Possess more than 20 J-hooks
onboard a vessel that has been issued,
or is required to have, a limited access
swordfish, shark, or tuna Longline
category permit for use in the Atlantic
Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and
the Gulf of Mexico, when possessing
onboard both pelagic longline gear and
green-stick gear as defined at § 635.2.
*
*
*
*
*
(41) Fail to report bluefin catch by
pelagic longline or purse seine gear,
through VMS as specified at
§ 635.69(e)(4).
(42) Fail to report all dead discards or
landings of bluefin through the NMFS
electronic catch reporting system within
24 hours of landing or the end of the
trip as specified at § 635.5(a)(4).
(43) Fish for, retain, possess, or land
albacore tuna when the fishery is
closed, as specified in § 635.28(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
71607
(44) Buy, purchase, trade, or barter for
albacore tuna when the fishery is
closed, as specified in § 635.31(a)(2)(ii).
(45) Fail to comply with landing
report requirements, as specified under
§ 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A).
(46) Deploy or fish with any fishing
gear from a vessel with a pelagic
longline on board that does not have an
approved and working EM system as
specified in § 635.9; tamper with, or fail
to install, operate or maintain one or
more components of the EM system;
obstruct the view of the camera(s); or
fail to handle bluefin tuna in a manner
that allows the camera to record the
fish; as specified in § 635.9.
(47) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy
or fish with any fishing gear from a
vessel with a pelagic longline on board
without a minimum amount of IBQ
allocation available for that vessel, as
specified in § 635.15(b)(3), as
applicable.
(48) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy
or fish with any fishing gear from a
vessel with a pelagic longline on board
without accounting for bluefin caught
on a previous trip as specified in
§ 635.15(b)(4)(ii).
(49) Lease bluefin quota allocation to
or from the owner of a vessel not issued
a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permit
or not an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine
participant as specified under
§ 635.15(c)(1).
(50) Fish in the Gulf of Mexico with
pelagic longline gear on board if the
vessel has only designated Atlantic IBQ
allocation, as specified under
§ 635.15(b)(2).
(51) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy
or fish with any fishing gear from a
vessel with a pelagic longline on board
in the Gulf of Mexico, without a
minimum amount of designated GOM
IBQ allocation available for that vessel,
as specified in § 635.15(b)(3).
(52) If leasing IBQ allocation, fail to
provide all required information on the
application, as specified under
§ 635.15(c)(2).
(53) Lease IBQ allocation in an
amount that exceeds the amount of IBQ
allocation associated with the lessor, as
specified under § 635.15(c)(2).
(54) Sell quota share, as specified
under § 635.15(d).
(55) Fail to provide bluefin tuna
landings and dead discard information
as specified at § 635.15(b)(4)(iii).
(56) Fish with or have pelagic
longline gear on board if any trip level
quota debt associated with the vessel
from a preceding trip has not been
settled, as specified at § 635.15(b)(5)(i).
(57) Lease IBQ allocation during the
period from 6 p.m. December 31 to 2
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
71608
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
p.m. January 1 (Eastern Time) as
specified at § 635.15(c)(3)(iv).
(58) Lease IBQ allocation if the
conditions of paragraph § 635.15(c)(2)
are not met.
(59) Fish with or have pelagic
longline gear on board if any annual
level quota debt associated with the
vessel from a preceding year has not
been settled, as specified at
§ 635.15(b)(5)(ii).
(c) * * *
(1) As specified in § 635.19(c), retain
a billfish harvested by gear other than
rod and reel, or retain a billfish on board
a vessel unless that vessel has been
issued an Atlantic HMS Angling or
Charter/Headboat permit or has been
issued an Atlantic Tunas General
category permit and is participating in
a tournament in compliance with
§ 635.4(c).
*
*
*
*
*
(7) Deploy a J-hook or an offset circle
hook in combination with natural bait
or a natural bait/artificial lure
combination when participating in a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:36 Dec 01, 2014
Jkt 235001
tournament for, or including, Atlantic
billfish, as specified in § 635.21(f).
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(12) Fish for Atlantic sharks with
unauthorized gear or possess Atlantic
sharks on board a vessel with
unauthorized gear on board as specified
in § 635.19(d).
(13) Fish for Atlantic sharks with a
gillnet or possess Atlantic sharks on
board a vessel with a gillnet on board,
except as specified in § 635.21(g).
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(8) Fish for North Atlantic swordfish
from, possess North Atlantic swordfish
on board, or land North Atlantic
swordfish from a vessel using or having
on board gear other than pelagic
longline, green-stick gear, or handgear,
except as specified at § 635.19(e).
*
*
*
*
*
(11) As the owner of a vessel
permitted, or required to be permitted,
in the swordfish directed, swordfish
handgear limited access permit
category, or issued a valid HMS
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat
permit and utilizing buoy gear, to
possess or deploy more than 35
individual floatation devices, to deploy
more than 35 individual buoy gears per
vessel, or to deploy buoy gear without
affixed monitoring equipment, as
specified at § 635.21(h).
*
*
*
*
*
(16) Possess any HMS, other than
Atlantic swordfish, harvested with buoy
gear as specified at § 635.19 unless
issued a valid HMS Commercial
Caribbean Small Boat permit and
operating within the U.S. Caribbean as
defined at § 622.2 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(18) As the owner of a vessel
permitted, or required to be permitted,
in the Swordfish General Commercial
permit category, possess North Atlantic
swordfish taken from its management
unit by any gear other than rod and reel,
handline, bandit gear, green-stick, or
harpoon gear, as specified in § 635.19(e).
[FR Doc. 2014–28064 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM
02DER2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71509-71608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28064]
[[Page 71509]]
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 231
December 2, 2014
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Part 635
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 71510]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 120328229-4949-02]
RIN 0648-BC09
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic
Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule implements Amendment 7 to the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan
(2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) to ensure sustainable management of bluefin
tuna consistent with the 2006 HMS FMP and address ongoing management
challenges in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries. This final rule also
implements minor regulatory changes related to the management of
Atlantic HMS. Amendment 7 management measures were developed by NMFS
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention
Act (ATCA). This final rule: Allocates U.S. bluefin tuna quota among
domestic fishing categories; implements measures applicable to the
pelagic longline fishery, including Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQs),
two new Gear Restricted Areas, closure of the pelagic longline fishery
when annual bluefin tuna quota is reached, elimination of target catch
requirements associated with retention of incidental bluefin tuna in
the pelagic longline fishery, mandatory retention of legal-sized
bluefin tuna caught as bycatch, expanded monitoring requirements,
including electronic monitoring via cameras and bluefin tuna catch
reporting via Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), and transiting provisions
for pelagic and bottom longline vessels; requires VMS use and reporting
by the Purse Seine category; changes the start date of the Purse Seine
category from July 15 to a date within a range of June 1 to August 15,
to be established by an annual action; requires use of the Automated
Catch Reporting System by the General and Harpoon categories; provides
additional flexibility for inseason adjustment of the General category
quota and Harpoon category retention limits; and changes the allocation
of the Angling category Trophy South subquota for the Gulf of Mexico.
Finally, this rule implements several measures not directly related to
bluefin tuna management, including a U.S. North Atlantic albacore tuna
quota; modified rules regarding permit category changes; and minor
changes in the HMS regulations for administrative or clarification
purposes.
DATES: Effective January 1, 2015, except for Sec. 635.9(b)(2)(ii),
(e)(1), which are effective June 1, 2015; and Sec. 635.15(b)(3),
(b)(4)(ii), and (b)(5)(i), which are effective January 1, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP,
including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and other
relevant documents are available from the HMS Management Division Web
site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Warren or Brad McHale at 978-
281-9260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed
under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and regulations at 50 CFR part 635,
pursuant to the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. Under
ATCA, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as may be
necessary and appropriate to carry out International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendations. The authority
to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been
delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA (AA). On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal
Register (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006,
implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which details the
management measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries, including the
incidental and directed Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries.
Background
A brief summary of the background of this final action is provided
below. A more detailed history of the development of these regulations,
and the alternatives considered, are described in Amendment 7 to the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP Final Environmental Impact Statement
(Amendment 7 FEIS, August, 2014), which can be found online at the HMS
Web site noted above.
NMFS published a proposed rule on August 21, 2013 (78 FR, 52032),
which proposed the ``preferred alternatives'' analyzed in the Draft
Amendment 7 Environmental Impact Statement and solicited public
comments on the measures, which were designed to address the following
objectives: (1) Prevent overfishing of and rebuild bluefin tuna stock,
achieve on a continuing basis optimum yield, and minimize bluefin
bycatch to the extent practicable by ensuring that domestic bluefin
tuna fisheries continue to operate within the overall total allowable
catch (TAC) set by ICCAT consistent with the existing rebuilding plan;
(2) optimize the ability for all permit categories to harvest their
full bluefin quota allocations, account for mortality associated with
discarded bluefin in all categories, maintain flexibility of the
regulations to account for the highly variable nature of the bluefin
fisheries, and maintain fairness among permit/quota categories; (3)
reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna and minimize reductions in target
catch in both directed and incidental bluefin fisheries, to the extent
practicable; (4) improve the scope and quality of catch data through
enhanced reporting and monitoring to ensure that landings and dead
discards do not exceed the quota and to improve accounting for all
sources of fishing mortality; and (5) adjust other aspects of the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary and appropriate, including northern
albacore tuna quota implementation.
On August 22, 2013 (78 FR 52123), NMFS published a notice in the
Federal Register informing the public of the date and locations of
public hearings on Amendment 7. From August 2013 to January 2014, NMFS
conducted 11 public hearings, and consulted with the New England
Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Management Council, and
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The hearings were held
in diverse locations in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal states. On
August 30, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice
of Availability of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) (78
FR 53754; August 30, 2013).
The August 21, 2013, Amendment 7 proposed rule set the end of the
public comment period as October 23, 2013, but given the length and
complexity of the rule, and to provide additional time for
consideration of public comments in light of the November meeting of
ICCAT, the end of the comment period was extended to December 10, 2013
(78 FR 57340; September 18, 2013). Subsequently, due to the government
shutdown in October 2013, and NMFS' inability to respond to
constituents
[[Page 71511]]
during that time frame and based on requests for an extension due to
the complexity of the measures covered in the DEIS, NMFS again extended
the end of the public comment period until January 10, 2014, to provide
additional opportunity for informed comment (78 FR 75327; December 11,
2013). On December 26, 2013, NMFS published a Federal Register notice
announcing a public hearing conference call and webinar to provide
additional opportunity for the public from all geographic areas to
comment (78 FR 78322).
The comments received on Draft Amendment 7 and its proposed rule,
and responses to those comments, are summarized below in the section
labeled ``Response to Comments.''
The bluefin tuna fishery is managed principally through a quota.
Currently, NMFS implements and codifies the ICCAT-recommended U.S.
quota through rulemaking, annually or bi-annually depending on the
length of the relevant ICCAT recommendation. Also through rulemaking
(the ``quota specifications process'') NMFS annually adjusts the U.S.
baseline bluefin quota to account for any underharvest or overharvest
of the adjusted U.S. quota from the prior year; specifies subquotas
that result from application of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP
allocations; and adjusts subquotas as appropriate following
consideration of domestic management needs. NMFS must account not only
for landings but for bluefin tuna discarded dead. NMFS estimates and
accounts for dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery, which
cannot target bluefin tuna but catches them while targeting swordfish
and other tunas.
National Standard 1 requires that ``conservation and management
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States
fishing industry.'' The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines ``optimum yield''
as the amount of fish that, among other things, provides for rebuilding
to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield from
the fishery. In ATCA, Congress also directed NMFS to manage the bluefin
fishery to ensure that NMFS provides U.S. fishing vessels ``with a
reasonable opportunity to harvest such allocation, quota, or at such
fishing mortality level. . . .'' This rule builds upon an extensive
regulatory framework for management of the domestic bluefin fishery
pursuant to the 20-year rebuilding program adopted in the 1999 FMP and
continued under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. As described below, the
final rule measures were designed to allow fishery participants to
fully harvest, but not exceed, the U.S. bluefin quota by refining the
existing management tools. NMFS is implementing a detailed, multi-level
approach to resolving challenges in administering and carrying out the
current quota system, which, if left unaddressed, may otherwise result
in overharvests of the U.S. quota in the future. These final rule
measures directly support the goals of reducing overfishing, rebuilding
the western bluefin stock, and achieving optimum yield by ensuring that
the fishery continues to be managed within the ICCAT-approved TAC, and
consistent with National Standard 1's requirements.
Northern Albacore Tuna
Amendment 7 also includes measures for management of north Atlantic
albacore (or ``northern albacore'') tuna. Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted
recommendations regarding the northern albacore tuna fishery. A multi-
year management measure for northern albacore tuna was first adopted in
2003, setting the TAC at 34,500 mt. ICCAT's Standing Committee on
Research and Statistics (SCRS) assessed the northern albacore tuna
stock in 2009 and concluded that the stock continues to be overfished
with overfishing occurring, recommending a level of catch of no more
than 28,000 mt to meet ICCAT management objectives by 2020. In
response, in 2009 ICCAT established a North Atlantic albacore tuna
rebuilding program via Recommendation 09-05, setting a 28,000mt TAC and
including several provisions to limit catches by individual ICCAT
parties (for major and minor harvesters) and reduce the amount of
unharvested quota that could be carried forward from one year to the
next, from 50 percent to 25 percent of a party's initial catch quota.
The 2009 recommendation expired in 2011.
In 2011, ICCAT Recommendation 11-04 again set a TAC of 28,000 mt
for 2012 and for 2013 and contained specific recommendations regarding
the North Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding program, including an
annual TAC for 2012 and 2013 allocated among the European Union,
Chinese Taipei, the United States, and Venezuela. The U.S. quota for
2012 and 2013 is 527 mt. The recommendation limits Japanese northern
albacore tuna catches to 4 percent in weight of its total Atlantic
bigeye tuna longline catch, and limits the catches of other ICCAT
parties to 200 mt. The recommendation also specifies that quota
adjustments for a given year's underharvest or overharvest may be made
for either 2 or 3 years from the subject year (i.e., adjustments based
on 2013 catches would be made in either 2015 or 2016). Pursuant to ATCA
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in this final rule NMFS implements the
ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota and establishes provisions to adjust the
base quota for over or underharvests via annual quota specifications.
Implemented Measures
The rule finalizes most of the management measures that were
contained in the proposed rule for Amendment 7 as they were proposed,
with several exceptions. This section provides a summary of the final
management measures being implemented by Amendment 7 and notes certain
changes from the proposed rule to this final rule that may be of
particular interest to the regulated community. These include changes
to the basis for annual purse seine quota availability, changes to two
Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs), changes to the range of years used in the
performance metrics and BFT quota allocations formula, changes to VMS
requirements, and changed to effective dates. Measures that are
different from the proposed rule, or measures that were proposed but
not implemented, are described in detail in the section titled,
``Changes from the Proposed Rule.''
1. Quota Reallocation
Codified Quota Reallocation
The Longline category's percentage of the baseline U.S. bluefin
tuna quota remains at 8.1 percent, but each year the Longline category
quota will be increased by a net amount of 62.5 mt based on deductions
from the other quota categories, to more fully and predictably account
for Longline category incidental bluefin catch, including both dead
discards and landings. This measure does not modify the previously-
codified category quota allocation percentages. Rather, NMFS will
calculate the bluefin quota for each of the quota categories through
the following process: First, 68 mt will be subtracted from the
baseline annual U.S. BFT quota for reallocation to the Longline
category quota. All quota categories will be reduced consistent with
the allocation percentages codified at 50 CFR 635.27. Second, the
remaining quota will be divided among the categories according to those
allocation percentages. Third, the 68 mt derived in Step One from all
categories, including the Longline category, will be added to the
Longline category quota. The net
[[Page 71512]]
amount of quota increase for the Longline category will be 62.5 mt.
Thus, 32.0 mt will be deducted from the General category (i.e.,
47.1 percent of 68 mt), 2.7 mt from the Harpoon category (3.9 percent),
12.6 mt from the Purse Seine category (18.6 percent), 5.5 mt from the
Longline category (8.1 percent), 13.4 mt from the Angling category
(19.7 percent), and 1.7 mt from the Reserve category (2.5 percent).
This equals 68 mt, which will be added to the Longline category,
resulting in a net increase to the Longline category of 62.5 mt (68 mt
minus the Longline category's contribution of 5.5 mt). If, for example,
the baseline annual U.S. quota is 923.7 mt in a given year, then 403.0
mt would be allocated to the General category (i.e., 47.1 percent of
855.7 mt), 33.4 mt to the Harpoon category (3.9 percent), 159.1 mt to
the Purse Seine category (18.6 percent), 137.3 mt for the Longline
category (8.1 percent plus the 62.5 mt), 168.6 mt for the Angling
category (19.7 percent), and 21.4 mt for the Reserve category (2.5
percent)
This measure provides additional quota to the Longline category to
facilitate the ability to account for both landings and dead discards
within the Longline category quota, consistent with the historical
separate dead discard allocation, yet limits the amount of reallocation
to the Longline category if the total U.S. quota increases. For more
information on the historical dead discard allocation and the
associated rationale for the 68 mt augmentation of the Longline
category, see the Codified Reallocation section (2.1.2) of the FEIS.
Annual Quota Reallocation
NMFS will annually adjust the Purse Seine quota, using a formula
based on the weights of reported landings and estimated weights of dead
discards (calculated from reported lengths) by purse seine fishery
participants in the previous year. Twenty-five percent of each Purse
Seine category participant's base quota will be available as a minimum
to each Purse Seine fishery participant annually. Beyond that amount,
quota will be available to such participants based on the fishery
participant's catch in the previous year. Any quota not allocated to
the Purse Seine category participants will be allocated to the Reserve
category for possible redistribution consistent with specified
regulatory criteria to other quota categories, and to support other
objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. By moving portions of the
unused Purse Seine quota to the Reserve category annually, this measure
will give NMFS more flexibility in administering the quota system.
Based on public comment, this measure was modified from the
proposed rule so that the annual formula for quota availability is
based on the previous year's individual purse seine participant's
catch, rather than based on the catch of the Purse Seine category as a
whole. This modification ties quota allocation more closely to the
individual participants catch and creates incentive for fishery
participants to remain active in the fishery. Without this
modification, individual allocations would be tied to the catch of the
other vessels in the fishery, which could have unfair results if catch
were to vary greatly among the vessels. For example, in a year where
overall category catch were low, an individual purse seine participant
could have a relatively low amount of quota available for use, even if
that participant landed a substantial portion of its allocation during
the previous year.
Annually, NMFS will make a determination regarding the quota
available for each purse seine participant for the year, based on the
bluefin catch by such participants in the previous year. Purse Seine
participants will have available for use either 100 percent, 75
percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent of their base quota, according the
following allocation criteria: If the individual catch is between 0 and
20 percent of the individual base quota in year one, the Purse Seine
fishery participant will have available for use 25 percent of their
base quota in year two, and 75 percent of their quota will be available
to the Reserve Category for that year. If the individual catch is
greater than 20 percent and up to 45 percent of their individual base
quota in year one, the Purse Seine fishery participant will be
allocated 50 percent of their quota in year two, and 50 percent of
their quota will be available to the Reserve Category for that year. If
the individual catch is greater than 45 percent and up to 70 percent of
their base quota in year one, the Purse Seine fishery participant will
have available for use 75 percent of their individual base quota in
year two, and 25 percent of their quota will be available to the
Reserve Category for that year. If the individual catch is greater than
70 percent of their base quota in year one, the Purse Seine fishery
participant will have available for use 100 percent of their baseline
quota in year two, and no quota will be available to the Reserve
Category for that year. These thresholds (>20 percent, >45 percent, >70
percent) will apply following the same pattern in years beyond year
two, with each year's quota reflecting the previous year's catch. In
summary, if Purse Seine fishery participants catch a large portion of
their individual allocated base quota in one year, they have available
for use a large portion of their base quota in the next year. If a
Purse Seine fishery participant's catch is low in one year, a larger
portion of their Purse Seine base quota becomes available for other
management purposes. The Purse Seine quota available would not be
``locked-in'' at a low level because the criteria are structured to
enable increased utilization of available quota. For example, if the
catch in year one is between 0 and 20 percent of their individual year
one baseline Purse Seine quota, the Purse Seine fishery participant
would have available for use 25 percent of their individual baseline
quota in year two. If, in year two, the individual catch is greater
than 20 percent of their individual baseline quota, but still within
their individual annual allocation (i.e., catch is between 20 percent
and 25percent), the Purse Seine fishery participant would have
available for use 50% of their individual baseline quota in year three.
The Purse Seine participants catch levels and allocation levels have
been staggered to allow for an increase in allocation in the following
year, without causing the Purse Seine fishery participant to exceed the
current year's allocation to do so.
This measure balances the need to provide the Purse Seine category
participants a reasonable amount of fishing opportunity in a
predictable manner, while making use of quota that may otherwise be
unused. As described under ``Modifications to the Reserve Category,''
quota that is available to the Reserve Category may be utilized in a
variety of ways to meet multiple objectives. NMFS will annually
calculate the Purse Seine catch for that year and publish a notice in
the Federal Register regarding the amount of quota that would be
allocated to the Purse Seine fishery participants, as well as the
corresponding amount allocated to the Reserve category and any
disposition of the quota from the Reserve category for the subsequent
year made at that time. After the initial adjustment, NMFS may make
additional modifications to the Purse Seine quota inseason in
accordance with the criteria for inseason adjustments specified at
Sec. 635.27(a), or make subsequent use of quota from the Reserve
category.
Modifications to the Reserve Category
This measure gives NMFS management flexibility by augmenting the
amount of quota in the Reserve category under certain circumstances
[[Page 71513]]
and adds new criteria to the list of determination criteria NMFS
considers in redistributing quota to or from the Reserve category, to
be responsive to the current conditions in the fisheries and facilitate
adaptation to future changes in the fisheries. The potential sources of
quota for the Reserve category on top of its baseline allocation of 2.5
percent are: (1) Available underharvest of the U.S. quota that is
allowed to be carried forward; and (2) unused Purse Seine quota, under
the Annual Quota Reallocation measure described above. For example,
under the Annual Quota Reallocation, NMFS will annually adjust the
purse seine quota, using a formula based on the weights of reported
landings and estimated weights of dead discards (calculated from
reported lengths) by each Purse Seine fishery participants in the
previous year. Any remaining amount of Purse Seine quota will then be
reallocated to the Reserve category for that subsequent year. NMFS
could utilize quota from the Reserve category inseason after
considering defined criteria and objectives. NMFS adds five criteria to
the existing nine criteria to consider when making inseason or annual
quota adjustments. The five new criteria, added to Sec.
635.27(a)(8)(1)-(9) are: (10) Optimize fishing opportunity; (11)
account for dead discards; (12) facilitate quota accounting; (13)
support other fishing monitoring programs through quota allocations
and/or generation of revenue; and (14) support research through quota
allocations andr generation of revenue.
These modifications to the Reserve category will increase
management flexibility in administering the quota system in a way that
takes into account fluctuations in the characteristics of the fishery.
2. Gear Restricted Areas
Modified Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, With Conditional Access
This final rule establishes a GRA off Cape Hatteras, NC, and limits
access to this area for vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear
during the 5-month period from December through April. The shape of the
GRA has been modified from the proposed rule to remove the southeastern
corner of the defined geographic area. This change was to avoid
unintended effects on fishing outside the closed area that would have
occurred if the action were implemented as proposed because it did not
account for the effect of the prevailing currents on how pelagic
longline gear drifts in that area.
Under this management measure, NMFS annually will grant qualified
vessels conditional access to this GRA to fish with pelagic longline
gear. Access will be granted based on a formula consisting of the
following metrics: Ratio of bluefin tuna interactions to designated
species catch, compliance with the Pelagic Observer Program
requirements, and compliance with HMS logbook reporting requirements.
Vessels will not qualify to fish in the area with pelagic longline gear
if they have not demonstrated their ability to avoid bluefin tuna and/
or comply with reporting and monitoring (observer) requirements. Non-
qualifying vessels will be allowed to use other gear types to fish for
non-bluefin HMS species authorized for use by pelagic longline vessels,
such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel, in the area
during the months of the restriction (December through April), but they
may not fish with pelagic longline gear in during those months.
Although originally proposed in the Proposed Rule, the final rule does
not allow non-qualifying vessels access to the GRA to fish under the
General category regulations and target bluefin (discussed further in
the Comments and Responses). The principal objective of conditional
access to the GRA is to balance the objective of reducing dead discards
with the objective of providing reasonable fishing opportunity. The
second objective is to provide strong incentives to modify fishing
behavior to avoid bluefin tuna and reduce dead discards, as well as
improve compliance with the logbook reporting and observer
requirements. This regulatory approach is based on the fact that,
historically, relatively few vessels have consistently been responsible
for the majority of the bluefin tuna dead discards within the Longline
category. Conditioning access on compliance with reporting and
monitoring requirements reflects the critical importance of fishery
data to the successful management of the fisheries.
The initial evaluation of performance metrics will be based upon
data from 2006 through 2012, and subsequent ``performance scores'' will
be based upon the most recent complete three-consecutive-year period
for which data are available. In a situation where an Atlantic Tunas
Longline permit has been transferred from one vessel to another, or
there has been an ownership change of a permitted vessel, the relevant
vessel fishing history used for the calculation of the performance
score regarding access to the Cape Hatteras GRA remains with the
vessel. As further explained in the Response to Comments below (Comment
26), NMFS modified the relevant historical time period from the
proposed rule (which was 2006-2011). Atlantic Tuna Longline permit
holders will be notified annually of the status of their relevant
vessel, and only aggregated information regarding the vessel status
will be made public. Atlantic Tuna Longline permit holders will be able
to appeal their relevant vessel performance scores to NMFS by
submitting a written request to appeal, indicating the reason for the
appeal and providing supporting documentation for the appeal (e.g.,
copies of landings records and/or permit ownership, Pelagic Observer
Program information, logbook data, etc.). NMFS will evaluate the appeal
based upon the following criteria: (1) The accuracy of NMFS records
regarding the relevant information; and (2) correct assignment of
historical data to the vessel owner/permit holder. Such permit holders
may also appeal on the basis of changes in vessel ownership or permit
transfers. Appeals based on hardship factors will not be considered.
See below for more information on appeals.
NMFS will have the authority to terminate access for all pelagic
longline vessels or individual pelagic longline vessels to the GRA via
inseason action to address issues including: (1) Failure to achieve or
effectively balance the objective of reducing dead discards with the
objective of providing fishing opportunity; (2) bycatch of bluefin tuna
or other HMS species that may be inconsistent with the objectives or
regulations or the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, or ICCAT recommendations;
or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or protected species that is
inconsistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Pelagic
Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP), or the 2004 Biological Opinion
(BiOP).
The performance metric formula will enable qualified vessels to
continue to fish in the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, yet will
substantially reduce bluefin tuna dead discards by precluding fishing
in the GRA by those with a history of high bluefin tuna interaction in
relation to other designated species catch. In order to characterize
vessel performance in a manner that is fair, consistent, and feasible
to administer, the performance metric formula is based on relatively
simple, objective, and quantifiable information. For each of the three
performance metrics, a vessel will be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with
5 reflecting better performance. Vessels with a ratio of bluefin tuna
interactions to designated species catch of 1 will not be allowed to
fish in the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA using pelagic longline
[[Page 71514]]
gear. If a vessel's Pelagic Observer Program Compliance score is 2 or
less, that vessel will not be allowed to access the area and fish with
pelagic longline gear, unless the vessel's logbook compliance score is
4 or 5.
The performance metric formula will reflect bluefin tuna
interactions as measured by the ratio of the number of bluefin tuna
interactions (landings, dead discards, and live discards, in number of
fish) to the weight of designated species landings (in pounds). These
designated species will consist of the more common marketable catch
harvested by pelagic longline vessels: Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye,
albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin
mako, and thresher sharks. The use of a ratio incorporating both
designated species landings and bluefin tuna interactions provides a
metric that is intended to eliminate bias resulting from the
differences among vessels in size or fishing effort.
The Pelagic Observer Program metric reflects compliance with
requirements regarding communications, and other aspects of observer
deployment. The scoring system is designed to be neutral with respect
to valid reasons that a vessel was selected by the observer program but
did not take an observer, and designed to weigh trips that were not
observed due to noncompliance with the communication requirements more
heavily than those that were not observed due to noncompliance with the
safety and accommodation requirements. The logbook reporting metric
reflects compliance with the requirement that the vessel owner/operator
must submit the logbook forms postmarked within 7 days of offloading
the catch, and, if no fishing occurred during a month, must submit a
no-fishing form postmarked no later than 7 days after the end of that
month.
Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Gear Restricted Areas
This final rule establishes two GRAs in the Gulf of Mexico and
limits access to these areas for vessels fishing with pelagic longline
gear during the 2-month period from April through May to reduce dead
discards and protect bluefin tuna on their spawning grounds, while
maintaining fishing opportunities for pelagic longline vessels as
appropriate. As described in the Response to Comments below (Comments
52 and 53), the size and location of the geographic area of the GRA has
been modified from the proposed rule to take into account the best
available information about the location of bluefin interactions
(eastward trend), the high variability of bluefin tuna distribution,
the economic importance of the fishery, and other factors.
Other gear types authorized for use by pelagic longline vessels
such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel are allowed in
these areas, provided the vessel abides by any rules/regulations that
apply to those gear types
Transiting Closed Areas
This final rule allows vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Longline
permit, Swordfish Incidental or Directed Limited Access permit, or a
Shark Limited Access permit fishing with bottom or pelagic longline
gear to transit areas that are closed or restricted to such gear, if
they remove and stow the gangions, hooks, and buoys from the mainline
and drum. No baited hooks are allowed. The specific closed and
restricted areas to which this transiting provision applies include
those established by this rule (Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs and Modified
Cape Hatteras GRA), as well as the following pelagic longline closed
areas in effect: Northeastern U.S. Closure, Northeast Distant
Restricted Fishing Area, Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast Closed
Area, and DeSoto Canyon Closed Area. This measure will allow vessels to
transit the following bottom longline closed areas in effect: Mid-
Atlantic Shark, Snowy Grouper Wreck, Northern South Carolina, Edisto,
Charleston Deep Artificial Reef, Georgia, North Florida, St Lucie Hump,
East Hump, Madison-Swanson, Steamboat Lumps, and Edges 40 Fathom
Contour.
This regulatory provision reduces travel costs by allowing more
direct routes of travel, and addresses the safety-at-sea concern
associated with the requirement to steam around restricted areas.
3. Quota Controls
NMFS Closure of the Pelagic Longline Fishery
Under measures adopted in the final rule, the pelagic longline
fishery will close (i.e., use of pelagic longline gear is prohibited)
when the total Longline category quota is reached, projected to be
reached or exceeded, or when there is high uncertainty regarding the
estimated or documented levels of bluefin tuna catch. These closures
will help prevent overharvest of the Longline category quota and
prevent further discards of bluefin tuna. When NMFS projects that the
quota will be reached, it will file a closure action with the Office of
the Federal Register for publication. Vessels will be required to
offload all bluefin tuna prior to the closure date/time. Criteria NMFS
will consider include those listed under Sec. 635.27(a)(8) as well as:
Total estimated bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead discards) in
relation to the quota; estimated amount by which the bluefin tuna quota
might be exceeded; usefulness of data relevant to monitoring the quota;
uncertainty in the documented or estimated dead discards or landings of
bluefin tuna; amount of bluefin tuna landings or dead discards within a
short time; effects of continued fishing on bluefin tuna rebuilding and
overfishing; provision of reasonable opportunity for pelagic longline
vessels to pursue the target species; variations in seasonal
distribution, abundance or migration patterns of bluefin tuna; and
other relevant factors. NMFS will use the best available data to
calculate the most recent, complete, and available estimate of dead
discards on a fishery-wide basis consistent with current regulations.
Best available data may include, among other things, vessel-based
reports, electronic monitoring data, and observer data, as appropriate.
Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQs)
This final rule implements an IBQ management system, which is
summarized and then described in further detail below.
Summary of the IBQ Program
NMFS is implementing an IBQ Program pursuant to section 303A of the
MSA, which authorizes development of limited access privilege programs
(LAPP). A LAPP creates permits, which are issued for a period of not
more than 10 years, to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a
unit(s) representing a portion of the total allowable catch that may be
received or held for exclusive use by a person. Section 303A(c), 16
U.S.C. 1853a, identifies the requirements for such a program (note that
the referendum requirements of section 303A(c)(6)(D) are inapplicable
to this program for the Atlantic HMS fisheries). This final rule
implements IBQs for vessels permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category (provided they also hold necessary limited access swordfish
and shark permits). Specifically, the IBQ Program requires vessels
fishing with pelagic longline gear to account for bluefin tuna landings
and dead discards using IBQ allocation (obtained through shares or
leases of allocation), and prohibits the use of pelagic longline gear
when the vessel's IBQ allocation has been caught. An IBQ share is a
percentage of the total available Longline quota. Thus, if the total
available Longline quota is modified as a result of an ICCAT
[[Page 71515]]
recommendation and the Longline quota is changed as a result, the share
(specific percentage) associated with an eligible permit would not
change, but would result in a modified amount of IBQ allocation (mt or
equivalent pounds).
The Northeast Distant Area (NED) is a distinctly managed geographic
area due to the specification of a separate ICCAT quota relative to the
rest of the pelagic longline fishery and is not managed under the full
IBQ Program restrictions. However, there are provisions of the IBQ
Program that will apply to vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear
in the NED. For example, vessels will be required to have the minimum
IBQ allocation to operate in the NED starting in 2016 and when NED
bluefin quota has been exhausted, permitted vessels must abide by all
the requirements of the IBQ Program.
The IBQ Program is a suite of management measures intended to work
together. An IBQ share is the percentage of the Longline category quota
that is associated with an eligible vessel, based upon the IBQ share
formula and the relevant vessel history, and an IBQ allocation is the
amount (mt) of bluefin tuna quota that is distributed to a permitted
vessel, based upon the relevant IBQ share, and the annual Longline
category quota. Eligible pelagic longline vessels will receive one of
three IBQ share percentages (1.2%, 0.6%, or 0.37%), which must be used
by individual vessels to account for all their bluefin tuna landings
and dead discards. Shares and allocations are designated as either Gulf
of Mexico (GOM) or Atlantic (ATL). Vessels are prohibited from using
Atlantic allocation to account for bluefin tuna catch in the Gulf of
Mexico, thereby limiting potential shifts in effort. Specifically, a
vessel with bluefin catch in the Gulf of Mexico may not use Atlantic
allocation to account for such catch. However, vessels may use Gulf of
Mexico allocation to account for bluefin catch in both the Gulf of
Mexico and Atlantic. Allocations may be leased annually by Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit holders or Purse Seine category
participants, and a minimum amount of allocation is required for a
pelagic longline vessel to depart on a trip in the Atlantic (0.125 mt)
using pelagic longline gear. A higher minimum amount of quota
(allocation) is required for a pelagic longline vessel to depart on a
fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico (0.25 mt). A pelagic longline vessel
may not use Atlantic allocation to satisfy the minimum share
requirement for a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico. If a vessel
retains legal sized bluefin tuna in excess of its allocation (``quota
debt''), it may land the fish, but must lease additional IBQ allocation
from another vessel to account for the excess catch, and is not allowed
to fish with pelagic longline gear until the quota debt is balanced in
the system (is accounted for) and the minimum allocation required for a
vessel to depart on a trip is acquired. A vessel's IBQ allocation
cannot carry-over from one year to the next, but if a vessel is unable
to satisfy its quota `debt' in a particular fishing year, quota will be
deducted from the vessel's allocation during the subsequent year.
Although temporary leasing of IBQ allocation can occur, no
permanent sale of IBQ shares is allowed at this time, to reduce risks
for permit holders during the initial stages of the IBQ Program, when
the market for bluefin tuna quota shares is new and uncertain. Measures
to allow permanent sale of bluefin tuna quota shares may be implemented
in the future through separate proposed and final rulemaking. This will
allow time for IBQ fishermen to familiarize themselves with the IBQ
Program and market for bluefin tuna shares.
As described in more detail below, NMFS is implementing an
internet-based system to track bluefin tuna catch (pelagic longline and
purse seine), and the use and leases of IBQ allocation. VMS must be
used by vessel operators to report bluefin tuna catches to increase the
timeliness of dead discard data; and electronic monitoring (cameras and
associated equipment) are required on pelagic longline vessels as one
element of the monitoring program.
The IBQ Program will be evaluated after 3 years, and NMFS will
implement a cost recovery program through separate rulemaking.
What vessels are eligible to receive initial bluefin tuna quota shares?
Vessels must meet two requirements to be eligible to receive IBQ
shares: (1) Vessels must have a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit; and (2) vessel must be deemed to be ``active''. Vessels that
made at least one set using pelagic longline gear between 2006 and 2012
(based on pelagic longline logbook data) are defined as ``active'' This
date range includes 2012, and therefore is one year longer than that
proposed to ensure that recent participants in the fishery are defined
as ``active.'' For the purpose of IBQ share eligibility, a ``valid
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit'' is one held as of the date
the proposed rule was published, which was August 21, 2013.
Vessels with valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permits that do not meet
the initial eligibility criteria may lease bluefin tuna IBQ allocation
from IBQ allocation holders. Permits that are not associated with a
vessel, such as a permit characterized as ``No Vessel ID,'' are not
eligible for an initial IBQ share but would be eligible to receive IBQ
allocation (through a lease) if and when the permit is reassociated
with a vessel. Such a vessel would be required to lease IBQ allocation
before fishing with pelagic longline gear. New entrants to the fishery
must either obtain an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit with associated
quota share, or if the valid permit did not have quota share, obtain
bluefin tuna quota through lease/sale to fish.
How much bluefin tuna quota does each eligible vessel get?
A vessel's IBQ share of the Longline quota is based upon two
elements: The amount of bluefin tuna caught between 2006 and 2012, and
the amount of designated species landings (i.e., swordfish; yellowfin,
bigeye, albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and porbeagle,
shortfin mako, and thresher sharks). As discussed below in the
``Response to Comments'' (Comment 76), this date range includes 2012,
and therefore is one year longer than that proposed to consider the
most recent fishing activity of vessels, and to be inclusive regarding
the important elements. More specifically, the two factors that are the
basis of the allocation formula are: (1) Historical bluefin tuna catch
(from vessel logbook data) expressed as ratio of the number of bluefin
tuna interactions to `designated species' landings; and (2) `designated
species' landings (from the NMFS dealer data (weigh-out slips) and
logbook information). The use of these two factors in the quota share
allocation formula is intended to acknowledge past bluefin tuna
avoidance, ensure a fair initial allocation, and consider the diversity
in vessel fishing patterns and harvest characteristics. Past fishing
that resulted in fewer bluefin tuna interactions will result in larger
IBQ shares of bluefin tuna. Landings of designated species are an
indicator of both the level of fishing effort and activity as well as
vessel success at targeting those species and minimizing bluefin
bycatch interactions. This method incorporates the rate of historical
bluefin tuna interactions but also includes the amount of designated
species landings, recognizing that greater levels of fishing activity
are likely to be correlated with a greater number of bluefin tuna
interactions.
The specific IBQ allocation formula is as follows: Because the
bluefin tuna interactions to designated species
[[Page 71516]]
landings ratio is very small, designated species landings were
multiplied by 10,000 in order to derive a ratio that is more practical
(i.e., 0.95 instead of 0.000095). In order to combine the two metrics,
scores were assigned to each metric (the bluefin tuna catch to
designated species landings ratio and historical designated species
landings) as described below. Active vessels were sorted into three
categories, using total designated species landings from 2006 through
2011, based on percentiles of landings from lowest to highest (low,
medium, and high, 0 to <33 percent; 33 to <66 percent and 66 to 100
percent, respectively). Similarly, the active vessels were sorted
according to the ratio of bluefin interactions to HMS landings, from
lowest to highest. For example, a vessel with a 2006-2011 weight of
designated species landings of greater than or equal to 367,609 lb (the
66 to 100th percentile of landings) would be placed in the ``High''
category and assigned a score of 3 (the highest score). In contrast, a
vessel with a total designated species landing of only 95,000 pounds
for 2006 through 2011 would receive a designated species landings score
of 1. A vessel with a bluefin to designated species landings ratio of
less than 0.2884 (66 to 100th percentile of bluefin to designated
species landings ratios), would place in the top category and receive a
bluefin to designated species landings ratio score of 3. A low ratio
indicates relatively few bluefin interactions and therefore receives a
high score.
Finally, the two scores were combined to form the basis of the
allocation. For each vessel, the score for designated species landings
was added to the score for bluefin to designated species ratio. For
example, if a vessel scored in the ``High'' category for both
designated species landings and bluefin to designated species landings
its combined score would be 6 (3 + 3). If a vessel scored High for
bluefin ratio, but Low for designated landings, it would be scored a 4
(1 + 3) and it would be placed in the Medium rating score category.
Vessels assigned to a particular category will be allocated the same
percentage share.
Vessels are allocated shares of 1.2%, 0.6%, or 0.37% of the
Longline category quota. For 2015 (unless the U.S. quota is modified by
ICCAT in 2014), based on a revised baseline Longline category bluefin
tuna quota of 137 mt (baseline plus 62.5 mt), vessels will be allocated
1.64 mt, 0.82 mt, or 0.51 mt of bluefin tuna, respectively. These
specific allocations are larger than those proposed because the actual
number of eligible vessels was less than the number of eligible vessels
analyzed at the proposed rule stage. The number of eligible vessels
determined by the proposed rule was higher because the proposed rule
analysis included permits that were not associated with vessels at the
time of the publication of the proposed rule (August 21, 2013), and did
not reflect both eligibility criteria. Allocation among fewer eligible
vessels increases the allocation amount per vessel. The rationale for
this measure is to implement criteria that reflect participation in the
fishery. By allocating only to ``active'' vessels, the measure will
facilitate continued participation in the fishery by vessels that have
made past investments in the fishery. Permitted vessels that do not
meet the initial eligibility criteria necessary to receive bluefin
quota share allocation will still be eligible to obtain quota through a
lease of IBQ allocation. The criteria did not include 2013 or 2014
because the DEIS and FEIS, respectively, were being written, during
those years, and there were limitations on the availability of
finalized data. Availability of finalized logbook and dealer data
during 2013 and 2014 was limited to 2011 and 2012 data, respectively.
As described below, under ``Appeal of Initial IBQ Shares,'' when
NMFS determines that all requests for appeal have been resolved, NMFS
may adjust all IBQ shares as necessary to accommodate permitted holders
that have been deemed eligible or provided an increased IBQ share
through the appeals process.
All bluefin tuna quota allocated to Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine
participants is also designated as ``Atlantic,'' subject to the
restriction that it may only be used in the Atlantic (by either a Purse
Seine vessel or via a lease to a pelagic longline vessel).
If a vessel has fishing history in both the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic, it may receive quota shares of both the Gulf of Mexico and
Atlantic, depending upon the amount of quota share and the proportion
of fishing history in the two areas. A relatively small percentage of
sets in one area will not be reflected in the quota share. If a vessel
would be allocated less than a minimum share amount for a particular
area (i.e., less than 0.125 mt for the Atlantic or less than 0.25 mt
for the Gulf of Mexico), then no allocation will be designated for that
area and all of the permit holder's share would be designated to the
other area (Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico). For example, if a vessel is
eligible for an allocation of 0.51 mt, and historically landed 10
percent of their catch in the Gulf of Mexico, the vessel would receive
an allocation of 100 percent ``Atlantic'' quota (and none designated as
``Gulf of Mexico'') because 10 percent of 0.51 mt (.005 mt) is less
than the minimum share required to fish in the Gulf of Mexico (0.25
mt). Owners of vessels with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit will be sent certified letters informing them of their IBQ share
and resultant allocation. In determining initial quota share
eligibility and calculating the initial quota share NMFS used data
associated with a vessel's history. In the future, the IBQ share will
be associated with the permit, not the vessel. For example, if a
permitted vessel has IBQ shares, and the owner of the permitted vessel
decides to sell the permit but keep the vessel, the seller of the
permit (the vessel owner) would no longer have any quota share or
privileges with respect to the IBQ Program because IBQ shares would be
associated with the permit that was sold. In contrast, the buyer of the
permit would receive IBQ shares and allocation associated with that
permit once the permit is associated with a vessel.
Appeals of Initial IBQ Shares and GRA Access Determinations
This final rule implements a two-step appeals process for review of
the Secretary's decisions regarding initial assignment of IBQ shares.
This rule also adds an opportunity for HMS Management Division to
initially review a request for a quota share adjustment or access to
the Cape Hatteras GRA, in order to facilitate possible expedited
resolution of such requests without a requestor needing to go through a
full National Appeals Office process. Specifically, the final rule
describes an initial review step by the HMS Management Division through
which the appellant must first submit a written request to appeal their
initial IBQ share or access the Cape Hatteras GRA prior to submitting
any appeals to the National Appeals Office. It also adds administrative
details about the process (i.e., on acceptable supporting
documentation, and the specific timing of the steps). This modification
was made in response to public comment requesting clarification of the
process. Although this final rule adds administrative details regarding
the appeals process, the range of criteria that permit holders may base
an appeal on did not change from the proposed to the final rule.
Additional discussion of these changes is in the section of this
preamble called ``Changes to the Proposed Rule.''
Upon publication of this final rule, NMFS will notify all permit
holders by certified letter of their initial IBQ share
[[Page 71517]]
and resultant allocation and whether they have granted access to the
Cape Hatteras GRA. If permit holders wish to appeal their IBQ share
determination or GRA access determination, they must first submit a
written request for adjustment of their initial IBQ share or GRA access
determination to the HMS Management Division, indicating the reason for
the requested change and providing supporting documentation as detailed
below. All requests for adjustment to initial IBQ shares or GRA access
determination must be submitted to the HMS Management Division within
90 days of publication of the final rule. HMS Management Division staff
will evaluate all such requests and supporting documentation, then
notify the appellant by letter signed by the HMS Management Division
Chief of NMFS' decision to approve or deny the request. If the request
is approved, then NMFS will appropriately adjust the appellant's
initial IBQ share and resultant allocation and/or grant access to the
Cape Hatteras GRA. If denied, the permit holder may appeal the decision
to the NMFS National Appeals Office within 90 days of receipt of the
notice of denial by submitting a written petition of appeal. Appeals
will be governed by the regulations and policy of the National Appeals
Office at 15 CFR part 906. National Appeals Office regulations detail
the procedure for appealing the quota share decision (See Sec. 906.3).
The decisions subject to a request for appeal are: (1) Initial
eligibility for IBQ shares based on ownership of an active vessel (as
defined by this rule under Sec. 635.15) with a valid Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit combined with the shark and swordfish limited
access permits required under the current permit regulations; (2) the
accuracy of NMFS records regarding a vessel's amount of designated
species landings and/or bluefin interactions; and (3) correct
assignment of target species landings and bluefin interactions to the
vessel owner/permit holder. As discussed under the IBQ measures above,
the IBQ share formula is based upon historical data associated with a
permitted vessel. Because vessels may have changed ownership, or
permits may have been transferred during 2006 through 2012, the current
owner of a permitted vessel may also appeal on the basis of historical
changes in vessel ownership or permit transfers, if current owner
believes that the data used in the analysis were not accurate because
of such changes. NMFS will consider only written requests for appeals.
When permit holders are informed of their initial IBQ shares and
resultant allocations and/or access determination, they will be
provided instructions regarding the process to appeal that decision.
Landings eligibility criteria require evidence of documented legal
landings during the timeframe from January 1, 2006, through December
31, 2012. Public comment on the DEIS and proposed rule reflected a need
to clarify aspects of the appeals process. Thus, NMFS is clarifying in
this final rule that, regarding what will be considered ``documented
legal landings,'' NMFS will consider official NMFS logbook records or
weighout slips for landings between January 1, 2006, through December
31, 2012, that were submitted to NMFS prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days
after the cutoff date for eligible landings), and verifiable sales
slips, receipts from registered dealers, state landings records, and
permit records as accompanying documentation of an appeal. Landings
data are required to be submitted within 7 days of landing under the
applicable regulations. Recognizing that somewhat-late reporting could
have occurred for a variety of reasons, however, NMFS is clarifying
that it will consider ``documented'' landings for appeals purposes to
be those reported within 60 days. NMFS will count only those designated
species landings that were landed legally when the vessel owner had a
valid permit. Appeals regarding bluefin interactions may be based on
HMS logbook records as described, observer data, or other NMFS data. No
other proof of catch history will be considered. NMFS permit records
will be the sole basis for determining permit transfers . Photocopies
of the written documents are acceptable in the original application or
appeal; NMFS may request the originals at a later date. NMFS may refer
any submitted materials that are of questionable authenticity to the
NMFS Office of Enforcement for investigation. Appeals based on hardship
factors will not be considered. Consistent with most limited effort and
catch share programs, hardship is not a valid basis for appeal due to
the multitude of potential definitions of hardship and the difficulty
and complexity of administering such criteria in a fair manner.
When NMFS determines that all requests for IBQ share appeals have
been resolved, NMFS may adjust all IBQ share percentages as appropriate
to accommodate permitted holders that are deemed eligible or that are
provided an increased IBQ share through the appeals process.
Mandatory Retention of Legal-Sized Bluefin Tuna
Pelagic longline vessels must retain all legal-sized commercial
bluefin tuna that are dead at haul-back. Because these fish must be
retained, regulatory discards and the waste of fish will be decreased,
and it will be more likely that such fish are accurately accounted for
and have a positive use (e.g., marketed, used for scientific
information, etc.). Bluefin tuna, of all size classes, that are live at
haul-back should be carefully removed from the hooks and returned to
the ocean to ensure survivability. Legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna
that are alive at haul-back may be retained; however they will be
accounted for under the IBQ allocation.
Fishing Under the IBQ Program
This section provides a brief example of how some of the Amendment
7 requirements applicable to a vessel fishing with pelagic longline
gear will work together. Additional details regarding the VMS and
electronic monitoring programs are provided below in sections of this
preamble titled ``VMS'': and ``Electronic Monitoring.''
As discussed in the proposed rule, IBQ allocation leases would be
executed by the eligible vessel owners, or their representatives,
through the internet and a NMFS database. Owner-performed leases will
provide the quickest execution of leases because any eligibility
criteria will be verified automatically based on information loaded
into that system, and will not involve the submission or review of a
paper application, or any lag time associated with NMFS staff being
directly involved in the lease approval process. The online IBQ System
used to track and lease bluefin IBQ shares and resultant allocations
will be operated out of NMFS's Southeast Regional Office (SERO). The
administrative functions associated with this IBQ System (e.g.,
registration and account setup, landing and dead discard tracking, and
leases of allocation) are designed to be accomplished online;
therefore, a participant must have an IBQ System account to
participate. NMFS will provide instructions to IBQ participants about
the required software, how to use the IBQ System to lease IBQ
allocation and track IBQ use and balances, how to perform the necessary
accounting actions that support administration of the program, and how
to obtain assistance with using the system. An eligible permit holder
must create an IBQ System account online, and log into the password
protected IBQ
[[Page 71518]]
System to execute an IBQ allocation lease, to check the amount of IBQ
in their account, or perform other functions, according to instructions
provided by NMFS. Similarly, a dealer purchasing bluefin tuna caught
from a vessel fishing with pelagic longline or Purse Seine gear must
have an online dealer account, computer access, and internet access.
Before they may depart to fish with pelagic longline gear vessels
must have the required minimum IBQ allocation and must have balanced
any outstanding quota debt from previous trips, and comply with the VMS
and electronic monitoring requirements. Vessels are required to haul
gear and handle catch in accordance with the electronic monitoring
program requirements (described below under electronic monitoring
requirements), retain any legal sized dead bluefin, and report bluefin
catch and information on sets through their VMS during the trip
(described below under VMS Requirements). If a vessel retains legal-
sized bluefin tuna in excess of its IBQ allocation, it may land and
sell the fish, but the permit holder must acquire additional IBQ
allocation to account for the excess catch, and is not allowed to fish
with, or have onboard, pelagic longline gear until the quota debt has
been resolved.
At the end of the trip, the permitted dealer purchasing the
landings must enter all bluefin landing information from the trip. The
vessel owner or operator, or their designee, must coordinate with the
dealer to enter their dead discards, into the IBQ System. The landing
transaction completed by the dealer must include the name and permit
number of the vessel that landed the bluefin and any other information
regarding the landings, as instructed by NMFS (such as the
shareholder's account number, vessel account number, individual tag
number, weights for landed bluefin tuna, and the number of dead
discarded bluefin tuna by appropriate length bin). The permit holder,
or designee, must validate the landings information and enter the dead
discard information (such as numbers of fish by approximate size)
before the transaction is processed. If, by the end of the fishing year
a permit holder does not have adequate allocation (obtained either
through leasing under paragraph (c)), or additional allocation under
paragraph (f) to settle their vessel's quota debt, the vessel's
allocation will be reduced in the amount equal to the quota debt, in
the subsequent year, or years, until the quota debt is fully accounted
for. A vessel may not fish if there is outstanding annual quota debt
from a previous year. For those permit holders who own or operate
multiple vessels with allocation, if, at the end of the year, one or
more of the vessels has an outstanding quota debt, yet the other
vessels still have allocation, the IBQ system will apply any remaining
unused allocation associated with the other vessels to account for the
quota debt of the other. This system functionality has been added since
the proposed rule because unused allocation does not carry over from
one year to the next, but quota debt does. This addition will ease the
regulatory burden of resolving quota debt, and reduces the possibility
that a permit holder of multiple vessels may inadvertently fail to
manually resolve an existing quota debt with allocation associated with
one of their other vessels at the end of the year and otherwise miss
the opportunity to resolve the debt.
For example, if a permit holder owns two vessels, Vessel A and
Vessel B and both have IBQ allocations but at the end of the year
Vessel A has a quota debt of .20 mt, and Vessel B has remaining unused
IBQ allocation of .10 mt, the IBQ System would automatically transfer
.10 mt of Vessel B IBQ allocation to Vessel A to count toward resolving
Vessel A's quota debt. Vessel A would still have a quota debt of .10 mt
and, when annual IBQ allocation occurs at the start of the subsequent
year, Vessel A's annual IBQ allocation would be reduced by .10 mt to
account for the previous year's quota debt.
This final rule clarifies the relationship of accrued quota debt
and Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit under the IBQ Program. If
an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit holder participated in the
IBQ Program and has a quota debt that remains unresolved at the time of
such permit's sale or transfer, then that quota debt remains associated
with the permit. This is consistent with the IBQ share remaining linked
to the eligible permit itself and further refines how IBQ shares,
resultant allocation, and quota debt will be managed to ensure
accountability under the IBQ Program, even if permits are sold or
transferred.
To ensure that all IBQ Program activity can be accounted for on an
annual basis, the IBQ System will prohibit any and all online
transactions, such as catch transactions and IBQ allocation leases,
between December 31 at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m. (Eastern Time).
IBQ System functions will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the
following year. No IBQ System transactions will be allowed or available
during this 20 hour time period to provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ
accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the upcoming year, etc. If a vessel
with the required minimal IBQ allocation departs on a trip prior to the
end of a calendar year and returns to port after the start of the
following year, any bluefin landings or dead discards will be counted
against the new year's allocation.
In this final rule, NMFS will maintain the authority to ensure that
the bluefin catch by pelagic longline vessels does not exceed the
Longline quota. NMFS may, under certain circumstances, such as high
uncertainty regarding the VMS reported dead discards, utilize the
current methodology for generating and using estimates of pelagic
longline dead discards. Prior to this final rule NMFS has used previous
years' estimate as proxy for anticipated dead discards, and subtracted
that estimate of dead discards ``off the top'' of the entire Longline
quota. Although not anticipated, NMFS will maintain this ability until
both methodologies can be compared in parallel to verify accuracy.
The Northeast Distant Area (NED) and the IBQ Program
Under current ICCAT recommendations, the NED is a distinctly
managed geographic area managed under a separate quota. Because the NED
is managed as a distinct area with a relatively small quota, and
managing the NED under the IBQ system would add additional complexity
to the IBQ system, the quota associated with the NED (25 mt) is not
managed under the full IBQ Program restrictions. However, there are
provisions of the IBQ Program that will apply to vessels fishing with
pelagic longline gear in the NED. For example, vessels will be required
to have the minimum IBQ allocation to operate in the NED starting in
2016 and when NED bluefin quota has been exhausted, permitted vessels
must abide by all the requirements of the IBQ Program. Electronic
monitoring systems, installed by June 1, 2015, will be required in
order for vessels to fish with pelagic longline gear including in the
NED, and data from the electronic monitoring system may be used to
ensure that targeting fishing is not occurring. NMFS reminds the
regulated community that the international separate allocation is only
for bycatch in the NED and of the domestic prohibitions against
targeting bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear. NMFS will re-visit
this issue if necessary if subsequent years' data indicate that
additional controls are needed.
[[Page 71519]]
Quota Leasing
This measure allows Longline and Purse Seine category vessels to
lease allocation to or from other vessels in these categories (provided
they have active accounts in the IBQ system), so that allocations will
become better aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that catch bluefin tuna
may be able to obtain quota from those that do not interact with
bluefin tuna, or that have not used their full allocation of bluefin
tuna). Allocation may be leased annually by Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit holders from other Atlantic Tunas Longline category
permit holders or from Purse Seine category participants, regardless of
whether they are eligible for their own quota share. Leasing of IBQ
allocations is allowed among all Longline category vessels with valid
limited access permits, regardless of whether they are eligible for
their own quota share. If a vessel catches bluefin tuna using
allocation that it has leased from another vessel, the fishing history
associated with the catch of bluefin tuna will be associated with the
vessel that catches the bluefin tuna (the lessee, not the lessor
vessel). In other words, the lessee (vessel catching the fish) gets the
`credit' for the landings and dead discards, and not the lessor (the
vessel that leased the allocation to the catching vessel). The future
catch of bluefin tuna will not affect the quota shares, but will affect
the calculation of the performance metric of each vessel. Sub-leasing
of quota is allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from vessel A to vessel B, then
re-leased by vessel B to vessel C). For a particular calendar year, an
individual lease transaction will be valid from the time of the lease
until December 31.
The initial limit on the amount of allocation an individual
Longline or Purse Seine category participant may lease annually will be
the combined Longline and Purse Seine category allocations. This will
provide flexibility for vessels to purchase quota in a manner that can
accommodate various levels of unintended catch of bluefin tuna, and
enable the development of an unrestricted quota market.
Annual Individual Bluefin Quota Allocation
Annual allocation of bluefin quota to eligible vessels with IBQ
shares will occur January 1, based on the criteria described above
(``What Vessels Are Eligible to Receive Initial Bluefin Tuna Quota
Shares?'' and ``How Much Bluefin Tuna Quota Does Each Eligible Vessel
Get?''). For vessels that are not eligible as of December 31 because
they have begun--but not completed--the process of permit renewal or
permit transfer, IBQ allocations will be made when the eligible permit
holder completes the permit transaction(s). Subsequent to the annual
allocation of quota, additional IBQ may be allocated to the vessels
with bluefin quota share as a result of a U.S. baseline quota increase
or transfer of quota from the Reserve category to the Longline
category, pursuant to criteria for quota adjustments. Subsequent to the
annual allocation of quota, quota may be deducted from vessels as a
result of a decrease in the U.S. baseline quota, or to account for a
quota debt (bluefin catch by a vessel that must be accounted for under
the IBQ system, for which the vessel has insufficient quota).
With respect to the relationship between the Atlantic Tunas
Longline permit and the IBQ share, upon implementation of Amendment 7,
the IBQ share is associated with the Atlantic Tunas Longline permit,
and is not severable. If, in the future, NMFS allows permanent sale of
quota shares, NMFS would also consider whether or not the share is
severable from the Atlantic Tunas Longline permit. Under this final
rule, any quota debt associated with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit
will be associated with (and accompany) the permit upon sale/transfer
of the permit. Quota debts will be also be associated with Atlantic
Tunas Purse Seine category participants.
Elimination of Target Catch Requirement
This final rule eliminates the current target catch requirements
for pelagic longline vessels (including those fishing in the NED),
which restricts the number of incidentally caught bluefin tuna a
pelagic longline vessel may retain in relation to the amount of target
species retained and sold. In the context of the IBQ system being
implemented by Amendment 7, the current target catch requirement is no
longer be necessary.
Formal IBQ Program Evaluation
NMFS will formally evaluate the success and performance of the IBQ
Program in achieving its objectives, after three years of operation and
provide the HMS Advisory Panel with a publicly-available written
document with its findings. The review will describe and analyze the
changes that have taken place in the fishery since implementation of
the IBQ Program. NMFS will utilize its standardized economic
performance indicators, developed by its Office of Science and
Technology, as part of its review. For example, the standardized
economic performance indicators include catch (landings and dead
discards), effort, revenues, and allocation leases and accumulation.
Other indicators include the number of and distribution of bluefin tuna
interactions. The review may also include analysis of data collection,
monitoring, and reporting; enforcement; quota performance; quota
distribution among permit holders; quota share and resultant allocation
transferability; other elements of the IBQ Program; or aspects of the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP relevant to the IBQ Program such as gear
restricted areas or purse seine measures.
Cost Recovery
Section 303A(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a(e))
requires that, in establishing a LAPP, a Council shall develop a
methodology and the means to identify and assess the management, data
collection and analysis, and enforcement programs that are directly
related to and in support of the LAPP; and provide for a program of
fees paid by LAPP holders that will cover the costs of management, data
collection and analysis, and enforcement activities. Such fees may not
exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under the
LAPP. While section 303A(e) requires development of cost recovery in
establishing a LAPP, NMFS plans to implement cost recovery after the
IBQ Program evaluation (after 3 years). This step-wise approach is
consistent with the purpose of section 303A(e) and appropriate given
the nature of the LAPP being proposed. The purpose of section 303A(e)
is to collect fees to cover management, data collection and analysis,
and enforcement activities. However, the cost of administering a cost
recovery program may be high relative to the amount of money recovered,
because some active vessels have very high fishing activity whereas
others have relatively low activity. NMFS also notes that the
underlying objective of the IBQ is to reduce incidental catch of
bluefin tuna, which will impact the amount and ex-vessel value of fish
harvested. Immediate implementation of a cost recovery program, without
obtaining further information about the operation of the fishery with
IBQs, would be very difficult and would increase costs and uncertainty
for fishing vessels during a time period when the fishery would be
bearing other new costs and sources of uncertainty. For the above
reasons, NMFS is not implementing cost recovery until after it conducts
the program evaluation. After the IBQ Program is evaluated after 3
years,
[[Page 71520]]
NMFS will implement a cost recovery program through separate
rulemaking.
4. Reporting Measures
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Requirements
This final rule implements VMS reporting requirements for vessels
fishing with pelagic longline gear and issued an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit. It also requires vessels fishing with purse
seine gear and issued an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit to
install VMS and report through VMS to support the inseason monitoring
of the pelagic longline and purse seine fisheries, as proposed.
Additional detail is provided in this final rule to explain application
of the requirements to the Purse Seine category, in response to public
comment asking for clarification and because of the need for additional
administrative detail.
Purse Seine Vessels
Vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit must
have an approved Enhanced Mobile Transmitting Unit (E-MTU) VMS unit
installed by a qualified marine electrician to fish for Atlantic tunas
with purse seine gear. Vessels must follow the procedures for
installation and activation provided by NMFS and submit to NMFS the
completed checklist and compliance certification statement. The VMS
unit must submit automatic position reports every hour, 24 hours a day,
unless a valid power down exemption has been granted by NMFS law
enforcement. Owners of purse seine vessels may request a documented
power down exemption from NMFS law enforcement if the vessel will not
be fishing for an extended period of time. The request must describe
the reason an exemption is being requested; the location of the vessel
during the time an exemption is sought; the exact time period for which
an exemption is needed; and sufficient information to determine that a
power down exemption is appropriate. Prior to departing on a trip
vessels that intend to fish for Atlantic tunas with purse seine gear
must declare through E-MTU VMS their intent to fish with such gear and
note their HMS target species), by submitting a ``Highly Migratory
Species Trip Declaration Form'' (`hail out'). If a vessel operator is
aware that transmission of automatic position reports has been
interrupted, or is notified by NMFS that such reports are not being
received, the vessel operatory must contact NMFS and follow the
instructions given. After a fishing trip during which interruption of
automatic position reports has occurred, the vessel's owner or operator
must have a qualified marine electrician replace or repair the VMS unit
prior to the vessel's next trip. Finally, as a condition of obtaining
an HMS limited access permit, the vessel owners or operators must allow
NMFS, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), or their designees access
to the vessel's position data.
Vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas with purse seine gear must
submit, through VMS, a ``Highly Migratory Species Bluefin Tuna Catch
Report'' for each set. Specifically, such vessels must report the
number of sets within 12 hours of the set; and report the length of all
bluefin discarded dead or retained (by standardized size ranges) within
12 hours of completion of each the set (including reporting zero
bluefin on a set). NMFS will provide vessel owners with instructions
regarding the detailed methods of reporting such information using
their VMS units. At least three hours prior to the end of a trip, the
vessel operator must provide advanced notice of landing by submitted
the ``Highly Migratory Species Pre-Landing Notification Form'' with
information on the time and location of landing.
If a vessel operator decides not to fish for or retain HMS for two
or more trips, the operator may choose to ``declare out'' of the
fishery, according to instructions provided by NMFS, and not be subject
to the HMS hail in/hail out requirements during trips for which they
are declared out of the HMS fishery.
Vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear must report through VMS
the number of hooks and sets within 12 hours of completion of each
pelagic longline haul-backs and, for pelagic longline sets with bluefin
tuna interactions, must report the length of all bluefin tuna retained
or discarded dead (by standardized size ranges) within 12 hours of
completion of the pelagic longline haul-back.
NMFS will make specific VMS reporting instructions available to the
purse seine and pelagic longline fisheries to facilitate this reporting
requirement.
Electronic Monitoring
The final rule adopts electronic monitoring requirements for all
vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that fish with pelagic
longline gear. This final rule requires all such vessels that are
currently eligible to have a NMFS-approved contractor install a system
and obtain certification of such installation. They must then properly
maintain the video cameras and associated data recording and monitoring
equipment, which will record all longline catch and relevant data
regarding pelagic longline gear retrieval and deployment. NMFS will use
the recorded data to verify the accuracy of counts and identification
of bluefin tuna reported by the vessel owner/operator, as well as
observers. Electronic monitoring will enable the collection of video
images and fishing effort data that may be used in conjunction with
other sources of information to estimate bluefin tuna dead discards,
and may augment the ability of an observer to fulfill their duties by
providing a record of catch during the time periods the observer may be
unable to observe the catch directly.
In light of public comments expressing concern about ensuring the
functionality of electronic monitoring systems and the costs of such
systems, this final rule relieves certain purchase and installation
requirements that were set out in the proposed rule. Rather than
requiring currently eligible vessel owners to buy and install equipment
and make decisions about equipment specifications and functionality,
this final rule instead requires the currently eligible vessel owners
to obtain certification from a NMFS-approved contractor stating that
the contractor has properly installed and verified the functionality of
the electronic monitoring system in accordance with more detailed
equipment and system requirements provided in the final rule. As set
out in the proposed rule, vessel owners would have been responsible for
the costs of the equipment and for installation for the electronic
monitoring systems. Since publication of the proposed rule and the
FEIS, and in response to public comment and to ease the regulated
community's burden associated with the new monitoring requirements,
NMFS has identified funds to pay for the equipment and its installation
for those currently eligible vessels (eligible for initial quota
shares). For all vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that
fish with pelagic longline gear, vessel owners (or their
representatives) must coordinate with the NMFS-approved contractor to
install and test electronic monitoring equipment, and the contractor
will then provide certification that the equipment has been properly
installed. Vessel owners will be required to make their vessel
accessible to designated personnel on a specific date, or range of
dates, to allow installation and testing of electronic monitoring
equipment, and may be required to steam to a
[[Page 71521]]
designated port within their geographic region to enable such
installation and training. This is consistent with the proposed rule's
requirement that vessels be available for inspection, as it will not
result in any additional absence from fishing time than was analyzed
and proposed in the proposed rule or impose additional financial costs
or regulatory burden.
To fish using pelagic longline gear, a vessel must have a valid
certification form from the NMFS-approved contractor certifying that it
has a fully functioning electronic monitoring system on board. Because
the pelagic longline fleet is diverse with respect to vessel size,
mechanical infrastructure, and operation, and the technology supporting
electronic monitoring is changing and improving, NMFS is implementing
detailed regulations that include some technical specifications
regarding the necessary equipment that constitutes an electronic
monitoring system to respond to public comment that more details are
needed while still providing flexibility to allow vessels to install
equipment that performs well in a cost effective manner. NMFS will
utilize both third party experts and NMFS staff to provide vessel
owners instructions regarding the specific required equipment and
operational features of the system. As explained in more detail below,
vessels must, in accordance with instructions provided by NMFS and/or
NMFS-approved contractor, coordinate installation and maintain the
following equipment, as components of an electronic monitoring system:
Two to four video cameras, a recording device, video monitor, hydraulic
pressure transducer, winch drum rotation sensor, system control box,
GPS receiver, and related support equipment needed to achieve the
objectives (e.g., power supply, camera mounts, lighting). Slight
modifications to the equipment listed above may be required to support
the objectives of electronic monitoring, adapt to unique vessel
characteristics, or achieve cost savings or efficiencies. Vessel
owners/operators must coordinate installation and subsequently maintain
and operate the system in accordance with instructions provide by NMFS,
and allow inspection of the equipment by NMFS. The electronic
monitoring system must include software to enable a test function so
that the vessel operator may test the status of the system (i.e.,
whether it is fully functional) prior to each trip, and record the
outcome of the test. A vessel operator may not depart on a pelagic
longline trip unless the pre-trip test indicates that the system is
fully functioning. Upon successful installation and testing by the
NMFS-approved contractor, the NMFS-approved contractor will provide
vessel owners with a certificate that the equipment installed
constitutes a ``fully functioning electronic monitoring system'' based
on written instructions and requirements that NMFS provided the
contractor. The vessel owner must make the certificate available upon
request by NMFS OLE. The required cameras must be installed to provide
a view of the area where the longline gear is retrieved and catch is
removed from the hook (prior to placing in the hold or discarding
boatside) and such system must be connected to the mechanical hauling
device so that recording is initiated by gear retrieval. The specific
equipment functionality requirements are as follows:
Video Cameras: Video data are produced by digital IP (Internet
protocol) video cameras at a resolution of no less than 720p
(1280x720). The individual vessel systems must include no less than two
cameras: At least one camera to record close-up images of the deck at
the haul back station for species identification/length estimation, and
at least one camera to record activity along the side of the vessel at
the water line of the haul back station to document animals that are
caught and discarded but not brought aboard, as well as the disposition
of that catch (released alive/dead). The frame rates of the footage
will need to allow for easy of viewing. The cameras are not required to
record audio.
GPS Receiver: A GPS receiver is required to produce output, which
includes location coordinates, velocity, and heading data, and is
directly logged continuously by the control box at a minimum rate of 10
seconds. The GPS receiver must be installed and remain in a location
that receives a strong signal continuously.
Hydraulic & Drum Rotation Sensors: A hydraulic sensor is required
to continuously monitor the hydraulic pressure, and a drum rotation
sensor must continuously monitor drum rotations in order to provide the
data necessary for the EM system to trigger the video camera to record.
The combination of these two sensors provide a mechanism to ensure that
specific periods of time are captured on video, such as when gear is
being retrieved and catch is removed from the hooks.
EM Control Box & Monitor: The system must include a `control box'
to receive and store the raw data provided by the sensors and cameras.
The control box must contain removable hard drives and storage system
adequate to store data for the entire trip (e.g., adequate to store the
data associated with a trip lasting approximately 30 days). A
wheelhouse monitor must provide a graphical user interface for
harvesters to monitor the state and performance of the control box and
should include information such as: Current date and time synced via
GPS, GPS coordinates, current hydraulic pressure reading, presence of a
data disk, percentage used of the data disk, and video recording
status.
Hydraulics: Prior to system installation, vessel operators must
possess and install a fitting for the pressure side of the line of the
drum hydraulic system. The fitting may be either ``T'' or inline, with
a female \1/4\'' threaded National Pipe Thread (NPT) port to enable
connection to the pressure transducer.
Power: Electronic monitoring systems are capable or being powered
by both alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) power. An EM
system that is to be powered by a DC circuit must have free space on a
12-volt bus bar in the wheelhouse and a dedicated DC power switch. If
the EM systems are to be powered by AC circuits, vessels must provide
an Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) in the wheelhouse.
Camera Mounts: During installation of the EM system, cameras must
be mounted so that the camera may be positioned to view the waterline
outboard of the vessel rail. If determined during the vessel assessment
that there is not suitable mounting structure onboard, vessels may be
required to provide a mount that allows a camera to be positioned to
view the waterline outboard of the vessel rail. Before each scheduled
installation of an EM system, NMFS-approved contractors will discuss
mounting alternatives with the vessel's owner or operator.
Lighting: Vessels must provide sufficient lighting for cameras to
clearly illuminate individual fish on deck at the haul back station and
along the vessel rail at the waterline, at all times. Lighting will be
evaluated by NMFS-approved contractors during the vessel assessment/EM
installation. After installation, if NMFS-approved contractors review
video footage and determine that lighting is insufficient, the vessel
owner must adjust the lighting to ensure it is sufficient before the EM
system can be recertified.
Upon completion of a fishing trip, the vessel operator must mail
the removable EM system hard drive containing all data to NMFS or the
NMFS-approved contractor, within 48 hours of the
[[Page 71522]]
completion of the trip, according to instructions provided by NMFS.
Prior to departing on a subsequent trip, the vessel owner or operator
must install a replacement EM system hard drive to enable data and
video recording. The vessel owner or operator is responsible for
contacting NMFS, or NMFS-approved contractors, if they have not
received a replacement hard drive(s). The vessel operator is
responsible to ensure that all bluefin tuna are handled in a manner
that enables the electronic monitoring system to record such fish, and
must identify a crew person or employee responsible for ensuring that
all handling, retention, and sorting of bluefin tuna occurs in
accordance with the regulations. NMFS or the NMFS-approved contractor,
with the vessel owner or operators'' input, will develop and provide a
written Vessel Monitoring Plan, to document the standardized procedures
relating to electronic monitoring and facilitate communication of such
procedures to the vessel crew. The vessel owner or operator is
responsible for ensuring that the EM system remains powered for the
duration of each trip; that cameras are cleaned routinely to ensure
unobstructed views, and the EM system components are not tampered with.
NMFS will communicate instructional information in writing, via
permit holder letters, to the vessel owners during all phases of the
program to provide direction and assistance to vessel owners, and
facilitate the provision of technical assistance.
Electronic Catch Reporting
This final rule requires Atlantic Tunas General, Harpoon, and HMS
Charter/Headboat categories to report the length of all bluefin tuna
retained or dead discards through an online catch reporting system
(either through a Web site designated by NMFS or calling a phone
number) within 24 hours of the landings or end of each trip.
Specifically, vessels must report the number of bluefin tuna retained,
and the number of bluefin tuna discarded dead, according to
instructions that will be provided by NMFS. NMFS also operates a
similar automated landings reporting system (ALRS) for recreational
bluefin tuna catch in the HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat category
(when fishing recreationally). This discard information will enhance
NMFS's ability to more fully and accurately account for all sources of
fishing mortality, consistent with ICCAT recommendations.
5. General Category Flexibility for Quota Adjustment
This final rule allows NMFS to proactively transfer General
category quota from one or more of the time-periods that follow the
January time-period to the January or other preceding sub-quota time
periods within a fishing year, either through annual specifications or
through inseason action. In other words, under this rule, NMFS may
transfer subquota from one time period to another time period, earlier
in the same calendar year. As described in more detail under Response
to Comments (Comment 98), NMFS may transfer quota from the December
sub-quota time period to the January sub-quota time period to address
the unique characteristics of the January sub-quota period. For
example, for an upcoming year (i.e., prior to January), NMFS may
transfer quota from the December to the January sub-quota period. NMFS
may also conduct lower priority transfers of sub-quota between time
periods, for example, subquota could be transferred from the October 1
through November 30 time period to the September time period.
This final rule adds a new objective called ``quota adjustment'' to
the current list of criteria and relevant factors NMFS considers when
making inseason or annual quota adjustments.
6. Harpoon Category NMFS Authority To Adjust Retention Limits
To optimize fishing opportunity for the Harpoon category
participants within the available quota, NMFS may increase or decrease
the daily retention limit of large medium bluefin tuna (greater than
73'' CFL and less than 81'' CFL) within a range from two to four fish.
Any adjustment will be based upon the regulatory determination criteria
under Sec. 635.27(a)(8) (as revised by this final rule) that apply to
inseason bluefin tuna adjustments including: The usefulness of
information obtained from catches in the particular category for
biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock; effects
of the adjustment on bluefin tuna rebuilding and overfishing; effects
of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery
management plan; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or
migration patterns of bluefin tuna; effects of catch rates in one area
precluding vessels in another area from having a reasonable opportunity
to harvest a portion of the category's quota; and review of dealer
reports, daily landing trends, and the availability of the bluefin tuna
on the fishing grounds, as well as any other relevant factors.
The default Harpoon category daily retention limit of large medium
bluefin tuna will be two fish per vessel (the large medium bluefin tuna
daily retention limit that applied prior to the 2011 regulatory
change). The retention limit of giant bluefin tuna will remain
unlimited. The objective of this measure is to optimize fishing
opportunity for the Harpoon category participants within the available
quota. This management measure enhances NMFS's ability to more
precisely manage the landing rate of large medium bluefin tuna by the
Harpoon category, thereby optimizing opportunities while preventing
landings from exceeding the subquota.
7. Angling Category Trophy Subquota Distribution
This final rule allocates one third of the Angling category trophy
subquota specifically to account for those bluefin tuna caught
incidentally while pursuing other species in Gulf of Mexico. The trophy
subquota would be divided as follows: 33 percent to each of the
northern area, the southern area outside the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Gulf of Mexico. Based upon the recent average trophy fish weight, this
would allow up to 8 trophy bluefin tuna to be landed annually in each
of the three respective areas. To distinguish bluefin tuna incidentally
caught in the Gulf of Mexico from those caught in the Atlantic, the
Gulf of Mexico region includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and
north of the boundary stipulated at Sec. 600.105(c), which is
essentially west of 83[deg] 00' West longitude but also includes the
waters off southwestern Florida and north of the Florida Keys.
The objective of this measure is to reduce discards for
recreational vessels in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and account
for incidentally caught bluefin tuna by converting a small number of
potential dead discards in the Gulf of Mexico to potential landings. A
separate subquota allocation for the Gulf of Mexico increases the
likelihood that there will be trophy quota available to account for any
potential incidental catch of bluefin tuna in that area, while still
providing incentives not to target bluefin tuna.
8. Purse Seine Category Fishing Year Start Date
NMFS considered two alternatives at the proposed rule stage. The No
Action Alternative would have maintained the current practice: The
purse seine fishery starts on the default start date of July 15 each
year unless NMFS takes action to delay the season start date to as late
as August 15. A second alternative, which
[[Page 71523]]
was preferred in the proposed rule and in the FEIS, would change the
default start date to June 1 (instead of July 15), unless NMFS takes
action to delay the start date to as late as August 15. In the final
rule, after considering public comments after the FEIS was published,
HMS is choosing a third option that removes the default start date
altogether. Instead, NMFS will establish the purse season start date
annually, within a range from June 1 to August 15, based on the
already-existing criteria in the regulations, which are unchanged in
the final rule text. Although the third option was not directly
analyzed as an alternative in the FEIS, the range of dates for possible
opening (June 1-August 15) remains within the range analyzed in the
FEIS (June 1-August 15 between the two alternatives), and the regulated
community was aware that this range was being considered and that NMFS
intended to retain maximum flexibility under any option to adjust the
date as necessary to be responsive to the public and the fishery under
the regulatory provisions. By relieving the default date, the new
approach will allow additional public input to the start-date-setting
process annually, is responsive to public comment (particularly from
the harpoon category fishermen), and substantively does not result in
effects different from those already analyzed. The only change from the
current practice is that the fishery can start earlier now (June 1
instead of July 15), and the only change from the proposed rule is that
there will be no default date.
9. Rules Regarding Permit Category Changes
This final rule allows a vessel owner to modify the category of an
Atlantic Tunas or HMS permit issued for up to 45 days from date of
issuance, provided the vessel has not landed bluefin tuna as verified
via landings data. The previous restriction (10 calendar days) was
intended to preclude vessels from fishing in more than one category
during a year and to discourage speculative use of fishing permits.
However, based on feedback NMFS has received over a number of years
from vessel owners affected by the 10 day restriction, NMFS has
concluded that limiting the time period during which a vessel may
change permit categories to 10 calendar days is overly restrictive, and
does not allow the flexibility to resolve the problems of a permit
issued by mistake. The 45 day restriction achieves a better balance of
allowing flexibility for vessel owners, while still preventing fishing
in more than one permit category during a fishing year.
10. Northern Albacore Tuna Quota
This measure implements the U.S. annual quota of northern albacore
tuna recommended by ICCAT and establishes provisions for the accounting
of overharvest and underharvest of the quota via annual specifications.
Specifically, the codified U.S. northern albacore tuna quota will be
adjusted as appropriate for prior year catch (up or down), including
delayed adjustment (that would skip a year) or adjustments over several
years. Consistent with the ICCAT recommendation, carry-forward of
unused quota from one year to the next will be limited to 25 percent of
the initial quota. NMFS will adjust and implement the following via
regulatory framework adjustments: Actions to implement ICCAT
recommendations, as appropriate; allocating and refining domestic
allocation of the U.S. quota; establishing retention limits;
implementing effort restrictions, etc. Although an FMP amendment is not
needed, framework adjustments still go through extensive public and
analytical review and must be consistent with the MSA and other
applicable law.
11. Adjustment of Management Measures
This final rule adds to the list of management measures that NMFS
may modify or establish in accordance with the framework procedures of
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, and provides examples of
Amendment 7 measures that are within the scope of management measures
currently listed in the regulations. With exceptions as noted under
``Changes from Proposed Rule,'' these measures were contained within
the proposed rule. The Amendment 7 measures not previously contained in
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP are as follows: The quota shares or
allocations for bluefin tuna; electronic monitoring requirements; and
administration of the IBQ Program (including requirements pertaining to
leasing of IBQ allocations, regional or minimum quota share
requirements, quota share caps (individual or by category), permanent
sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.). The Amendment 7 measures that are
within the scope of measures currently in the regulations are
Performance metrics (within the scope of ``time/area restrictions'' in
current regulations) and Angling category trophy south/north/Gulf of
Mexico percentages (within the scope of ``allocations among user
groups'' in current regulations).
12. Minor Regulatory Changes
Amendment 7 is implementing minor regulatory changes (such as minor
corrections and clarifications; the removal or modification of obsolete
cross-references; and minor changes to definitions and prohibitions) to
improve the administration and enforcement of HMS regulations. Several
of these items have been identified by constituents over the past few
years or were raised during scoping hearings. The corrections,
clarifications, changes in definitions, and modifications to remove
obsolete cross-references are consistent with the intent of previously
analyzed and approved management measures. Under Sec. 635.5(c)(1), the
relevant internet address will be updated. Under Sec. 635.20(a), the
method of determining length of Atlantic tunas will apply regardless of
permit type. Regulations at Sec. 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B), will refer to a
``gear restricted area,'' instead of a ``closed'' area. Under Sec.
635.27(a)(7)(i), the reference to ``Fishery-independent research'' is
changed to ``research.'' Under Sec. 635.27(a)(1)(iii), the descriptor
``coastwide'' when referring to the General category fishery, is
deleted. Under Sec. 635.71(b)(13), the prohibition is corrected to
clarify that the relevant amount of bluefin tuna is the ``applicable
limit'' instead of ``a'' bluefin tuna. These changes were not analyzed
because they do not make substantive changes to the regulations.
This final rule notifies the public that the collection-of-
information requirements contained in Sec. Sec. 635.5, 635.9, 635.14,
635.15, and 635.69 have been approved by OMB and are effective. In
addition this final rule will update the table on NOAA information
collections approved by OMB that appears under 15 CFR part 902.
Response to Comments
NMFS received over 188,000 written comments from fishermen, states,
environmental groups, academia and scientists, and other interested
parties. Comments included submissions of large numbers of identical or
similar comments by organizations (or facilitated by organizations), as
well as oral statements made at public hearings. All written comments
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/. The comments received
resulted in changes, as described below, and in the section of this
final rule called ``Changes from Proposed Rule''. Significant comments
are summarized below by major topic together with NMFS' responses.
There are 29 major issues:
[[Page 71524]]
1. General Support for Proposed Measures (Comment 1),
2. General Concerns (Comments 2-7),
3. Codified Reallocation (Comments 8-13),
4. Annual Reallocation (Comments 14-17),
5. Modification to Reserve Category (Comments 18-19),
6. General Comments About Gear Restricted Areas (Comments 20-42),
7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Comments 43-49),
8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area (Comments 50-62),
9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing Under General Category Rules
(Comment 63),
10. Pelagic Longline Limited Conditional Access to Closed Areas
(Comment 64),
11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline Transiting Closed Areas (Comment
65),
12. Gear-Based Measures (Comments 66-67),
13. General Comments About Individual Bluefin Quotas (Comments 68-
75),
14. IBQ Eligibility (Comments 76-85),
15. IBQ Leasing (Comments 86-88),
16. Measures Associated with the IBQ Program (Comments 89-90),
17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline Fishery (Comment 91),
18. VMS Requirements (Comment 92),
19. Electronic Monitoring Requirements (Comment 93),
20. Automated Catch Reporting (Comment 94),
21. Expand the Scope of the Large Pelagics Survey (Comment 95),
22. Deployment of Observers (Comment 96),
23. General Category Subquota Management (Comments 97-98),
24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit (Comment 99),
25. Angling Category Trophy Sub-Quota (Comments 100-101),
26. Purse Seine Start Date (Comments 102-103),
27. Permit Category Changes (Comment 104),
28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna Quota (Comment 105), and
29. Other Concerns (Comments 106-107).
1. General Support for Proposed Measures
Comment 1: NMFS received a wide range of comments expressing
general support for the proposed conservation and management measures.
Commenters stated that the proposed measures are a step in the correct
direction for the future management of bluefin tuna, many noting
support for Amendment 7 due to the inclusion of ``strong'' management
measures, and others supporting the measures generally but urging NMFS
to adopt stronger management measures than those proposed. Commenters'
support was based upon their concerns about the current status of the
bluefin stock and the desire to ensure long-term sustainability of
bluefin for future generations of people. Some commenters urged NMFS to
implement the preferred alternatives to ``Save the Bluefin,'' based on
their perception that bluefin tuna are at imminent risk of going
extinct. Commenters expressed concerns about the impacts of pelagic
longline gear on bluefin tuna, noting the waste associated with
discarding bluefin, especially in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), and
supported changes to the management of the pelagic longline fishery to
reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna, as well as other highly migratory
species, marine mammals, sea turtles, and other species. Commenters
noted that many coastal communities depend upon healthy stocks of fish
to contribute to their economic well-being and to that of individuals
supported by commercial and recreational fisheries.
Response: The need for management action and the specific
objectives of Amendment 7 are described in detail in Chapter 1 of the
FEIS, and the proposed rule. This final rule implements a suite of
management measures that will achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in a
balanced manner. Amendment 7 enhances long-term sustainability of
bluefin tuna through reduced dead discards; improved monitoring;
increased flexibility in the quota system to both account for dead
discards and optimize allocation of quota among the diverse bluefin
fisheries; and increased accountability in the pelagic longline
fishery.
Based upon the advice of ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and
Statistics, continued management with catch levels that comport with
ICCAT recommendations should support further stock growth of the
Western Atlantic stock of bluefin and is consistent with the ICCAT
rebuilding plan given the current state of the science regarding the
stock status. The MSA requires consideration of both the biological and
economic impacts of conservation and management measures, and NMFS has
determined that Amendment 7 measures will achieve a balance that will
support the broader objectives of both stock rebuilding and continued
viability of the commercial and recreational fisheries that depend upon
bluefin tuna.
The GOM has an important function in the ecology of the Western
Atlantic stock of bluefin. The responses to comments 50 through 62
address measures specific to the GOM. NMFS acknowledges that pelagic
longline gear affects other species in addition to bluefin tuna and
therefore, Amendment 7 measures may indirectly affect other species. As
described in the FEIS analyses, the cumulative impacts on other species
are likely to be neutral or positive.
2. General Concerns
Comment 2: Many commenters, particularly those with small
businesses involved in the pelagic longline fishery expressed concern
regarding the potential for negative economic impacts of Amendment 7 on
jobs, families, and communities, and noted the importance of pelagic
longline-caught fish in supplying high quality seafood to the nation.
These commenters were concerned about the potential for the Amendment 7
measures to put people out of business, and ``destroy the pelagic
longline fishery.'' Commenters stated that vessels that are currently
only marginally economically viable would be at particular risk of
going out of business, but were also concerned about any secondary
impacts on related businesses such seafood dealers, gear manufacturers,
etc. They urged NMFS to use a balanced regulatory approach to address
the Amendment 7 objectives, and stated that Amendment 7 measures would
increase uncertainty in the pelagic longline fishery.
Response: The seafood supplied to the Nation by the pelagic
longline fleet is valuable as both a source of food, and for the
generation of income supporting local jobs, communities, and the
broader economy. NMFS designed management measures to minimize economic
impacts by relying on the combined effects of multiple management tools
and incorporating flexibility into the system. Amendment 7 measures
will affect all permit/quota categories and reflect the balance of
addressing the issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock and management
of the fishery while maintaining the viability of the pelagic longline
and other fisheries dependent upon bluefin tuna. For example,
reductions in dead discards will be achieved through the use of
multiple measures, including gear restricted areas, the IBQ system, and
IBQ allocation measures. This final rule will modify the quota system
to increase management flexibility to allocate quota among categories
and maximize opportunities to catch available quota, account for dead
discards, and respond to changing conditions in the fishery. As the
pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to
[[Page 71525]]
the suite of new measures, NMFS will have the flexibility to allocate a
limited amount of additional quota to the pelagic longline vessels if
necessary to prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a result of the
gear restricted areas, and IBQ system, reduce the net amount of bluefin
catch from the levels recently caught. The Amendment 7 management
measures work together to reduce dead discards and otherwise reduce
bycatch to the extent practicable, increase accountability, enhance
reporting and monitoring, and optimize quota allocation, in a
predictable but flexible manner. The potential economic impacts of the
measures affecting the pelagic longline fleet are analyzed in Chapters
5 and 7, of the FEIS, and the economic rationale is summarized in the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Public comments that address
specific measures are addressed below in the responses to more specific
comments.
Comment 3: Commenters stated that when determining whether the
pelagic longline fleet should be subject to additional restrictions,
NMFS should consider the current and past regulatory environment and
other factors as context. Commenters stated the pelagic longline
fishery is already heavily regulated to minimize its environmental
impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g., closures, weak hook requirement,
observer deployment, bait requirements), and that progress is being
made. Furthermore, increases in fuel costs strain fishers' ability to
make a living, and events such as the 2010 oil spill in the GOM
continue to be relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin tuna is managed
at the international level and believe that the United States manages
its citizens in a more effective and responsible way than other
countries, and that NMFS should not further regulate bluefin tuna and
increase the management disparity between the United States and other
countries.
Response: The context in which vessels operate, including current
regulations and other factors was a relevant factor NMFS considered in
determining whether new regulations were needed. NMFS took into
consideration many factors in selecting preferred measures which
address the diverse objectives of Amendment 7 in a balanced manner.
Chapter 6 of the FEIS contains a cumulative impacts analysis which is
broad in scope and takes into consideration past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable factors. In addition, Chapter 2 in the FEIS
contains a description of measures and the rationale for the preferred
measures. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis includes a
description of the steps taken to minimize the economic impacts on
small entities, and the reasons for the preferred measures.
The United States manages its exclusive economic zone in accordance
with applicable U.S. laws and in response to the unique characteristics
of its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. regulations regarding bluefin
tuna are different from the rules affecting citizens of other
countries, which operate under different laws and circumstances. Where
U.S. regulations are more restrictive than those abroad, NMFS believes
that the corresponding ecological and socio-economic benefits that
result from such restrictions are also likely to be greater than those
abroad.
Comment 4: Commenters stated that the Amendment 7 DEIS contained
too much information, was too complex, and was difficult to understand.
Others were concerned that the DEIS was developed too quickly, leaving
out too many details such as those associated with implementation of
measures.
Response: The proposed rule clearly described the proposed
management measures, and NMFS facilitated communication with the public
via the internet and its Web site. The amount and complexity of
information in the DEIS and the FEIS reflect primarily the scope of the
objectives of Amendment 7 and the number of alternatives analyzed. The
complexity of the DEIS and FEIS also is due to the diversity of the
bluefin tuna fisheries, and the number of applicable laws and processes
(both national and international). The DEIS and FEIS contain an
Executive Summary which provides a condensed version of the relevant
information including tables of important information. NMFS conducted
public hearings (including a language interpreter for one hearing) that
were designed to inform the public of the proposed measures in a
readily understandable format, as well as provide opportunities for the
public to comment and ask questions.
Significant time and opportunity for public comment have gone into
what has been a very thorough rulemaking process for this Amendment.
The formal development of Amendment 7 began with the publication of the
Notice of Intent (April 23, 2012; 78 FR 24161), which announced NMFS'
intent to hold public scoping meetings to determine the scope and
significance of issues to be analyzed in a DEIS and a potential
amendment to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. However, the informal
development began several years previously. On June 1, 2009, NMFS
published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR; 74 FR 26174)
requesting specific comments on regulatory changes that would
potentially increase opportunities for U.S. bluefin tuna and swordfish
fisheries to fully harvest the U.S. quotas recommended by ICCAT while
balancing continuing efforts to end BFT overfishing by 2010 and rebuild
the stock by 2019 as set out in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP,
consistent with the ICCAT rebuilding plan. The ANPR was in response to
various public suggestions about bluefin tuna management during the
previous two years, precipitated by declines in the total volume of
bluefin tuna landings, which were well below the available U.S. quota,
and a reduction in the overall allowable western Atlantic bluefin TAC
recommended by ICCAT. In the ANPR, NMFS also requested public comment
regarding the potential implementation of catch shares, LAPPs, and
individual bycatch caps (IBCs) in highly migratory species fisheries.
In response, NMFS received a wide range of suggestions for changes to
the management of the U.S. bluefin tuna fisheries.
While the DEIS and proposed regulations contained sufficient detail
for the public to understand the measures and their potential impacts,
including implementation, the FEIS and this final rule provide
additional details to clarify certain aspects of implementation. These
are not new measures but clarification of measures within the scope of
the impacts analyzed by the DEIS. The regulatory process of proposed
and final rulemaking allows for such flexibility to respond to public
comments and implement regulations that address the regulatory
objectives. The changes made from the proposed rule are summarized in
the section of this final rule called ``Changes from Proposed Rule''.
The comment period was extended to allow maximum public participation
in this process.
Comment 5: Some commenters asked why the focus of Amendment 7 is
the pelagic longline fishery, perceived the Amendment as an ``unfair
attack'' on this fishery, and asked why no additional restrictions were
proposed for the General, Harpoon, or Angling categories. Other
commenters did not want one user group in the fishery to bear the
regulatory burden, but believed that all should sacrifice for the good
of the fishery as a whole.
Response: The focus of Amendment 7 is the list of stated
objectives, including reducing and accounting for dead
[[Page 71526]]
discards, optimizing quota allocations, and enhancing reporting and
monitoring. Although many of the measures being implemented will apply
to vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear, all user groups will be
subject to new regulations as appropriate and necessary, to contribute
to the sustainability of the bluefin fisheries. Amendment 7
fundamentally alters the pelagic longline bluefin tuna management
structure in order to decrease dead discards and increase
accountability, yet it also implements new restrictions for vessels
fishing under the other permit categories. Although the components of
the regulated bluefin fisheries are very different and therefore have
been subject to different restrictions in the past, NMFS developed the
Amendment 7 management measures based upon a common set of objectives.
Comment 6: NMFS should exempt pelagic longline fishery participants
that have never interacted with bluefin tuna from the programs proposed
in Amendment 7.
Response: Amendment 7 enhances long-term sustainability of bluefin
tuna through reduced dead discards, improved monitoring, increased
flexibility in the quota system to both account for dead discards and
optimize allocation of quota among the diverse bluefin fisheries, and
increased accountability in the pelagic longline fishery. NMFS
acknowledges that some pelagic longline vessels may not encounter
bluefin tuna as a function of where and how those individuals fish.
However, the effective implementation of the management measures
requires consistent treatment and participation of all of the
participating vessels. NMFS cannot exclude individual HMS pelagic
longline fishermen from the provisions of Amendment 7 given the
mobility of the pelagic longline fleet and uncertainty about bluefin
interactions by individual vessels in the future. Through this
Amendment 7 final rule, NMFS is redesigning many operational aspects of
the entire pelagic longline fleet. Exclusion of a small pool of
individuals would create an inequitable management environment across
the fleet. The measures implemented by this final rule do, however,
include specific provisions that are based on the data that indicate
that some participants have few or no interactions with bluefin. For
example, under the IBQ program, eligible permitted vessels will receive
a percentage share of the overall pelagic longline bluefin quota. The
amount of quota share, either ``high'', ``medium'', or ``low'' will
depend in part upon the vessel's historical rate of bluefin
interactions. Vessels with a relatively low rate of bluefin
interactions will qualify for a higher share of the total bluefin quota
than vessels with a higher rate of interactions, and have access to the
Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear Restricted Area.
Comment 7: Several commenters stated that the solution to the
challenge of how to account for all catch (landings and dead discards)
in the context of a limited quota is to increase the amount of quota
allocated to the United States through ICCAT (instead of the measures
proposed under Amendment 7).
Response: Although a larger U.S. quota would facilitate easier
quota accounting (i.e., ensure that the total bluefin landings and dead
discards do not exceed the total bluefin quota), a larger quota,
without concurrent changes to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP is a short-
term solution and would not achieve the broader objectives of Amendment
7 or the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. For example, a larger quota would
not reduce the relative amount of dead discards of bluefin by the
pelagic longline fishery, increase accountability for the pelagic
longline fishery, optimize and provide additional flexibility to the
quota system, or enhance reporting and monitoring. Furthermore, the
United States does not independently set the quota at ICCAT and any
quota established must be based on the best available scientific
information ICCAT members (including U.S. delegates) vote to recommend
an appropriate bluefin quota, based on the recommendation of the ICCAT
scientists (which include U.S. scientists).
3. Codified Reallocation
Comment 8: Many commenters did not support reallocation of
additional quota to the Longline category as a means to achieve the
Amendment 7 objectives. They stated that shifting quota would not
reduce interactions with bluefin or dead discards and that providing
additional quota would undercut the benefits of a ``catch cap'' (i.e.,
setting a strict maximum/cap on the amount of bluefin that could be
caught, including dead discards and landings), would discourage the use
of alternative gears, and would reward a ``destructive fishery'' by
moving quota from quota categories that fish with more selective gear
to the Longline category, which fishes with less selective gear and has
more bycatch.
Many commenters supported the codified reallocation for the reasons
NMFS stated in the proposed rule, as well as other reasons including
the statement that the Longline category may have a smaller `carbon
footprint' than the other quota categories; the other categories are
frequently under-harvested; the Longline category provides the U.S
consumer access to important food sources; the General category exports
much of the bluefin tuna it catches; and all user groups should bear
the regulatory burden.
Response: Amendment 7 implements systematic management and
operational changes to reduce bluefin bycatch and maintain the pelagic
longline directed fishery and the other bluefin tuna fisheries. The
combined measures of this final rule, which include modified quota
allocations, gear restricted areas, and individual bluefin quotas, will
reduce bluefin catch and provide incentives to utilize alternative,
more selective gear types. To achieve the Amendment 7 objectives of
reducing dead discards while minimizing associated reductions in target
catch, NMFS will allocate bluefin quota to the Longline category in
amounts that exceed its current allocation of 8.1 percent, but will
reduce levels of incidental bluefin catch by the Longline category.
NMFS anticipates that the catch of bluefin by pelagic longline gear
will be reduced by between 17 and 42 percent, depending upon the amount
of quota allocated and leased, and fishery conditions. Some flexibility
in the amount of quota allocated to the Longline and other quota
categories is needed to accommodate the highly variable bluefin
fisheries, as well as to mitigate some of the uncertainty and negative
impacts associated with a brief transitional period in the pelagic
longline fishery as it adjusts to the preferred Amendment measures.
As explained in the FEIS, there are several reasons why additional
quota should be provided to the Longline category, as one element of a
more comprehensive strategy to resolve the challenge of accounting for
bluefin catch and reducing dead discards. The pelagic longline fishery
interacts with bluefin tuna when it targets swordfish, yellowfin tuna,
bigeye tuna, and other species, because the occurrence of those species
overlap as a result of their similar biology and ecology. The Longline
category is required to account for dead discards and landings, yet the
historical basis for the relative size of the Longline category's quota
allocation (8.1 percent) was only landings, and did not consider the
amount of quota that could be necessary to account for dead discards in
addition to those landings within the total allowable catch.
Based on the best available information, an allocation of 8.1
percent has been inadequate to account for both
[[Page 71527]]
landings and dead discards since ICCAT adopted a requirement to account
for dead discards within the existing quota. In recent years, NMFS has
accounted for pelagic longline bluefin dead discards by relying in part
upon under harvest of quota by other quota categories. The merits of
allocating additional quota to the Longline category must be considered
in the context of all of the other management measures being
implemented by Amendment 7. Because the Amendment 7 measures
implemented by this final rule will provide quota accountability on an
individual vessel and category-wide basis for the Longline category,
the amount of quota allocated to the category is of critical
importance. Specifically, when the quota allocated to an individual
vessel has been caught, the use of pelagic longline gear by that vessel
will be prohibited. If the category-wide quota has been caught NMFS may
prohibit all vessels in the fleet from fishing with pelagic longline
gear. Based on current information regarding the range of bluefin tuna
interactions that can be expected, continuing to limit the Longline
category to a quota of 8.1 percent of the available quota would result
in a shut-down in the fishery relatively early in the year.
Notwithstanding the other measures being implemented by this final
rule, which will result in reductions in dead discards by vessels
fishing with pelagic longline gear, a quota allocation of 8.1 percent
quota would result in a severely diminished or eliminated fishery,
contrary to the objective of optimizing fishing opportunities.
Comment 9: Commenters suggested that the amount of bluefin quota
allocated to the Longline category should be reduced, or set at zero.
Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 8 there are
several reasons why the Longline category quota should be increased.
Moreover, reducing the Longline category quota would not be consistent
with the Amendment 7 objectives and would result in severe economic
impacts that can be avoided through the use of other management tools.
NMFS designed the quota allocation measures to minimize the economic
impacts on the non-longline categories. The amount of quota being
deducted from each of the categories (for allocation to the Pelagic
Longline category under the ``Codified Reallocation Alternative'') is
proportional to the size of each category's quota and is relatively
small (approximately 7 percent). Secondly, the amount of quota that
will be deducted from the categories is fixed, therefore, if the U.S.
bluefin quota increases as a result of stock growth, the amount
deducted from the various categories will not increase, but the total
quota allocated to each category would increase. Furthermore, the other
quota allocation measures implemented by this final rule (``Annual
Reallocation'' and ``Modifications to Reserve Category'') provide
mechanisms to reallocate quota back to these categories, if quota is
available. The ``Annual Reallocation Alternative'' guarantees a minimum
amount of quota to the participants in the Purse Seine fishery, and
enables increases in quota allocations over time with increasing levels
of bluefin catch. Providing an amount of bluefin quota to the pelagic
longline fishery that both reduces dead discards, yet also accounts for
a reasonable amount of incidental catch that can be anticipated (based
on historical catch rates and the effect of Amendment 7 gear restricted
areas) will enable the continued generation of revenue associated with
the pelagic longline fishery's target catch.
Comment 10: One commenter stated that providing 68 mt of
``additional quota'' to the Longline category is not appropriate, and
that the amount should be larger, because the discard estimation
methodology that the amount was based on is no longer in use. Another
commenter stated that the amount of additional quota should be smaller
than 68 mt because the size of the U.S. quota has been reduced since
the time the 68 mt set-aside was established.
Response: Although the codified reallocation measure is intended to
facilitate accounting for dead discards by the Longline category, the
specific amount (68 mt) is not intended to serve as an estimate of
current dead discards or establish a proportion of discards to
landings. NMFS prefers 68 mt as the amount of quota to be contributed
from all categories, resulting in augmenting the Longline category by
62.5 mt, because the amount of additional quota achieves an appropriate
balance of costs and benefits in the fishery and because of its
historical relevance as a set-aside for dead discards, the inclusion of
which was a critical factor in first establishing the formula under
which all categories received their current allocations. No adjustment
to those allocations was made when ICCAT first eliminated the dead
discard allowance, and such an adjustment clearly is warranted given
the resulting management challenges in accounting for both landings and
dead discards within the available quota. Furthermore, providing a
fixed amount of additional quota to the Longline category effectively
limits the amount of reallocation into the future. In contrast,
altering the base allocation percentages associated with each quota
category would have had the potential effect of increasing the amount
reallocation to the longline category if the total U.S. quota
increases. Although increasing the amount of quota reallocated to the
Pelagic Longline category in association with increases in total quota
would facilitate accounting for incidental catch of bluefin and achieve
one of the objectives of this Amendment, it would not effectively limit
bycatch and reduce dead discards, which are also key objectives of
Amendment 7.
Comment 11: Commentors suggested that NMFS should, instead of the
``Codified Reallocation'' of quota from all quota categories,
reallocate quota from only the Purse Seine category; impose greater
restrictions on the pelagic longline fishery to reduce their discards;
or implement more restrictive gear restricted areas in the Gulf of
Mexico and off Cape Hatteras in order to further reduce incidental
bluefin tuna catch.
Response: NMFS prefers that all quota categories contribute to
addressing the challenge of accounting for dead discards, which, as
explained in the response to Comment 8 is a problem which has multiple
root causes, and is integrally related to the operation and management
of the fishery as a whole. This Amendment 7 final rule addresses the
issue of the recurring under-harvest associated with the Purse Seine
fishery through the ``Annual Reallocation'' measure, which provides a
predictable method to optimize the use of Purse Seine quota that might
otherwise remain unharvested. This final rule implements new
conservation and management measures applicable only to the Longline
category, which will limit bycatch, reduce dead discards, increase
incentives to avoid bluefin, and increase accountability. NMFS
disagrees that greater restrictions on the Longline category--instead
of reallocating a limited amount of quota-- would achieve the Amendment
7 objectives in a manner that minimizes economic impacts to the extent
practicable. As explained in the response to Comment 9 above, NMFS
designed the quota allocation measures to minimize the economic impacts
on the non-longline categories. The alternatives take into
consideration the relative size of each category quota (in the case of
the ``Codified Reallocation Alternative''), or the level of activity of
vessels (``Annual Reallocation Alternative''), and are designed to
consider changing levels of
[[Page 71528]]
quota or landings, respectively, in ways that reduce economic impacts.
Comment 12: Many commenters strongly opposed reallocating quota to
the Longline category because of concerns about the economic impacts on
a particular geographic region (e.g., New England or mid-Atlantic), or
quota category (e.g., the General category or the Angling category).
Some commenters urged NMFS to respect the historical allocation
percentages, and noted that reallocation would have the effect of
pitting the different categories against each other. Some commenters
suggested that NMFS consider other regulatory and economic
circumstances facing vessels that may be impacted by a reduced quota.
For example, Congressional representatives from Massachusetts, and
the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) stated that the
proposed reallocation would disadvantage the New England Fishery, the
traditional Massachusetts fleet, and shore-side infrastructure, and
would allow fleets from other regions to use a disproportionate amount
of quota. They were concerned about the commercial fleet that is
experiencing economic damage due to the decline in key stocks in the
groundfish fishery. The Council suggested that NMFS assess the port-
specific impacts of reallocation. A commenter was concerned that
recreational vessels in the mid-Atlantic region would be
disproportionately affected by quota reallocation because the quota may
not last until the time the bluefin are off the mid-Atlantic coast.
Response: A reduction in quota may impact the revenue associated
with a particular quota category or geographic region, or result in
secondary economic impacts on a community. The FEIS analysis estimates
that reallocation of quota to the Longline category could reduce
revenue for individual vessels with a General category permit by $850
and result in total reduction in maximum revenue of $542,000 for all
General category vessels. Although thirty percent of the General
category permits are associated with the State of Massachusetts (1,150
permits as of October 2013), the total number of active vessels is
substantially lower. Of the total number of General category permits
issued throughout the Atlantic coast (3,783), the average number of
General category vessels landing at least one bluefin between 2006 and
2012 was 474 vessels (total). Thus, the number of active vessels in
Massachusetts can be presumed to be substantial fewer than 1,150.
When considering the social and economic impacts of actions,
different communities and regions may be impacted to different degrees
due to their unique regulatory and economic circumstances. The FEIS
contains an analysis of the community impacts from the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon/BP Oil Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents social
indicators of vulnerability and resistance for 25 communities selected
for having a greater than average number of HMS permits associated with
them. Those communities with relatively higher dependence upon
commercial fishing included Dulac, LA; Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA;
Gloucester, MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC; Wanchese, NC; Barnegat,
NJ; Cape May, NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are principally at a
fishery-wide, or permit category level. The bluefin tuna fisheries (and
other HMS fisheries) are widely distributed and highly variable due to
the diversity of participants (location, gear types, commercial,
recreational), and because bluefin tuna are highly migratory over
thousands of miles, with an annual distribution that is highly
variable. The specific ports and communities that provide the goods and
services to support the fishery may vary as well, as vessels travel
over large distances to pursue their target species. Due to this
variability, it is difficult to predict potential revenue and secondary
impacts of preferred management measures by port or by state. Vessels
fishing in any geographic area in the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are
likely to have only limited access to bluefin tuna, unless they travel
long distances within the bluefin's migratory range.
It is important to note that the actual economic impacts of
reallocation of quota depend upon the total amount of quota allocated
to (and harvested from) each of the quota categories, as a result of
the combined effect of all of the measures that affect quota. For
example, in addition to the amount of quota available as a result of
the percentage allocations, and deductions for the 68 mt Annual
Reallocation, there may be quota available for redistribution to
various quota categories. Specifically, pursuant to the preferred
``Annual Reallocation'' measure, as described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS,
if the Purse Seine category has not caught 70 percent of its quota
during the previous year, quota may be moved to the Reserve category
and subsequently reallocated across multiple user groups. Furthermore,
in recent years, many categories have not fully harvested their amount
of quota available to them. Thus, the actual impacts of reallocation
may be minor or may be mitigated by future reallocation when available.
Reallocation of quota may result in frustration or negative
attitudes among fishery participants of different quota categories, due
to the changes to an historically accepted quota allocation system, or
perceptions of unfairness. However, the modifications to the quota
system are warranted for the reasons described in the response to
comments 8 through 13 and fair due to the fact that all quota
categories are affected in proportion to their quota percentage.
As explained in the response to Comment # 9 above, NMFS designed
the quota allocation measures to minimize the economic impacts on the
non-longline categories. The management measures take into
consideration the relative size of each category quota (in the case of
the ``Codified Reallocation Alternative'', or the level of activity of
vessels (``Annual Reallocation Alternative''), and are designed to
consider changing levels of quota or landings, respectively, in ways
that reduce negative economic impacts.
Comment 13: Many recreational anglers wanted to insulate the
Angling category from any potential effect of quota reallocation to the
Longline category, citing the economic impacts and high value of the
recreational bluefin fishery to the economy, as well as the economic
investments of the participants and the current regulatory burden such
vessels face. Vessel owners with General category commercial permits
expressed concern about the potential impacts to the General category.
Commenters requested additional quantitative analyses comparing the
different quota categories, including primary and secondary impacts.
Response: As stated above in the response to the previous comment,
a reduction in quota may impact the revenue associated with a
particular quota category or result in secondary economic impacts on a
community. The objective of the allocation measures is not to
reallocate quota based on economic optimization, but to: account for
bluefin dead discards within the Longline category; reduce uncertainty
in annual quota allocation and accounting; optimize fishing opportunity
by increasing flexibility in the current bluefin quota allocation
system; and ensure that the various quota categories are regulated
fairly relative to one another.
The reallocation measures of this final rule will minimize adverse
economic impacts to the extent practicable because the relative amount
of quota reallocated is small and proportional to the size of the
category quota, and the overall quota system will be more
[[Page 71529]]
flexible and predictable and able to offset some or all of the negative
economic impacts. This approach was developed consistent with our
obligation under National Standard 6 (Conservation and management
measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and
contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches) and
National Standard 8 (Conservation and management measures shall,
consistent with the conservation requirements of this chapter
(including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished
stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to
fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that meet the
requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) provide for the
sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.)
Although the FEIS includes estimates of the value of bluefin tuna
quota by quota category for comparative purposes, the codified
reallocation measure was not based on a specific economic analysis, but
the achievement of the stated objectives.
An elaborate quantitative analysis that compares the economic value
of the Angling, Longline, and General category fisheries was not
conducted in the FEIS due to the different characteristics of the
Angling, Longline and General category fisheries, the variable amount
of data associated with these fisheries, and the large number of
factors and assumptions that contribute to estimating the value of a
fishery. For example, under the IBQ system implemented by Amendment 7,
bluefin tuna quota may be a limiting factor for a pelagic longline
vessel, and therefore the lack of adequate bluefin quota, by even a
small amount, could result in a vessel being prohibited from fishing
with pelagic longline gear. In that circumstance, the value of the
bluefin quota to the vessel owner may be very high, and related to the
value of the target catch (e.g., swordfish or yellowfin tuna). On the
other hand, the value of a bluefin tuna to a recreational angler or to
the recreational fishery at- large may include the value of the
recreational experience to the angler, as well as the associated goods
and service supporting the fishing trip. The FEIS indicates that the
Angling category would potentially face unquantified reductions in
economic and social activity associated with the 7.36 percent reduction
in available quota.
In contrast, for a vessel fishing commercially in the General
category, a high quality bluefin tuna sold to Japan may be extremely
valuable and other catch is far less important.
4. Annual Reallocation
Comment 14: Some commenters supported the annual reallocation
measure as proposed, based on the underlying concept of tying the Purse
Seine category annual allocation to the level of fishing activity by
Purse Seine vessels (i.e., ``use or lose''), and the strategy of making
unused quota available for use by other quota categories.
Response: The Amendment 7 annual reallocation measure represents an
improvement to the quota system by implementing a predictable means to
utilize quota that may otherwise remain unused. Because the
reallocation of quota from the Purse Seine category to the Reserve will
occur prior to the beginning of the calendar year and prior to the
start of the Purse Seine fishery, there will be increased
predictability in the quota system. In contrast, in the past, there was
uncertainty that resulted from the fact that the amount of unharvested
quota associated with the Purse Seine category which would be available
for quota accounting was unknown until the end of the calendar year.
Because of that timing problem, the ability for other users to catch
any unharvested quota was markedly diminished.
Comment 15: Commenters suggested various modifications to the
proposed annual reallocation measure. One commenter suggested that the
concept be applied to the individual vessel instead of at the scale of
the whole Purse Seine category in order to prevent the situation where
an individual vessel may be disadvantaged. One commenter suggested that
only 25 percent of the Purse Seine quota should be available for
reallocation, instead of 75 percent. A commenter suggested that more
than one year of catch should be the basis of the allocation, instead
of a single year. One commenter suggested that the annual reallocation
alternative be combined with an alternative that was not proposed,
which would have allocated 40 percent of the Purse Seine category to
the Longline category.
Response: In response to the comment that the annual reallocation
measure should be implemented at the level of the individual vessel in
order to prevent a situation where a vessel fishes its full allocation
but, due to inactivity by other vessels, is only allocated a portion of
its base allocation for the subsequent year, NMFS modified the
preferred alternative, and is implementing the measure at a vessel
level (as described in detail in the preamble above, and the FEIS).
Under the measure implemented by this final rule, annual reallocation
will be based on the previous year's individual purse seine
participants catch rather than category-wide catch. This management
measure will tie quota allocation more closely to individual Purse
Seine participants catch and create incentive for fishery participants
to remain active in the fishery. Thus, the individual allocation could
either increase or decrease. Without this modification to the
alternative (from that proposed), individual allocations would be tied
to the catch of the other participants in the fishery, which could have
unfair results if catch were to vary greatly among the vessels. For
example, in a year where overall category landings were low, an
individual purse seine participant could be allocated a relatively low
amount of quota, even if they landed a substantial portion of their
allocation the previous year. As such, the alternative would not tie
the allocation to individual catch and thus would not encourage full
use of the category quota, which would be inconsistent with the intent
of this alternative.
Regarding the comment that only 25 percent of the Purse Seine
allocation be available for reallocation (instead of 75 percent), if
only a relatively small percentage of the quota were available for
reallocation (and a relatively large percentage of the quota guaranteed
for the Purse Seine allocation), there would be the possibility that
Purse Seine participants remain inactive, yet only a relatively small
percentage of the quota is transferred to the Reserve category. Such a
scenario, which increases the likelihood that the Purse Seine quota as
a whole may not be utilized by any category, would be inefficient and
would not optimize the quota system. Making up to 75 percent of the
quota available to the Reserve category will maximize the amount of
quota that may be reallocated, and will provide a reasonable minimum
amount for the Purse Seine participants. The measure implemented by
this final rule guarantees vessels 25 percent of their base allocation,
but makes up to 75 percent available for reallocation to the Reserve
category, while not precluding Purse Seine participants from increasing
their catches over time (multiple years).
Regarding the comment that more than one year of catch should be
used as the basis of the Purse Seine allocation, a time scale of two
years would reduce the relative importance of a single year's catch in
determining subsequent quota allocations, but may also decrease the
availability of quota. The method of annual reallocation being
[[Page 71530]]
implemented (i.e., based on one year) will provide a better balance
between providing a fair allocation to the Purse Seine category and
providing a predictable system for utilizing quota among all categories
that may otherwise be unused, and is consistent with the annual time
scale applicable to quota related management measures (i.e., the
relevant time scale for most aspects of the quota system is annual).
Regarding the comment that the annual reallocation alternative
should be combined with an annual allocation of 40 percent of the Purse
Seine category to the Longline category, NMFS determined that the
annual reallocation measure better meets the objectives of reducing
uncertainty in annual quota allocation and accounting; optimizing
fishing opportunity by increasing flexibility in the current bluefin
quota allocation system; and ensuring that the various quota categories
are regulated fairly in relative to one another. Under the annual
reallocation measure implemented by this final rule, the amount of
quota allocated to Purse Seine participants and the Reserve category is
responsive to the level of activity of Purse Seine participants, but
will not reduce the size of the Purse Seine category percentage (18.6
percent), which is the foundation upon which the allocations to Purse
Seine participants are based. In contrast, combining this measure with
an annual allocation of 40 percent of the Purse Seine category to the
Longline category would substantially reduce the size of the Purse
Seine allocation regardless of the level of activity by Purse Seine
vessels. Such a reduction is not consistent with the objective of the
measure. The objective of the management measure is not to reduce the
size of the Purse Seine allocation, but to make Purse Seine quota
available for use by other categories in a predictable manner
(reflecting a Purse Seine vessel's previous year level of activity), as
well as allow levels of fishing activity of Purse Seine vessels to
increase within the scope of the category's allocation.
Comment 16: One commenter supported annual reallocation, but stated
that the implementation of the annual reallocation measure should be
linked to a Purse Seine fishery start date of June 1, as well as
elimination of the provision limiting the relative amount of 73 to 81
inch bluefin Purse Seine vessels may retain. One commenter did not
support annual reallocation due to the different retention rules
applicable to the Longline and Purse Seine categories. One commenter
did not support annual reallocation because of the perception that the
Purse Seine category has not had the same fishing opportunities as the
other categories due to low availability of giant (greater than 81
inch) bluefin, and the restriction on retention of large medium
bluefin.
Response: NMFS agrees that the Annual Reallocation alternative
should be evaluated in the context of other regulations applicable to
the Purse Seine category and Longline category. Modification of the
start date of the Purse Seine category to June 1 is one of the measures
being implemented by this Amendment 7 final rule. NMFS considered but
did not further analyze an alternative that would modify or relieve the
tolerance limit for large-medium fish in the purse seine category. Such
an alternative was not further considered for reasons explained in
Chapter 2 of the FEIS, including because recent data was not available
about fishery operations that reflected to what extent the purse seine
fishery experienced regulatory dead discards as a result of the
tolerance limit. In furtherance of gathering such data and in the
interest of examining bycatch in the fishery, on August 1, 2014, NMFS
issued an exempted fishing permit that will exempt a Purse Seine vessel
from the annual incidental purse seine retention limit on the harvest
of large medium Atlantic bluefin tuna, in order to investigate and
gather such data. NMFS could consider changes to the Purse Seine
category size restrictions in a future rulemaking after further data-
gathering and consideration. The Annual Reallocation measure will not
result in a negative ecological impact due to the different size
restrictions applicable to the Purse Seine category and the Longline
category as explained in Chapter 4 of the FEIS (the potential change in
the amount of bluefin caught of different size categories is relatively
small compared with the overall stock size).
Comment 17: Commenters did not support annual reallocation for a
variety of reasons. One stated that the Purse Seine category should not
have a fluctuating quota; one was concerned that the Longline category
will take the entire Purse Seine quota in the future, and one was
concerned that reallocation to the Longline category would increase
discards.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the Purse Seine quota may
fluctuate under the annual reallocation measure, and that a fluctuating
quota may have some negative implications for the Purse Seine fishery,
such as challenges to long-term business planning, and fluctuating
levels of revenue from the Purse Seine fishery. However, in the context
of the fishery as a whole, the benefits of the annual reallocation
measure are expected to outweigh the negative aspects, and the amount
of quota fluctuation may be reduced by a consistent level of Purse
Seine catches. Under the annual reallocation measure implemented by
this final rule, Purse Seine participants will have similar fishing
opportunities as the other commercial categories that direct on bluefin
tuna, but if substantial portions of the quota remain unused, there
will be a fair system to relocate quota in a predictable and efficient
way. The annual reallocation system will also be responsive to any
future increased levels of catch by Purse Seine participants. If a
Purse Seine participant is allocated the minimum amount of quota (25
percent of its base quota), with increasing catch over time, the
individual participant could be allocated 100 percent of their base
quota three years after being allocated the minimum amount. For example
if during the first year of fishing the participant caught 22 percent
of their baseline quota, for year two they would be allocated 50
percent. During year two if the participant caught 46 percent of their
baseline quota, for year three they would be allocated 75 percent of
its baseline quota. If during year three they caught 71 percent of
their baseline quota for year four they would be allocated 100 percent
of its baseline quota.
Under the annual reallocation measure, quota will be reallocated to
the Reserve category, and potentially then to any or all quota
categories. Transfers of quota from the Reserve category may include
transfers to the Longline category, but NMFS will consider and balance
the needs of the fishery as a whole. Quota could also be allocated to
the other fishery categories as appropriate, considering the relevant
factors in that year. Specifically, NMFS will base such decisions on
the criteria described under the ``Modifications to the Reserve
Category'' measure, as well as other applicable regulations and laws
(e.g., the MSA National Standards (NS) such as the NS 9 requirement to
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable).
5. Modification to Reserve Category
Comment 18: Several commenters supported the modifications to the
Reserve category regulations, which would increase the amount of quota
that may be put into the Reserve category and increase the potential
uses of Reserve category quota. One commenter stated that NMFS should
be authorized to allocate from the Reserve category at any time. A
commenter suggested
[[Page 71531]]
splitting the Reserve category into quota derived from under-harvest,
and quota transferred from the Purse Seine category, to increase
transparency. One commenter suggested redistribution of unused Reserve
quota to active Longline category vessels during the last quarter of
the year. A commenter stated that NMFS should make up to 50 percent of
the Reserve quota available to the Longline category during the first
three years of the IBQ Program.
Response: The management measure regarding the Reserve category
implemented by this final rule will provide additional management
flexibility in the quota system and enable consideration of various
quota strategies such as those suggested by the commenters. Although
NMFS has the authority to allocate bluefin quota from the Reserve
category at any time, the regulations implemented by Amendment 7 will
enable NMFS to add underharvest from the previous year and any
reallocated quota from the Purse Seine category to the Reserve category
base allocation of 2.5 percent. Secondly, Amendment 7 adds new criteria
to broaden and clarify the potential uses of the Reserve quota. It is
not possible to evaluate the merits of the commenters' specific quota
suggestions without any context. There are many potential uses of
Reserve quota, including transfer to the Longline category in order to
facilitate the transition to IBQs, or transfer to the General, Harpoon,
Purse Seine, Angling, or Trap categories if warranted in order to
increase fishing opportunity (while still preventing catch from
exceeding the overall U.S. quota, and abiding by the other ICCAT
restrictions). In order to facilitate transparency and full
understanding of the quota system, NMFS will communicate clearly about
how quota transfers are distributed among all quota categories,
including descriptions of specific amount of quota derived from various
sources.
Comment 19: A commenter did not support the addition of new
criteria to the existing criteria regarding in-season transfer of quota
among categories because the criteria are long-standing and provide
adequate flexibility. Commenters did not want to allow the Reserve
category to be ``padded'' to cover Longline category dead discards, and
did not want most of the Reserve quota to go to the Longline category.
Response: The addition of the new criteria under Amendment 7 will
not change the overall scope of NMFS authority to transfer quota among
categories, but includes specific criteria that have the effect of
clarifying potential uses of quota. NMFS agrees that an excessive
amount of quota from the Reserve category should not be used to account
for Longline category dead discards and has structured the alternatives
to give management flexibility to move available quota to other
categories as warranted. As stated in the response to Comment 8, under
the Amendment 7 management measures, NMFS will allocate quota to the
Longline category in amounts that exceed its current allocation of 8.1
percent of the current annual quota, but will not allow historic levels
of bluefin catch by the Longline category catch. In evaluating the
amount of quota to reallocate to any category (including the Longline
category), NMFS will consider the regulatory criteria for quota
transfer, which include broad biological and economic considerations
(e.g., ``effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of
the fishery management plan''). For example, with respect to transfers
of quota to the Longline category, some important considerations may
include the amount of dead discards by pelagic longline gear relative
to the size of the Longline category quota, the overall trend in the
amount of dead discards and landings in the Longline category, the
effectiveness of gear restricted areas, the status of the bluefin
stock, trends in relevant data reporting, the amount of uncertainty
regarding dead discard information, the level of accountability for
bluefin dead discards by vessels in other quota categories, and the
economic benefits of quota transfers. For transfers to other
categories, important considerations may include effects of catch rates
in one area precluding vessels in another area from having a reasonable
opportunity to harvest a portion of the category's quota; the projected
ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota to
harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing
year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories
of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on bluefin
rebuilding and overfishing; and effects of the adjustment on
accomplishing the objectives of the FMP.
6. General Comments About Gear Restricted Areas
Comment 20: NMFS should avoid closures to the pelagic longline
fishery. Any closure would disrupt markets.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that GRAs designed to reduce bluefin
tuna interactions and regulatory discards and to thus decrease bycatch
have costs associated with them, and may have disruptive effects on
local markets. NMFS designed the gear restricted areas (i.e., their
timing and configuration) after considering the amount of reduced
fishing opportunity as well as the amount of reduced bluefin
interactions, in order to minimize potential disruptions in markets.
NMFS designed the Cape Hatteras GRA to provide access opportunities to
fishermen that have a proven ability to avoid bluefin, and are
compliant with the observer and logbook requirements. As described in
the Response to Comments # 46 and 47, NMFS specifically modified the
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area that was preferred in the DEIS, to
reduce disruption to ongoing fishing in an adjacent area and therefore
reduce potential economic impacts of the alternative. Evaluation of all
alternatives considered both economic and ecological considerations
(i.e., the potential reductions in revenue associated with estimated
reductions in bluefin interactions).
Comment 21: NMFS should not implement GRAs. NMFS received comments
indicating that, due to a variety of reasons, commercial fishermen may
be limited to certain fishing locations by the size and configuration
of their vessels, insurance requirements, or safety concerns, and that
some participants in the fishing fleet have nowhere else to fish
(except in the location of the GRA) and they would be ``shut out'' of
the fishery.
Response: The underlying concept of the Cape Hatteras GRA minimizes
economic impacts by providing conditional access to the area, based on
performance criteria. The majority of the pelagic longline fleet will
be allowed to fish in the area upon implementation of this Amendment 7
final rule, and in the future if conditions for access continue to be
met. In estimating ecological and socio-economic impacts of the Cape
Hatteras GRA (called the ``Modified'' Cape Hatteras GRA in the FEIS),
NMFS determined that 14 vessels (of 135 vessels) would not have access
to this GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels made over 75 percent of
their sets in the Cape Hatteras GRA. Based upon the location of their
historical catch, and to ensure that NMFS did not underestimate the
potential economic impacts, the analysis assumes that these vessels
would not redistribute effort outside of the GRA. Although these four
vessels could redirect from fishing grounds off Oregon Inlet, NC to
fishing grounds between Cape Fear and Cape Hatteras, such a change in
fishing grounds may involve substantial costs (fuel, longer trips,
possible transfer and dockage in a new port, etc.). However, NMFS
modified the Cape Hatteras GRA
[[Page 71532]]
in a way that NMFS believes will achieve the reduction in bluefin
discards, but will also allow fishermen to continue to deploy gear in
regions south and west of the GRA and thereby reduce adverse impacts.
With respect to the potential negative impacts of the Spring Gulf of
Mexico GRA, approximately 61 vessels that fish in the Gulf of Mexico
would be affected. Given the consistent pattern of historical catch of
large numbers of bluefin tuna in certain times and locations by pelagic
longline gear, NMFS determined that a GRA area in both the Gulf of
Mexico and the Atlantic are necessary in order to achieve reductions in
bluefin tuna dead discards, and that the potential economic impacts are
unavoidable in order to achieve the necessary reductions. The potential
negative socio-economic impacts were minimized by using an iterative
process to design the gear restricted areas. The Spring Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRAs were designed in order to achieve a balance
between a reduction in bluefin dead discards, protection of the Gulf of
Mexico spawning stock, and continued operation of the pelagic longline
fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The specific boundaries of the area were
determined by an iterative process that included consideration of
public comment and input, by selecting areas of historical pelagic
longline interactions with bluefin, and comparing both the anticipated
reduction in bluefin interactions, and the estimated reduction in
revenue, of different configurations. In addition, the time period was
selected due to its occurrence during the peak bluefin spawning period
in the Gulf of Mexico.
The magnitude of the potential economic impacts result from the
specific location and duration of the GRA. The size of the Spring Gulf
of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA is based upon the historical location
and number of bluefin interactions, as well as the recent persistent
trend in fishing effort shifting to the east of this area, and the
known variability in the fishery in general. A smaller geographic area
would be unlikely to achieve meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna
interactions. The duration of the GRA encompasses the months with the
highest number of interactions during the spawning period. An
alternate, or shorter time period would coincide with neither the
highest number of bluefin interactions, nor the bluefin spawning period
peak.
Comment 22: NMFS should evaluate the preferred alternatives for the
Cape Hatteras GRA in light of the difficulties in implementing the
Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (a plan designed to reduce the
incidental interactions of pelagic longline gear with marine mammals in
order to reduce serious injury and mortality of long-finned and short-
finned pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic).
Response: Several comments received suggested options similar to
those currently employed under the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan
(described below). One comment noted the importance of developing a
communication protocol similar to what is encouraged by the Pelagic
Longline Take Reduction Plan for marine mammals. NMFS also encourages
captains to communicate the location of bluefin to each other to aid
fleet-wide avoidance practices. However, NMFS believes that this
approach is best employed on a voluntary basis, as is done for marine
mammals, given potential confidentiality concerns.
Mandatory aspects of the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan
include a requirement to post the marine mammal safe handling and
release placard in the wheelhouse and on the working deck, a
restriction of mainline length to no more than 20 nmi when fishing
within the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and special observer and research
participation requirements for vessels operating in the Cape Hatteras
Special Research Area (CHSRA). Unlike the requirements for operating in
the CHSRA, Amendment 7 does not require fishermen fishing in the Cape
Hatteras GRA to notify the agency between 48 to 96 hours prior to
making a trip in order to arrange for observer coverage or research
participation, in part because notifications of intent to fish are a
standard requirement through VMS. Additionally, Amendment 7 does not
require fishermen to retain or post any new placards, nor does it
change the requirements regarding mainline length restrictions. It is
important to note that the provisions of Amendment 7 do not replace the
provisions of CHSRA or the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan;
pelagic longline fishermen are still expected to fully comply with the
requirements outlined in the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan while
fishing with pelagic longline gear in any part of the CHSRA that may
overlap with the Cape Hatteras GRA.
Comment 23: A commenter stated that NOAA and ICCAT do not have
sufficient scientific information to be able to predict where and when
the distribution of bluefin may overlap with the pelagic longline fleet
target species, and thus fishermen are also highly unlikely to be able
to predictably avoid BFT while targeting other HMS species (swordfish,
bigeye and yellowfin) except for certain times of year and in limited
locations. Any rigid management framework that cannot adapt management
to real-time distributions and availability of targeted and non-
targeted HMS species will be unlikely to optimize yield, support
economic viability, and eliminate discards.
Response: Bluefin tuna distribution is highly variable; however,
the scientific literature as well as the data in the FEIS (Chapters 3
and 4) support the conclusion that there is sufficient consistency in
the patterns of distribution to make GRAs an effective management tool
on a long-term basis. If warranted by changes in the characteristics of
the fishery (e.g, long-term shifts in the distribution of bluefin tuna
and target species), NMFS can re-evaluate whether GRAs continue to be
an effective management tool that appropriately balances the associated
costs and benefits.
Comment 24: NMFS received suggestions to consider dynamic time-area
closures because the distribution of bluefin is highly variable.
Response: In the Predraft of Amendment 7, NMFS considered a real-
time monitoring system that would periodically close ``hot spots'' of
bluefin interactions with the pelagic longline fleet. However, the
Agency chose to not further analyze this alternative in the DEIS and
the FEIS because a reporting and monitoring system to support this
measure does not currently exist. Furthermore, the development and
administration of such a system would be highly complex, and would
require substantial resources to be able to fully monitor the entire
region across which the pelagic longline fleet fishes, publish a rule
quickly enough to respond to changing oceanic conditions, and provide
adequate notice to the pelagic longline fleet. Instead of the dynamic
measures supported by the commenter, which would respond to short-term
aggregations of bluefin, the measures implemented by this final rule
rely on a different strategy of reducing bluefin bycatch, based upon
the long-term, consistent special and temporal patterns of bluefin
distribution.
Comment 25: NMFS received comments asserting that the Agency lacks
sufficient data to make a reliable determination regarding true
interaction rates of any given vessel. Some commenters felt that NMFS
should prohibit fishing in areas of concern until more reliable data
collection methods are in place, whereas others felt that NMFS should
not prohibit fishing until more reliable data collection methods are in
place. Several commenters cited
[[Page 71533]]
weaknesses in logbook data and asserted that logbook data are not
sufficient to verify vessel behavior, count interactions, or monitor
bycatch.
Response: As indicated in the Response to Comment # 82 NMFS
recognizes that some vessel operators may have under-reported in their
logbooks the amount of bluefin tuna they have caught. NMFS conducted an
analysis that compared logbook data to observer data to get an
indication of how vessel-reported logbook data compares with observer
data, because observer data can serve as a useful validation tool.
Compared to the observer data, the logbook data showed both over-
reporting and under-reporting of bluefin tuna, with the average amount
of under-reporting of bluefin discards of 28 percent at the aggregate
level for all vessels. Individual vessel data varied substantially from
being more than 90 percent accurate with observer data for that trip to
more than 75 percent inaccurate compared to observer data for that
trip. These data indicate a wide range in reporting accuracy at a
vessel level. Specific information on this analysis is in the Appendix
of the FEIS. Notwithstanding potential under-reporting by some vessels,
logbook data are the most complete source of available data regarding
vessel level interactions with bluefin tuna because 100 percent of
pelagic longline vessels are required to submit logbook reports for
every set.
NMFS also analyzed observer data in order to verify the spatial and
temporal patterns of bluefin interactions that were noted in the
logbook data (Chapter 3 of FEIS). Although the observer data could not
be compared directly to the logbook data because it is collected with
lower frequency and at a different scale, the observer data indicated
similar patterns of bluefin interactions as the logbook data. The
logbook data represents the best available source of fine-scale
information on bluefin interactions at this time. This final rule also
implements enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements that will
improve information on bluefin interactions in the pelagic longline
fishery (i.e., VMS and electronic monitoring).
Comment 26: NMFS received multiple comments regarding access to the
GRAs based on performance. Comments 26-42 relate to specific
performance criteria. A commenter stated that NMFS should include 2012
data in the IBQ Allocation calculations and GRA area access
calculations.
Response: NMFS agrees that 2012 data should be included in these
data calculations in order to reflect the characteristics of the
fishery in the recent past. The 2012 data set represents the most
recent calendar year for which complete data was available at the time
the FIES analysis was begun. Therefore, in the FEIS NMFS included sets
made in 2012 in the pool of data used to calculate the bluefin-to-
designated target species ratios for allocation and GRA access
analyses. NMFS also included 2012 data from the Pelagic Observer
Program and the Logbook program to calculate the Observer and Logbook
Compliance scores. NMFS also adjusted the historical qualification
period from 2006 to 2011, to 2006 to 2012, in order to better reflect
the variability in the fishery and account for recent trends.
Comment 27: Commenters expressed concern about access to the GRAs
based on performance criteria based on logbook data, validity of which
the commenter stated was questionable, given the possible incentives to
misreport bluefin interactions through the logbook.
Response: As explained in Response to Comments 25 and 82 NMFS
acknowledges that there are issues with logbook data accuracy; however,
it offers the most comprehensive data on the fishery and provides a
means to analyze individual vessel behavior. HMS logbook data
represents a census of the fishery.
Comment 28: One commenter stated that there was no regulation that
vessels must avoid bluefin tuna in the past, and vessels should not be
singled out now for catching more bluefin by chance.
Response: Directed fishing on bluefin tuna with pelagic gear is not
permitted. Any interactions with pelagic longline are incidental to
other directed fishing and regulations have been designed to discourage
any such interactions and to minimize bycatch to the extent
practicable. NMFS has managed the pelagic longline fishery as an
incidental category for bluefin for many years and has implemented a
number of regulations to limit the bluefin that can be retained and to
discourage interactions with bluefin (e.g., limiting the number of
bluefin that can be landed based on the weight of target species,
implementing a time-area closure for bluefin in June in the northeast,
requiring weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico). The pelagic longline
category as a whole has traditionally been allocated 8.1 percent of the
total U.S. quota to cover incidental catch during directed fishing
operations for other species, but those catches (including dead
discards) have been significantly over that subquota in recent years.
Through analysis of logbook data between 2006 and 2012, NMFS noted
that a small number of vessels were responsible for the majority of
reported bluefin interactions. In this and previous rulemakings,
members of the pelagic longline fleet have repeatedly asked for
increased individual accountability in the fishery. Amendment 7 is
implementing management measures that will address this situation, and
will hold individuals accountable for their bluefin interactions.
Comment 29: NMFS should not penalize small vessels because of their
inability of provide adequate space for observers.
Response: NMFS designed the scoring system for the Pelagic Observer
Program Performance metric being implemented by this final rule such
that valid reasons for not carrying an observer will not be penalized.
Observer coverage is integral to the management of the fishery as it
contributes important, objective data in support of the management of
protected species and provides important information on the pelagic
longline fishery utilized in the management of bluefin and other HMS
species. Due to the importance of having enough observed trips to meet
the observer coverage targets required by national and international
obligations, NMFS also evaluated vessels on the number of trips
observed. The agency utilizes observer data to develop estimates of
protected resources interactions and estimates of discards of other
species including bluefin. These data are essential for stock
assessments and are critical in meeting international management
obligations. Under ATCA and as a contracting party of ICCAT, the United
States is required to take part in the collection of biological, catch,
and effort statistics for research and management purposes.
Comment 30: NMFS received comments on the data used to calculate
scores for performance metrics and IBQ allocations. NMFS received
comments indicating that dolphinfish and wahoo from the HMS logbook
needed to be included in the performance metric scoring. Several
commenters requested the Agency include landings of designated target
species (primarily dolphinfish and wahoo) reported in the coastal
fisheries logbook in calculations used to assess IBQ and performance.
Other commenters suggested that NMFS should use all pelagic longline
logbooks in determining the Bluefin Avoidance Score.
Response: Dolphinfish and wahoo reported in the HMS logbook were
used to develop scores for performance
[[Page 71534]]
metrics. However, landings of these species reported in the Coastal
Fisheries Logbook were not used in the performance metrics for several
reasons. (1) The Coastal Fisheries Logbook would not contain landings
of the primary target species of the HMS pelagic longline fishery
(swordfish and BAYS tunas), and would not provide for the reporting of
bluefin tuna interactions. Therefore, the actual ratio of landings of
designated target species to bluefin interactions cannot be accurately
calculated for sets reported in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook. (2)
Fishermen in the southeast Atlantic that report in the Coastal
Fisheries Logbook could have an advantage over fishermen in the Gulf of
Mexico or New England that do not have the same type of reporting
requirements and the same mechanism to report retention of dolphinfish.
(3) The HMS logbook and the Coastal Fisheries Logbook require different
types of data to be reported which creates a mismatch in how the data
can be combined and collectively analyzed, which in turn could result
in inconsistencies between the two data sets. (4) Specific geographic
data (i.e., latitude and longitude for each set) that would were
reported in the HMS logbook and used to identify and evaluate the
ecological and economic effects of gear restricted areas are
unavailable through the Coastal Fisheries Logbook. Rather, fishermen
report location where the majority of all catches of each species were
made through reference to a 1[deg] latitude x 1[deg] longitude grid
cell. If NMFS were to incorporate data at the finest scale available
(1[deg] latitude x 1[deg] longitude), NMFS would have to disregard the
overwhelming number of requests for management (and visualization/
depiction of data) at a finer scale. (5) The Coastal Fisheries Logbook
requires landings per trip to be reported by weight whereas the HMS
Logbook requires all interactions per set to be reported by number.
Also, fishermen reporting in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook may report
gutted or whole weight. (6) A percentage (20%) of fishermen reporting
through the Coastal Fisheries Logbook are selected to report discarded
fish through a Supplemental Discard and Gear Trip Report form at the
trip level, whereas all fishermen reporting in the HMS Logbook must
provide this information for every set, which also creates a mismatch
in how data can be combined and collectively analyzed. For these
reasons NMFS used dolphinfish and wahoo catch data from the HMS
logbooks to develop scores for performance metrics, but did not use the
landings data reported in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook.
Comment 31: NMFS should not base performance metrics on the
Northeast Distant (NED) Area.
Response: NMFS incorporated all data reported through the HMS
logbook in the calculation of performance metrics, regardless of where
vessels fished. Exclusion of the sets made in the NED area could result
in certain vessels that had a lot of fishing effort in this region
receiving a competitive advantage or a disadvantage in terms of
performance metric scores. Further, vessels that fish in the NED are
not exempt from observer (if selected) or logbook reporting
requirements.
Comment 32: NMFS should consider that, by allowing access based on
the performance of a vessel, the new owner of a vessel may be evaluated
based on prior poor vessel performance under a different owner.
Response: As explained below, NMFS determined that the relevant
historical activity should be that associated with the vessel (and not
the permit), and therefore, the preferred IBQ Program would evaluate
vessels based on all activity attributed to that vessel through the
qualification time period (2006-2012). In general, the use of
historical data as part of an individual quota share (or a performance
criteria) can be complex due to historical transfers of the limited
access permit from one vessel to another or changes in vessel
ownership. The quota share formula implemented by Amendment 7 is based
upon historical data associated with a permitted vessel. NMFS
determined that the historical `platform' upon which to base the quota
share should be the vessel history instead of the permit history for
the following reasons: (1) Vessel history reflects current and
historical participation in the fishery; (2) the regulations regarding
the transfer of Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits do not address
fishing history (i.e., do not specify whether when an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit is transferred from one vessel to another,
whether the fishing history also transfers); and (3) the structure of
the databases in which the logbook data resides uses the vessel as a
key organizing feature, and therefore the compilation of data
associated with a particular vessel is simpler and less prone to error
(i.e., it is more complex to compile data based on an individual permit
history). However, once the initial allocations are established,
bluefin quota shares will be associated with the permit for future
vessel transactions. For example, if a permitted vessel has quota
shares, and the owner of the permitted vessel decides to sell the
permit but keep the vessel, the seller of the permit will no longer
have any privileges with respect to the IBQ Program (they would only
have fishing both without a permit). In contrast, the buyer of the
permit would have the eligibility for the IBQ associated with that
permit (although the permit buyer would need to put that permit on a
vessel in order to receive quota allocation).
Comment 33: One commenter asked whether the public will know the
identity of vessels excluded from the GRA.
Response: NMFS does not intend to publicly release the identity of
vessels without access to the GRA.
Comment 34: NMFS received several suggestions concerning changes to
the logbook performance metric, logbook reporting requirements, and
requests for faster logbook submission methods. Some commenters felt
that NMFS should not include a logbook performance metric. Commenters
noted that logbook reports are usually late because it takes time to
collect the required economic information, and sometimes fishermen are
out for extended periods of time. Dealers sometime take 2 or more weeks
to get a return done, which results in delays in submitting data to the
Logbook Program. For offshore/distant water fishermen, it sometimes
takes more than a week for the receipt of information from dealers,
especially if the catch is offloaded in Canada. The commenters felt
that if NMFS wants to retain this performance metric, the agency should
require that dealer tally sheets be submitted separately from the
logbooks. NMFS received suggestions to transition the logbook
performance metric from the date of opening the letter to the date of
receipt by the Agency to allow for contingencies such as a government
shutdown (or other factors that may delay Agency officials from opening
letters). A commenter felt that NMFS should establish a tolerance for
the mailing of logbook reports from different parts of the country to
Miami, FL, because fishermen in Florida have an advantage over
fishermen based in more distant locations (e.g., Maine) due to the
length of time it takes to deliver mail. NMFS was asked to establish a
process whereby fishermen can submit logbooks by fax or online to
minimize delays due to the distance a letter has to travel.
Response: Current regulations require fishermen to submit logbooks
within 7 days of offloading. Logbook reports must include weighout
slips showing the dealer to whom fish were
[[Page 71535]]
transferred, the date of transferal, and the carcass weight of fish for
which individual weights are recorded. Timely logbook reporting is a
critical component of quota monitoring, particularly for species like
HMS that have small annual or seasonal quotas. Many pelagic longline
fishermen are able to comply with the requirement to submit logbooks
within seven days. There are members of the fleet, however, that take
months to a full year to submit logbook reports. These late reports,
either late due to logistics or non-compliance, make quota management
of HMS very difficult, especially if quotas are small. Amendment 7 will
require catch reporting via VMS units to ensure timely report of
bluefin catches. NMFS may pursue faster mechanisms to report logbooks
in the future, such electronic logbooks.
Comment 35: NMFS should have solicited feedback on performance
criteria from the industry. The commenter felt that NMFS developed the
performance criteria in a ``black box'' and did not provide ample
notification that the agency would be evaluating individuals on these
metrics.
Response: Significant time and opportunity for public comment have
gone into what has been a very thorough rulemaking process for this
Amendment. NMFS repeatedly solicited public feedback and Advisory Panel
input on the alternatives in Amendment 7, including the development of
the performance criteria. NMFS has discussed the management of bluefin
discards with the public and with the Advisory Panel since a 2009
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. NMFS indicated in both the
Predraft and the DEIS that a small number of individuals were
responsible for the majority of bluefin interactions. NMFS received
numerous public comments in Amendment 5 to the Consolidated HMS FMP
indicating that the pelagic longline fleet desired individual
accountability measures, instead of holding the entire fleet
responsible for high interactions of a few vessels with dusky sharks.
NMFS developed the performance criteria as a means to evaluate
fishermen and hold them individually accountable for reduction of
bluefin discards and compliance with the reporting and monitoring
regulations. These performance criteria offer an alternative to fleet-
wide time/area closures. Furthermore, the multiple criteria offer
individuals who have moderate levels of bluefin interactions to still
access GRAs provided that they comply with the reporting and monitoring
requirements.
Reporting and observer requirements have been in place for several
years, and NMFS regularly communicates with constituents concerning the
rules pertaining to these programs. NMFS notifies individuals selected
for reporting annually with letters that detail reporting requirements.
Furthermore, NMFS produces outreach materials, compliance guides, and a
Web site that clearly state reporting requirements. With respect to the
observer program, NMFS also clearly notifies individuals of vessel
selection for observer coverage. The Pelagic Observer Program regularly
communicates with the points of contact (captains and vessel owners)
regarding the organization and scheduling of observed trips. Commercial
fishermen are therefore provided ample notification of the regulations
concerning observer and logbook reporting.
Comment 36: NMFS should not deny access to individuals who are good
bluefin avoiders. The intent of the rule is to reduce bluefin discards,
not to penalize fishermen for being out of compliance with observer or
reporting requirements. NMFS Office of Law Enforcement should be solely
responsible for penalizing fishermen that are out of compliance.
Response: NMFS regulations that require fishermen to submit
logbooks or to carry observers are designed to collect information that
NMFS uses to manage HMS fisheries. When fishermen do not comply with
such regulations, they jeopardize NMFS' ability to develop sound
management strategies, conduct stock assessments with the best
scientific information available, estimate bycatch interactions and
bluefin discards, and comply with international treaty requirements. As
such, under the Amendment 7 regulations, NMFS will consider a
fisherman's compliance with current logbook and observer requirements
when evaluating whether or not NMFS will grant that fisherman access to
the Cape Hatteras GRA--an area where interactions with bluefin tuna are
likely. NMFS wants to ensure that fishermen allowed access to the Cape
Hatteras GRA will abide by all relevant regulations to facilitate
monitoring of fishing activities in these areas.
Comment 37: NMFS should consider vessels that have no history or
are new to the fishery as qualified to access the closed areas
(``innocent until proven guilty''). Vessels should have a ``clean
slate'' at the start of each year and access to the GRA. If they
interact with too many BFT, then they should be closed out.
Response: The GRAs are selected as locations with relatively high
numbers of historical bluefin interactions. The Bluefin Avoidance Score
was designed to evaluate a vessel's ability to avoid bluefin tuna,
relative to its landings. New entrants to the fishery will have
performance metrics associated with the permit that the entrant
purchased. All vessels will have a new performance score at the start
of each year, based upon the three most recent years of available data,
and therefore performance scores may improve over time.
Comment 38: Some commenters were concerned about the incentives
that a conditional access program may provide.
Response: The concept of providing conditional access to a GRA
(i.e., the Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA) is based on the
historical data, which indicate that a relatively small number of
vessels are responsible for a large portion of the bluefin tuna
interactions. Because conditional access will be based upon the rate of
bluefin tuna interactions (as well as reporting metrics), the program
rules provide incentives to all pelagic longline vessels with respect
to bluefin tuna interactions. Specifically, vessels with historically
high bluefin tuna interactions that are not allowed access will have an
incentive to reduce their rate of bluefin interactions if they desire
to fish in the GRA. Conversely, vessels with a relatively low rate of
bluefin interactions that are allowed to fish in the GRA will have an
incentive to continue to avoid bluefin in order to maintain a low rate
of bluefin interactions. In contrast, if all vessels were precluded
from the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount of a
vessel's interactions with bluefin, there would be no incentives with
respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and the scale of potential
economic impacts would be disproportionate to the estimated amount of
reduction in bluefin tuna interactions). No access to the Gulf of
Mexico GRAs was proposed because the interactions with bluefin in the
Gulf of Mexico are more evenly distributed among all of the vessels
fishing there (and not concentrated among a few vessels as in the area
off Cape Hatteras).
Comment 39: NMFS should not count bluefin interactions from sets
made while participating in NMFS programs (e.g., shark research
fishery) towards the calculation of bluefin to designated target
species ratios because fishermen fish differently on those trips.
Response: NMFS did not exclude such trips because of the relatively
few
[[Page 71536]]
vessels that might be affected; participation in research programs
could have affected vessels in either a positive or negative manner. In
most instances, minor differences in the amounts of catch of either
target species or bluefin would not likely affect a vessel's allocation
due to the three tiered allocation system (i.e., a range of catch
values is designated to each of the three tiers), and the performance
metric scoring system (based on a range of values). Fishermen that
believe they have been disadvantaged through participation in research
may appeal access and IBQ decisions through the two-stage appeal
process.
Comment 40: NMFS should calculate performance metrics only on the
most recent data available. NMFS needs to revisit criteria for
inclusion--some vessels have hardly fished over the last few years.
Response: NMFS agrees that the inclusion of newer data is
important. In the Predraft and the DEIS, NMFS analyzed and developed
alternatives based on pelagic longline data from 2006 to 2011. NMFS
included an additional year of logbook data (2012) in the FEIS analyses
for each time-area alternative. In the FEIS, the 2006-2012 time period
was chosen because the last significant bluefin fishery management
action was the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, and therefore fishing
behavior from prior to 2006 would have been based on previous
management measures and may not be representative of the current
fishery. The 2006 to 2012 time period is long enough to minimize the
influence of one-time events such as natural or man-made disasters.
NMFS intentionally designed the GRAs to be flexible and allow fishing
vessels that have been affected by short-term events to participate in
the pelagic longline fishery.
The Agency will distribute letters indicating the final performance
metrics and what members of the fishery could expect by the start of
the fishing year. Initial performance metrics will be calculated on the
entire historical time period considered for determining IBQ
allocations. However, in subsequent years, the performance metrics will
be calculated on the previous three years of available data.
Comment 41: NMFS should not base access on history. High bluefin
interactions in one year do not necessarily mean that there will be
high bluefin interactions the following year.
Response: As noted in the response to Comment # 44 NMFS
acknowledges that past performance may not be a perfect indicator of
future performance. However, one of the objectives of the use of
Performance Metrics is to provide incentives for future fishing
behavior that will result in reduced rates of interactions between
pelagic longline gear and bluefin. Although there is variability in
fish distribution and activity from one year to the next, there are
certain vessels that consistently report high interactions with bluefin
tuna through logbooks. As explained in Response to Comment # 38
conditional access based on past performance provides continuing
incentives to avoid bluefin tuna and to comply with relevant reporting
and monitoring requirements.
Comment 42: NMFS should evaluate vessels on the number of
interactions with protected resources (e.g., pilot whales) as part of
the criteria for accessing the Cape Hatteras GRA.
Response: Although Amendment 7 management measures are consistent
with the relevant laws and regulations regarding protected species, the
objectives upon which it is based did not include any specific
objective regarding protected species, and did not include any specific
management measures regarding protected species. Therefore the
commenter's suggestion to incorporate criteria relating to protected
resources is outside of the scope of the Amendment 7. The impacts of
the Amendment 7 measures on protected species are analyzed in this
FEIS.
7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area
Comment 43: NMFS received a large number of comments supporting the
five-month Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA as proposed (DEIS
preferred Alternative). NMFS also received comments suggesting
modifications to the scope and duration of the area, and commented on
whether or not conditional access to the area is appropriate.
Response: The Cape Hatteras area has consistently been a location
where a high number of bluefin interactions with the pelagic longline
fleet have occurred, and was initially identified in the Predraft to
Amendment 7 as a geographic area where a GRA may be warranted.
Responses to the specific suggestions regarding the Cape Hatteras GRA
are below (see responses to comments 43-49. As described in comments 46
and 47, NMFS modified the preferred alternative in the FEIS (the
``Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA'').
Comment 44: Some commenters supported the proposed GRA because
access would be granted to some vessels, while other commenters stated
that NMFS should implement GRAs without conditional access. Commenters
noted that the Agency would be penalizing fishermen for bluefin
interactions (specifically, discards) when there was not previously a
regulation that required bluefin avoidance. Some commenters felt that
the implementation of performance metrics is too severe a management
measure, and fishermen that might be excluded from fishing in the Cape
Hatteras GRA noted that the proposed measures would have severe
economic implications for their businesses. Some commenters only
supported the Cape Hatteras GRA if pelagic longline vessels are allowed
to fish under General category rules in the area.
Response: Analysis of logbook data from 2006 through 2012 indicated
that a relatively low number of vessels were responsible for the
majority of bluefin interactions in the Atlantic. NMFS developed the
concept of conditional access to the GRA in light of this pattern, in
order to incentivize individual fishermen to avoid bluefin tuna, and to
reduce economic impacts to the extent practicable.
A system of conditional access will hold fishermen individually
accountable for their interactions, as opposed to holding the entire
fleet responsible for high interactions by a small number of fishermen.
Because conditional access will be based upon the rate of bluefin tuna
interactions (as well as reporting metrics), the program rules will
provide incentives to all pelagic longline vessels with respect to
bluefin tuna interactions. Specifically, vessels with historically high
bluefin tuna interactions that are not allowed access will have an
incentive to reduce their rate of bluefin interactions if they desire
to fish in the GRA. Conversely, vessels with a relatively low rate of
bluefin interactions that are allowed to fish in the GRA will have an
incentive to continue to avoid bluefin in order to maintain a low rate
of bluefin interactions. In contrast, if all vessels were precluded
from the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount of a
vessel's interactions with bluefin, there would be no incentives with
respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and the scale of potential
economic impacts would be disproportionate to the estimated amount of
reduction in bluefin tuna interactions). No access to the Gulf of
Mexico GRAs was proposed or implemented because the interactions with
bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are more evenly distributed among all of
the vessels fishing there (and not concentrated among a few vessels as
in the area off Cape Hatteras).
Regarding the comment that it is unfair to use past interactions
with
[[Page 71537]]
bluefin as part of the allocation formula because in the past it was
lawful to interact with bluefin tuna: Pelagic longline regulations were
designed to limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna (e.g., target
catch requirements, weak hook requirements). Therefore, it is
appropriate that the IBQ Program implemented by this final rule provide
some benefit in the form of IBQ allocation for vessels that may have
fished in a manner that reduced interactions with, or avoided bluefin
tuna, consistent with the regulations.
NMFS acknowledges that past performance may not be a perfect
indicator of future performance. One of the objectives of the Cape
Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA measure implemented by this final rule is
to provide incentives for future fishing behavior that will result in
reduced rates of interactions between pelagic longline gear and
bluefin. As explained in response to comment # 63 NMFS proposed, but is
not implementing a measure that would have allowed pelagic longline
vessels to fish under the General category rules.
NMFS acknowledges that some vessels could experience economic
hardship due to not having access to the Cape Hatteras GRA. However the
data indicate that there will also be substantial reductions in the
number of bluefin tuna interactions associated with the changes in
fishing behavior (i.e., 34 percent reduction in bluefin discarded, and
6 percent reduction in bluefin kept, fishery-wide) as a result of this
action. The performance metric system is designed to incentivize
fishermen to avoid bluefin tuna and to comply with observer and
reporting requirements. Based on the FEIS analysis, 14 vessels of 135
would not have access to the Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented. NMFS
determined that, after redistribution of effort, there was not a
sizable difference in the number of bluefin kept and discarded between
implementation of the Cape Hatteras GRA without access for any vessels
(-389 fish per year), and implementation of the original Cape Hatteras
GRA with Access Based on Performance (-401 fish per year). The total
economic losses as a result of implementing the proposed Cape Hatteras
GRA for all vessels, the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA with Access Based
on Performance, and the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA with Access Based on
Performance being implemented, after redistribution of effort are -
$893,562; -$301,651; and -$210,956, respectively. NMFS therefore is not
implementing the GRA without access because the measure would result in
a comparable reduction in bluefin interactions, but at nearly quadruple
the cost in estimated economic losses for the pelagic longline fleet.
The additional incentives that the performance metrics regarding
compliance with logbook and observer requirements were also determined
to be important to support the Amendment 7 objective regarding enhanced
reporting and monitoring.
Comment 45: Commenters suggested that NMFS should modify the
proposed Cape Hatteras GRA to include the areas north and east, as well
as southwest of the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, to address possible
redistribution of fishing effort and other areas of moderate to high
bluefin interactions. A commenter requested consideration of a specific
extension of the proposed GRA northward to cover a region with moderate
bluefin interaction in order to prevent increased fishing effort in the
area as a result of redistribution by fishermen whose performance
scores are not high enough to fish in the Cape Hatteras GRA. The
commenter stated that the area could further act as a buffer to protect
migrating bluefin tuna that aggregate there. NMFS also received a
comment suggesting a GRA along the continental shelf between the
Delmarva Peninsula and Georges Banks for the time periods of June
through July, and November through December to complement the preferred
alternatives.
Response: NMFS analyzed the impact of the suggested GRA to the
north of the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA (assuming redistribution of
fishing effort). The suggested extension to the north would result in a
reduction of only 3 bluefin tuna, after redistribution of effort.
Reductions in other species would be minor. While the suggested GRA
would be small in both time and space, it is not anticipated to
contribute much to the goal of reducing bluefin discards. For these
reasons, NMFS considered but did not further analyze or otherwise
include this suggested modification as an alternative in the FEIS.
NMFS also analyzed a GRA along the continental shelf between the
Delmarva Peninsula and Georges Banks for the time periods of June
through July and November through December and determined that the
reduction in effort with redistribution would result in notable
reduction in bluefin interactions (-48 fish/year kept; -310 fish/year
discarded). However, the reductions in target catch would be
substantial (bigeye tuna kept (-977 fish/year); yellowfin tuna kept (-
1,206 fish/year); and the numbers of swordfish kept (-1,118/year)).
That configuration, combined with the Cape Hatteras GRA, would close
the majority of the continental shelf to fishermen that do not meet
performance objectives. These suggested modifications did not achieve
as much reduction in bluefin interactions compared with the reduction
in target catch. Therefore, NMFS but did not include the suggested GRAs
as an alternatives in the FEIS.
Comment 46: The North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources and pelagic longline fishermen commented that NMFS
should omit the southeast corner of the proposed GRA (preferred
alternative in the DEIS) due to the prevailing direction of currents in
this area, and the fact that gear set south or southwest of the Cape
Hatteras GRA would drift into the GRA.
Response: NMFS analyzed additional spatial and temporal
configurations of the Cape Hatteras GRA and determined that little
conservation benefit could be expected from limiting access to this
area and that the associated economic costs were not warranted. NMFS
agrees that the prevailing currents would have effectively closed
productive fishing grounds southwest of the GRA in federal waters off
the coast of central and southern North Carolina. As a result of these
analyses, and considerations, NMFS modified the measure from the
configuration which was proposed to a gear restricted area during the
same months (December through April), but with a slightly different
configuration.
Comment 47: NMFS should consider the potential negative economic
impact on fishermen in the area who do not have access to other fishing
grounds.
Response: The design of the Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented by
this final rule was the result of an iterative process. NMFS analyzed
multiple time periods and geographic areas in order to take into
consideration both the potential reduction in the number of bluefin
interactions and the potential reductions in target catch. The analysis
considered relevant fisheries data, and also oceanographic trends. In
the DEIS, due to current patterns in the Cape Hatteras area, the zone
affected by the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was analyzed beyond
itsexplicit boundaries. Analysis of a buffer region was needed because
vessels to the south and west of the GRA would be prevented from
fishing in these areas because their gear would drift into the GRA
(having the effect of creating a larger affected geographic area that
the boundary of the GRA). The DEIS analysis of impacts not only
considered the reduced fishing effort within the GRA, but also the
reduced fishing effort in a buffer region to the south and west of the
area. NMFS included sets made in this buffer region
[[Page 71538]]
into the redistribution analyses. Based on public comment and
additional analyses, NMFS decided to implement the Modified Cape
Hatteras GRA, which will minimize the adverse impacts on fishing
opportunities while still achieving comparable reductions of bluefin
discards and almost identical conservation and management benefits as
the original proposal.
Comment 48: NMFS should implement a GRA and have various
requirements including mandatory observer coverage, electronic
monitoring, or the use of weak hooks in order to fish the area. Several
commenters suggested that NMFS implement the GRA and only allow access
with 100 percent observer coverage.
Response: Observer coverage is an important tool in monitoring the
pelagic longline fishery. Vessels with access to the Cape Hatteras GRA
will be subject to the same level of observer coverage as the rest of
the pelagic longline fleet. Electronic monitoring is an important
aspect of the new IBQ Program, which includes the GRAs. Under Amendment
7 regulations, any vessel fishing with pelagic longline gear will be
required to have an operational electronic monitoring system onboard.
NMFS did not consider an alternative that would implement new weak hook
requirements for the Atlantic, because we do not presently have data
indicating that such measures would be effective in meeting the
objectives of Amendment 7, given size differentials between fish in the
Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and the current state of research on
the subject.
Comment 49: NMFS should establish communication protocols designed
to help fishermen minimize interactions for the regions of concern
instead of implementing GRAs. One commenter suggested the establishment
of communication protocols, similar to those designed for the Pelagic
Longline Take Reduction Plan, be required within the boundaries of the
Cape Hatteras GRA.
Response: Communication protocols can be valuable and could assist
pelagic longline vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. Captains are already
required to follow a communication protocol for pilot whales in this
area. NMFS believes such a system would work best for bluefin avoidance
if it were voluntary, and had the full support of those involved.
However, in the interest of avoiding bluefin and minimizing the risk of
shutting down the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS strongly encourages
vessel captains to communicate the location of bluefin tuna with each
other.
8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area
Comment 50: A large number of commenters expressed general support
for a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico, while others stated that NMFS should
not implement a GOM GRA, due to the severe economic impact it would
have on the fishery.
Response: Implementation of a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico supports
the achievement of the Amendment 7 objectives. A GRA will, in
conjunction with the other management measures implemented by this
final rule, result in the reduction of dead discards of bluefin tuna by
the pelagic longline fishery. Although implementation of a GRA will
have a negative economic impact on the pelagic longline fishery, the
preferred alternative will have less of an impact than some of the
other alternatives considered and analyzed. As described in more detail
in the responses to comments below, NMFS analyzed a range of
alternatives, and took into account the importance of fishery resources
to fishing communities by analyzing economic and social data. Because
GRAs may result in the reduction and/or redistribution of fishing
effort by pelagic longline gear, the preferred alternative represents a
balance between anticipated reductions in dead discards of bluefin, and
potential negative economic impacts on the pelagic longline fishery.
Furthermore, the preferred alternative will support the broader
objectives of both stock rebuilding as well as the continued viability
of the commercial and recreational fisheries that depend upon bluefin
tuna.
Comment 51: Some commenters supported the Amendment 7 alternative
that would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear throughout the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), year-round, in order to protect spawning
bluefin, and aggregations of bluefin. Some commenters noted the
potential for a gulf-wide closure to reduce injuries and deaths of
protected species such as sea turtles.
Response: NMFS analyzed the biological and socio-economic impacts
of this Alternative, and although prohibition of pelagic longline gear
would eliminate interactions between pelagic longline gear and bluefin
in the Gulf of Mexico, such a prohibition would not minimize the
reductions in target catch (e.g., yellowfin tuna, swordfish) in the
pelagic longline fishery or the and negative economic impacts on the
fishery, both goals consistent with Amendment objectives. The
prohibition of pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ (year
round) would be expected to only result in a 14 percent decrease in the
numbers of bluefin tuna discarded, yet would reduce revenue from
pelagic longline gear by approximately $7.63 million per year, and
affect up to 75 vessels.
NMFS also analyzed the possible effects of the GRA alternatives on
multiple species, including sea turtles. The FEIS contains the results
of the analyses that evaluated the GRA alternatives using
redistribution analyses to ensure that the GRAs would not substantially
increase interactions with sea turtles if fishermen were to
redistribute their effort into open waters of the Atlantic Ocean. These
analyses showed that there would be no net change in the average number
of annual interactions with leatherback or loggerhead sea turtles for
the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, and a reduction of 1 interaction for
these turtles for the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA. NMFS expects
Amendment 7 measures implemented will have a neutral or minor
beneficial impact on protected species as a result of potential impacts
on fishing effort, especially fishing effort associated with pelagic
longline gear.
The fisheries managed under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP
and its amendments have undergone formal and/or informal Section 7
consultation and collectively address the ongoing Atlantic HMS
fisheries. On August 15, 2013, NMFS determined that the proposed
measures in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP would not
require reinitiation of formal consultation. The environmental effects
of the preferred alternatives in this FEIS are substantially the same
as those analyzed in the DEIS, although some different alternatives are
now preferred and two of the alternatives have been slightly modified.
No additional or substantively different effects on listed species are
expected as a result of these changes. For detailed information on
reinitiation of formal Section 7 consultation on HMS fisheries, see the
Classification section.
Comment 52: Some commenters supported the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA,
which would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear from March
through May, while others supported expanding the duration of the Gulf
of Mexico EEZ GRA to include all the months during which bluefin tuna
may be present in the Gulf of Mexico, or suggested specific ranges of
months (e.g., December through June, March through May, March through
August). A large number of commenters felt that a GRA that encompassed
the entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ would better account for variability in
bluefin distribution and areas of spawning
[[Page 71539]]
activity and changing fishing patterns within the fleet. Many
commenters believed that a larger GRA should be implemented instead of
any changes to quota allocations, or felt that the implementation of
such a GRA would eliminate the need for IBQs.
Response: In selecting the preferred alternative, NMFS analyzed the
time and areas in which the highest number of bluefin interactions have
occurred, in order to achieve meaningful reductions in bluefin catch by
pelagic longline gear, but also to minimize the reductions in target
catch. A Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA encompassing the entire Gulf of Mexico
EEZ for the suggested range of months was not justified. First, there
exists an historical pattern of relatively high number of interactions
occurring in particular locations and months. Additionally, a GRA
encompassing the whole of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would have included
locations where there have been relatively few interactions. Similarly,
inclusion of locations with relatively few historical interactions in
the GRA would still preclude fishing with pelagic longline gear in such
locations, increasing the likelihood of additional lost revenue, with
relatively little reduction in bluefin interactions.
Inclusion of months during which there have been relatively few
interactions would preclude fishing opportunity, with relatively little
reduction in bluefin interactions. In Chapter 3 of the FEIS, Table 3.29
presents a breakdown of all bluefin tuna interactions reported in the
HMS Logbook, by month, in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. Although bluefin tuna
were noted year round in the Gulf of Mexico, the data indicated
distinct spatial and temporal patterns. For example, between 2006 and
2012, there were 13, 3, 13, 16, and 13 total bluefin tuna interactions
reported in July, August, September, October, and November,
respectively. In comparison, the months that some comments suggested
for a GRA (March through May) had 266, 498, and 496 total bluefin
interactions in March, April, and May, respectively. NMFS does not
believe that a GRA is warranted at this time during the late summer or
early fall based on the reported numbers of bluefin tuna that occurred
in this area. There is variability in bluefin distribution, and fishing
patterns may change over time. Due to this variability, any specific
GRA that does not cover the whole EEZ year-round may be less effective,
or more effective, at reducing dead discards than the historical data
would indicate. Notwithstanding this variability, a specific GRA
designed using historic information, and encompassing only a portion of
the Gulf of Mexico for specific months is likely to reduce dead
discards over a multi-year time scale. In other words over time there
are consistent patterns in bluefin distribution that may not be
exhibited to the same extent each year. Therefore, a GRA is not likely
to achieve the same level of effectiveness each year, but over time is
expected to achieve reductions in dead discards similar to that
indicated by NMFS' analysis.
In analyzing the Gulf of Mexico closure alternatives in the FEIS,
NMFS also considered the need to gather scientific data from the Gulf
of Mexico longline fishery data for the development of effective
conservation and management measures. A larger GRA for the Gulf of
Mexico EEZ would severely reduce the collection of important data from
the pelagic longline fishery and would increase uncertainty in the
western Atlantic bluefin stock assessment. Gulf of Mexico pelagic
longline data are critical to the development of catch per unit effort
(CPUE) information, which is used as the index of abundance for
spawning bluefin tuna, an important element of the stock assessment for
western Atlantic bluefin tuna. Such uncertainty would make it more
difficult to assess the status of stocks, to set the appropriate
optimum yield and define overfishing levels, and to ensure that optimum
yield is attained and overfishing levels are not exceeded.
NMFS conducted a ``power analysis'' to determine the number of
pelagic longline sets that would be required to maintain the current
level of precision for the CPUE and found that approximately 60 percent
of the recent number of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico
would be required. Although NMFS could transition from using this
fishery dependent data to another data source (i.e., fishery
independent data), it would require several years before a new fishery
independent data source could be used for stock assessment purposes and
an abrupt cessation of the current CPUE data would mean a break in the
time series and increase uncertainty in stock assessment results. NMFS
will continue to explore alternative methods for the collection of
independent data. In contrast to a GRA applicable to the full EEZ, a
GRA in the Gulf of Mexico with a smaller area and short duration will
still be effective in reducing bycatch to the extent practicable and
protecting spawning-sized bluefin while permitting allowable fishing
and the collection of data needed for index of abundance. The size and
duration of the GOM GRA being implemented by this final rule, will not
preclude the collection of the necessary data in support of the stock
assessments, and will reduce bycatch during the spawning season, as
well as augment the IBQ Program in ensuring that catch does not exceed
the quota.
With respect to the relationship between the size of a GRA and
other Amendment 7 alternatives (i.e., IBQs and quota allocation), the
use of multiple management tools will reduce negative economic impacts
on the pelagic longline fishery, as well as achieve the diverse
Amendment 7 objectives in a balanced manner.
Comment 53: Several commenters expressed support for the Small Gulf
of Mexico GRA in the DEIS, which was proposed, but is not being
implemented. A number of comments indicated the Small Gulf of Mexico
GRA was the minimum acceptable size for a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico,
while other commenters did not support the proposed Small Gulf of
Mexico GRA, feeling that NMFS ought to do more to protect bluefin in
the Gulf of Mexico. A large number of commenters requested that the
agency re-evaluate the GRA and identify other alternatives. One
commenter felt the DEIS lacked compelling justification for choosing an
alternative that does not protect all spawners and increases fishing
pressure in critical areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Other commenters felt
that the boundaries encompassed by the Small Gulf of Mexico GRA did not
reflect the best scientific knowledge available. Specific suggestions
included modification of the duration (change, shorten, lengthen, or
include specific months) to cover peak spawning periods or provide a
buffer due to variability in the timing and area of bluefin spawning
activity and longline fishing patterns from year to year. Some
commenters believed the months of the GRA should cover the full bluefin
spawning period. Other commenters suggested that the GRA be extended to
the east or north to encompassed additional known spawning areas, or
extended south to cover areas where large numbers of interactions have
occurred.
Response: As stated in the response to comments 50, 51, and 52,
NMFS analyzed a range of GRA alternatives that encompass a range of
biological and socio-economic impacts, and would achieve various
amounts of reductions in bluefin interactions and result in different
reductions in revenue. As explained above in the response to comments
51 and 52, a complete Gulf of Mexico EEZ closure for a full year or
portion of the year is not warranted
[[Page 71540]]
because a smaller GRA is sufficient to achieve the Amendment 7
objectives and to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent
practicable. Based on public comment, NMFS analyzed the impacts of
additional areas and times in the Gulf of Mexico, not analyzed in the
DEIS, and included 2012 data. As a result of these additional analysis,
and careful consideration of both the biological and socio-economic
impacts, NMFS is implementing the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRAs.
The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs include
most of the geographic area of the GRA that was originally proposed,
but are larger, extending further to the east, and are slightly reduced
in size on the western and northern borders. Additionally, the Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs include a second area
that is adjacent to the southern border of the Desoto Canyon Closed
Area's northwestern `block.'
The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs encompass
additional areas of historic bluefin interaction in the eastern-central
Gulf of Mexico, and address a recent shift in pelagic longline fishing
activity eastward. Between 2009 and 2012, there was a 10 to 20 percent
shift from the Mid-Gulf Louisiana region to the eastern Gulf of Mexico
region. The area defined by the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic
Longline GRAs includes a larger portion of the spawning areas
documented in the peer-reviewed literature at this time, but does not
include all of the known bluefin spawning areas in the GOM for reasons
previously explained. The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic
Longline GRAs will occur during the months of April and May, the same
time period as proposed for the original Small Gulf of Mexico GRA.
NMFS previously regulated large portions of the eastern Gulf of
Mexico through implementation of the DeSoto Canyon closed area,
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Sites, and the Edges closure. The
pelagic longline fleet fishes the continental shelf along the west
coast of Florida between the southern DeSoto Canyon box and the Florida
Keys. However, bluefin interactions in this area are relatively few
compared to the areas evaluated in the FEIS.
Comment 54: One commenter noted that the size of the fishable area
in the Gulf of Mexico is already small, given the constraints on the
locations where they can fish, including existing pelagic longline
closed areas, as well as the areas that must be avoided for other
reasons (e.g., activity range of seismographic vessels, which can
operate for up to six months, and oils rigs).
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRAs being implemented by this final rule will further
reduce the amount of fishable areas in the Gulf of Mexico available for
the use of pelagic longline gear, and that vessels choosing to fish in
the Gulf of Mexico with pelagic longline gear will need to work around
other industrial users of Gulf of Mexico resources. NMFS selected the
boundaries of the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs with careful
consideration of the associated benefits and costs. NMFS optimized the
size of the GRAs being implemented to achieve a meaningful reduction in
dead discards, and still leave fishing grounds open for the pelagic
longline fleet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis in the FEIS (Chapter 6)
considers the impacts of the preferred alternatives in the broader
context of other historical and current activities.
Comment 55: NMFS should consider the impact on the yellowfin tuna
and swordfish fisheries, which are active in the Gulf of Mexico and in
the areas covered by the GRAs. Specifically, the commenter questioned
whether the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fleet would be able to
remain active.
Response: NMFS carefully considered the impact of the Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs on yellowfin and swordfish fisheries, both
of which are robust and healthy fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. The
Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs achieve a balance between
conservation objectives and providing continuing opportunity for the
swordfish and yellowfin tuna fisheries. The primary conservation
objective of the GRAs is to reduce bluefin interactions, and reduce
bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. NMFS compared
among the alternatives the amount of `savings' of bluefin tuna and the
reduction in target catch as part of its analysis of the GRAs. Under
the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA being implemented, the annual
reductions in revenue associated with the reduced catches of swordfish
and yellowfin tuna are estimated at $41,504 and $207,110, respectively.
The annual reduction in total revenue is estimated at $1,793,922. An
example of how the data was compared and alternatives evaluated
follows: Comparing the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA with the
alternative that would restrict the full EEZ for the months of March
through May, the reduction in the weight of bluefin catch would be a
little more than twice as much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt versus 19.2
mt under the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA), but the reduction in
total revenue associated with the EEZ GRA would be more than six times
larger than the reduction in total revenue associated with the Spring
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA ($1,793,922 versus $281,614 under the
Preferred). In other words, compared to the Spring Modified Gulf of
Mexico GRA, the amount of additional costs that would be associated
with the EEZ GRA would be disproportionately greater than the
additional conservation benefits associated with the EEZ GRA. The
Amendment 7 measures are not designed to target a particular amount of
reduction in dead discards, but rather to reduce dead discards in a
meaningful way, provide strong incentives to avoid and reduce bycatch,
and take into account the potential impacts on the pelagic longline
fishery. The combined effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico
Pelagic Longline GRA and the Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline
GRA will reduce the number of bluefin discarded by 40 percent, and the
number of bluefin kept by 10 percent (fishery-wide).
Comment 56: One commenter asked why NMFS did not propose
conditional access to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs, based on performance
metrics, in contrast to the Cape Hatteras GRA, for which access was
proposed. The commenter suggested that performance metrics should be
applied to all GRAs.
Response: NMFS did not propose and is not implementing conditional
access to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs (based on performance metrics) in
part because they would not be as effective in reducing discards of
bluefin tuna in the GOM as they would be in the Atlantic. The fact that
a relatively small number of vessels are responsible for the majority
of bluefin interactions in the Atlantic makes access to the Modified
Cape Hatteras GRA based on performance metrics effective, in order to
reduce dead discards, provide incentives for modifying fishing
behavior, and acknowledge past performance. In contrast, the pattern of
interactions with bluefin tuna in the GOM is different from that in the
Atlantic, with the interactions more evenly distributed among all
vessels (i.e., more vessels responsible for the interactions). NMFS
evaluated the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA using performance
metrics, and applying them, only three vessels out of the 61 that
fished in the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would not have had
access to the GRAs.
[[Page 71541]]
Therefore, the savings from implementing the performance metrics would
be very small, and the resulting ecological impacts would have been
similar to not implementing a GRA at all.
Comment 57: Some commenters felt that NMFS should delineate a GRA
using the same boundaries as the bluefin Habitat Area of Particular
Concern (HAPC).
Response: NMFS determined that the reductions in bluefin tuna
interactions resulting from a Gulf of Mexico GRA that encompasses the
boundaries of the bluefin HAPC would be very similar to the savings
incurred from a GRA drawn encompassing the boundaries of the Gulf of
Mexico EEZ. NMFS therefore did not further evaluate a GRA that was
designed to encompass the boundaries of the HAPC or develop an
alternative around this proposed boundary.
Comment 58: A commenter indicated that he could support a Gulf of
Mexico GRA alternative if the pelagic longline fleet is provided
flexibility through some of the alternatives proposed such as access to
current closed areas, and ability to fish under General Category rules.
Response: As described under the Response to Comments #63, and #64,
access to certain closed areas, and the ability to fish under General
Category rules in certain closed area were proposed but are not being
finalized in this final rule. The measures implemented by Amendment 7
provide flexibility and balance the Amendment 7 objectives to reduce
dead discards, yet also provide fishing opportunity.
Comment 59: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council commented
that NMFS should consider potential impacts on vessels using bottom
longline gear. They were concerned about the synergistic effects of the
pelagic longline and bottom longline regulations on vessels.
Response: The Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs are designed for
the pelagic longline fishery only. Vessels that exclusively use bottom
longline gear would not be affected by the GRAs. Vessels that use both
bottom longline gear and pelagic longline gear during the year would be
impacted, and would likely modify their fishing behavior or business
plan. Bottom longline gear is currently subject to regulations
including time and area restrictions, and is not likely to capture
bluefin tuna due its deployment near the bottom of the ocean.
Comment 60: NMFS should compensate vessels for the time period the
Gulf of Mexico GRAs are in place.
Response: NMFS' authority to assist fishers in this way requires a
determination of a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource
disaster under section 312(a) of the MSA or section 308(b) of the
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, followed by an appropriation from
Congress. Neither of these have occurred.
Comment 61: NMFS should not distinguish between bluefin tuna in the
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic as they are from the same breeding stock.
Response: For the purposes of Amendment 7, NMFS differentiates
between bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico and bluefin tuna in the
Atlantic for the implementation of certain management measures for a
number of reasons. As noted above, the distribution of interactions
across vessels is different between the Gulf of Mexico and the
Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna that interact with pelagic
longline gear are often heavier and older than tuna that interact with
pelagic longline gear in the Atlantic, and are found in spawning
condition during certain months of the year. The pattern of discarding
in the Gulf of Mexico is also very different from the discard pattern
documented in the Atlantic (i.e., larger fish discarded in the Gulf of
Mexico). NMFS does not make such a distinction between Gulf of Mexico
and Atlantic bluefin in the assessment of the bluefin stock. Although
Gulf of Mexico bluefin often migrate up the east coast to feeding
grounds in the northwest Atlantic Ocean, data suggest that some
proportion of fish in the Atlantic are individuals from the eastern
Atlantic and Mediterranean stock, whereas bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico
are predominantly from the western Atlantic stock.
Comment 62: NMFS should examine observer data in addition to
logbook data to estimate bluefin tuna savings; the estimate of savings
in 2010 and 2011 is low because fishing effort was low in those years.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that estimates of savings might be low
in 2010 and 2011 as a result of depressed effort due to the effects of
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. However, estimated savings are
presented as an average from a 7-year period. Interannual variability
is therefore incorporated into the estimation of ecological impacts of
different GRA alternatives. NMFS developed GRA alternatives from HMS
Logbook data because every fisherman must submit logbooks detailing
activity and interactions with all fish kept, discarded alive, and
discarded dead. While extremely useful in estimating dead discards, the
observer program is not a complete census survey of the fishery, and
the extent of observer coverage is not necessarily useful in assessing
ecological or economic effects of GRAs. Furthermore, there is a
percentage of vessels that have not been observed and NMFS determined
that some of these vessels contributed sizable numbers of bluefin
interactions in the Cape Hatteras GRA. NMFS, therefore, decided to base
the estimation of impacts on HMS logbook data.
9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing Under General Category Rules
Comment 63: Some commenters supported the proposed measure to allow
vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear that are not authorized
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, to fish under General
category rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this type of fishing
opportunity as mitigation for the lost opportunity of fishing with
pelagic longline gear in the Cape Hatteras GRA, from December through
April. Some commenters did not support the proposed opportunity for
such vessels to fish under the General category rules for various
reasons. Some asserted that the activity would be a ``dangerous
precedent,'' because limited access vessels would be allowed to fish
under the rules applicable to an open access category, but General
category vessels would not be allowed to fish as a pelagic longline
vessel. Others were concerned about the expansion of a targeted bluefin
fishery in the Cape Hatteras GRA, an area that already has large
numbers of interactions with bluefin. A commenter found it ironic that
vessels not allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear in the Cape
Hatteras GRA (proposed in order to reduce bluefin interactions with
pelagic longline gear) due to their low performance criteria score
would be provided an opportunity to target bluefin tuna. Some noted
concern about the potential impacts on the rate of harvest of the
General category quota, which is limited, and the indirect impacts on
General category vessels. Others noted that the replacement of pelagic
longline gear with handgear (targeting bluefin) is not economically
viable due to the size of the pelagic longline vessels and the
associated trip expenses. A commenter stated that the proposed measure
would facilitate trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline category to
General category vessels. A commenter suggested that all pelagic
longline vessels should be able to fish under the General category
rules, and not only those affected by the GRA.
Response: Based upon public comment and further consideration,
[[Page 71542]]
NMFS is not implementing the management measure that would have allowed
vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear that are not authorized
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras GRA to fish under General
category rules. While this measure would have provided additional
fishing opportunities to pelagic longline vessels without access to the
Cape Hatteras GRA, the differences in fishing costs and productivity
between pelagic longline gear and handgear are great enough that
handgear fishing for bluefin tuna would not be economically viable for
a pelagic longline vessel. Given the unlikely -economic benefits as
well as public perceptions of unfairness, the potential benefits of
allowing vessels to fish under the General category rules do not
outweigh the potential costs and risks associated with this activity.
10. Pelagic Longline Limited Conditional Access to Closed Areas
Comment 64: NMFS received a large number of comments that did not
support the proposed limited conditional access to closed areas for
vessels using pelagic longline gear, for a variety of reasons.
Commenters, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, were foremost concerned about potential negative biological
impacts on swordfish, billfish, and other species, as well as the
indirect negative socio-economic impacts on the recreational fishing
community if there were negative biological impacts. Specifically,
commenters cited the benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East Florida
Coast closed areas contributing to the rebuilding of the swordfish
stock, and the stabilization of the blue and white marlin stocks.
Commenters stated that the biological analysis of the alternative was
inadequate, and one commenter was concerned about the impacts on dusky
sharks. Some commenters supported access, noting the importance of such
access as a means to provide flexibility to pelagic longline vessels in
the context of the IBQ Program restrictions, while others suggested
modifications to the alternative such as allowing the use of electronic
monitoring instead of human observers.
Response: Based upon public comment and further consideration of
potential administrative costs, NMFS is not implementing this
management measure. The potential benefits of allowing pelagic longline
vessels limited conditional access to the closed areas would not
outweigh the potential costs and risks associated with this activity.
The objectives of the proposed measure were to maintain the relevant
conservation aspects of the closure, balance the objectives of the
closures, provide commercial data from within the closures, and provide
additional fishing opportunities for permitted longline vessels
(mitigating the potential negative economic impacts of Amendment 7).
The East Florida Coast, Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon Closed Area
were implemented as part of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on
three objectives: (1) Maximize the reduction in incidental catch of
billfish and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed weight; (2) minimize
the reduction in the target catch of larger swordfish and other
marketable species; and (3) ensure that the incidental catch of other
species (e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and turtles) either remains
unchanged or is reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS recognized that all
three objectives might not be met to the maximum extent and that
conflicting outcomes would require some balancing of the objectives.
There are data that supports the assertion that the closed areas have
contributed to the achievement of their objectives, in concert with
other management measures. NMFS provides an annual review of the
potential effectiveness of the current suite of management measures,
including closed areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual SAFE report
for HMS. Although this review does not isolate and quantify the
effectiveness of closed areas as a separate management tool, the
estimated reductions in discards of swordfish, blue marlin, white
marlin, sailfish, and spearfish, as a result of all management
measures, have remained consistently high (-50 to -70 percent),
suggesting that the current suite of international and domestic
management measures have played a significant role in allowing the
United States to reduce its bycatch interactions. Given the likely
benefits of the closed areas, the difficulty in determining the precise
magnitude of the benefits of the closed areas in the context of other
management measures, as well as the difficulty predicting the potential
impacts that access to closed areas would have, NMFS believes that
there is uncertainty whether in fact the first objective of the
alternative (maintain relevant conservation aspects of the closure)
would be met. The access to closed areas alternative did not include
defined bycatch limits, but would have relied upon the assumption that
low levels of fishing effort is sufficient to prevent excessive
bycatch. Furthermore, there would be administrative costs associated
with the access program. Therefore, the benefits associated with
providing additional fishing opportunities (by providing access) would
not outweigh the costs in terms of the risk of undermining the
conservation benefits of the closed areas. With respect to providing
commercial data from within the closures, as stated previously, NMFS
may obtain data from within the closures through the use of exempted
fishing permits.
11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline Transiting Closed Areas
Comment 65: The North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources supported the preferred alternative (Alternative E8)
to allow transiting of closed areas by vessels possessing bottom or
pelagic longline gear.
Response: Allowing HMS vessels that possess bottom or pelagic
longline gear on board to transit closed areas provided they remove and
stow the gangions, hooks (unbaited), and buoys from the mainline and
drum would reduce potential economic costs associated with indirect
routes of travel (more time at sea and more fuel, etc.) as well as
reduce potential safety-at-sea issues.
12. Gear-Based Measures
Comment 66: Authorizing buoy gear to be used by Swordfish
Incidental permit holders to catch swordfish (Alternative B2b) and
authorizing the harvest of bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack
tunas (`BAYS') with buoy gear by Swordfish Directed and Incidental
permit holders (Alternative B2c) would reduce dead discards in a direct
manner and should be supported.
Response: Buoy gear used in and near the Florida Straits has been
shown to be efficient at catching swordfish with a relatively low
bycatch rate. However, due to a lack of data, it is unknown what the
catch and bycatch of buoy gear would be when used to target swordfish
at night in other areas of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
Caribbean, and high seas or to target BAYS tunas in these areas during
daylight hours. This lack of information makes assessing an expansion
in the use of buoy gear for swordfish or tunas difficult, especially
considering the potential to interact with adult bluefin tuna in the
Gulf of Mexico, other HMS such as billfishes, or protected species in
areas such as off the Outer Banks of North Carolina (as an example).
NMFS is not implementing alternatives B2b or B2c because of the lack of
available information needed to assess the ecological impacts of
expanded buoy gear use when used to
[[Page 71543]]
target swordfish or BAYS tunas. NMFS will continue to assess additional
information as it becomes available and may re-evaluate buoy gear
fishery regulations in the future.
Comment 67: Pelagic longline fishermen should use more selective
fishing gears such as greenstick gear and buoy gear and part of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill restoration funds should be used to help
pelagic longline fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico make this transition.
No financial hardship for fishing gear transition conducted as part of
oil spill restoration efforts should fall upon affected fishers.
Response: This final rule does not implement a management measure
that would require vessels to transition from pelagic longline to
greenstick gear or buoy gear. However, under specific fishing permits,
greenstick gear is currently authorized to fish for Atlantic tunas and
buoy gear is authorized to fish for swordfish. Fishermen may utilize
any legal fishing gear as authorized under the valid permits that are
on their vessel when used in accordance with applicable regulations.
Fishermen may change fishing gears in accordance with applicable
regulations. ``Prohibition of the Use of Pelagic Longline Gear in the
HMS Fishery'' is an alternative in the FEIS characterized as
``Considered but Not Analyzed Further'', because it would not provide a
balanced approach to achieving the Amendment 7 objectives or be
consistent with the provisions of the MSA. Amendment 7 management
measures provide incentives for vessels to transition from pelagic
longline gear to greenstick or buoy gear, but do not mandate such a
transition.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorizes certain federal agencies,
states, and Native American tribes, collectively known as the Natural
Resource Trustees (trustees), to evaluate the impacts of oil spills on
natural resources and recreation, and to plan restoration projects to
fully offset those impacts. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon oil
spill, NOAA is one of the nine trustees responsible for jointly
conducting this process, which is known as a Natural Resource Damage
Assessment (NRDA). Throughout the Deepwater Horizon oil spill NRDA
process, the trustees have conducted multiple public comment periods
and dozens of public meetings throughout the Gulf Coast states intended
to gather input on the public's preferred approaches to natural
resource restoration. The most recent public comment period related to
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill restoration planning concluded on
February 19, 2014. Throughout the NRDA process, the trustees have
invited comments on broad types of restoration projects, as well as
specific projects. In addition to accepting verbal comments at public
meetings, the trustees have accepted comments and ideas by U.S. Mail,
email to nrda.projects@noaa.gov, and via the Internet via
www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov. As part of their ongoing commitment
to maximum transparency, the NRDA trustees have posted input gathered
during these public comment periods online at
http:[sol][sol]www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration/give-us-
your-ideas/view-submitted-projects/. The NRDA trustees also continue to
accept project ideas from the public by mail and via
http:[sol][sol]www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration/give-us-
your-ideas/suggest-a-restoration-project/. During the NRDA process, the
trustees have received suggestions that restoration project funds help
pelagic longline fishermen transition to greenstick and buoy gear.
13. General Comments About Individual Bluefin Quotas
Comment 68: Commenters supported implementation of the IBQ system
in order to hold vessels accountable and provide incentives to reduce
discards. Commenters noted that NMFS should provide some flexibility in
the IBQ system, particularly in the short-term, to ensure that vessels,
and especially small vessels, are able to adapt to the new restrictions
and the overall program is successful. Commenters urged NMFS to
continue to support the pelagic longline swordfish fishery, which is
important for multiple reasons.
Response: Implementation of the IBQ system will increase the
responsibility and accountability of individual vessels, and the
pelagic longline fishery as a whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As
explained in detail in the responses to more specific comments below,
the IBQ system implemented by this final rule is designed to provide a
reasonable and effective means of reducing dead discards, increasing
accountability, and maintaining a viable pelagic longline fishery. The
management measures are intended to provide flexibility at the level of
the individual vessel, and in the quota system as a whole, so that the
fishery can operate under the challenges of a substantially new
regulatory structure. Furthermore, the fishery must be able to adapt on
a continuing basis to the variability of highly migratory species, and
changing ecological conditions.
Individual pelagic longline vessels have the flexibility to change
their fishing practices through modification of fishing behavior
(including time, location and methods of fishing, and the use of non-
longline gear); increasing communication within the fishery to
facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing of individual bluefin quota.
Under Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide additional flexibility by
allocating additional quota to the Longline category, as described in
the response to Comments 18 and 19.
Comment 69: Some commenters stated that NMFS should consider some
of the broad questions such as what will happen when the bluefin stock
grows, which may lead to more dead discards; what about unintended
consequences of the IBQ system such as creating a directed fishery; and
what will happen to a vessel if they have an atypically large BFT catch
event (also known as a ``disaster set'')?
Response: As the bluefin stock size continues to grow, the total
number of interactions between the pelagic longline fleet and bluefin
tuna may increase. However, the relative amount of dead discards by
pelagic longline vessels (e.g., percentage of total catch) may be a
better way to evaluate a trend in the amount of dead discards rather
than the absolute number. A second important metric of success of the
IBQ Program will be whether the catch of bluefin by the Longline
category exceeds the Longline category quota. Amendment 7 management
measures are expected to reduce the percentage of bluefin catch that is
comprised of discards (which from 2006 to 2012, ranged from 61 to 75
percent of the Longline bluefin catch), and prevent the catch of
bluefin by pelagic longline vessels from exceeding the Longline
category quota.
The IBQ Program will not create a directed fishery for bluefin by
the pelagic longline fleet. Although pelagic longline vessels will be
allocated bluefin quota and be able to derive revenue from the sale of
legal-sized bluefin tuna, the quota share of bluefin tuna for each
vessel is a relatively small percentage of the Longline category quota.
Based on the size of recent Longline category quotas, individual
vessels will be allocated the equivalent of between 2 and 13 bluefin
tuna per year (depending upon the specific quota share percentage and
whether the bluefin is a Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic bluefin). Due to
the relatively small bluefin quota allocation per vessel, the
requirement to utilize quota to account for both dead discards and
landings, the requirement to have a minimum amount of quota to depart
on a fishing trip using pelagic longline gear, and the cost
[[Page 71544]]
associated with leasing additional quota, there will be strong economic
disincentives to target bluefin.
If a vessel catches an atypically large number of bluefin tuna
(i.e., a ``disaster set''), Amendment 7 measures will allow the vessel
to retain and sell all legal-sized bluefin, but prohibit the vessel
from departing on a subsequent trip using pelagic longline gear until
all the bluefin has been accounted for by leasing additional quota from
another permitted vessel owner with quota allocation. This restriction
will create a strong economic incentive to avoid bluefin tuna in order
to not exceed individual bluefin quota. Furthermore, if the vessel in
such circumstances holds quota share and at the end of the year would
otherwise be eligible to receive quota share for the subsequent fishing
year, the quota debt would be settled by deducting quota from the
subsequent year's quota allocation. The quota debt would persist from
one year to the next until settled.
Under Amendment 7 measures, NMFS may also consider transferring
quota from the Reserve category to the Longline category, to make quota
available for the fishery as a whole. With the exception of quota in
support of research (e.g., an Exempted Fishing Permit), NMFS may
allocate additional quota to the Longline category as a whole via a
disbursement of quota to eligible vessels via the IBQ Program for the
purpose of accounting for bluefin catch. Under Amendment 7, NMFS'
review of the IBQ Program after 3 years of operation will include
anevaluation of the question of whether the IBQ system adequately
addresses large catch events.
Comment 70: Some commenters had concerns about the legality of the
IBQ Program and argued that NMFS should consider the legality of
``diminishing a vessel's opportunity to catch its quota.'' Commenters
stated that NMFS should not give a public resource to individuals for
their financial benefit, and that the pelagic longline fishery should
not profit from bluefin, but proceeds should be used for other programs
and research.
Response: Allocation of fishery resources to individual entities
under a catch share program is legal under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The IBQ Program includes an allocated privilege of catching a specified
portion of the total annual bluefin quota in the form of quota shares.
IBQ shares are not property, but are a privilege to an amount of fish
in a given year that can be renewed or revoked. Although pelagic
longline vessel owners/operators may derive revenue from the sale of
bluefin, bluefin is not expected to become a large proportion of their
total revenue due to the low amount of bluefin quota and the other
elements of the IBQ Program. Measures throughout the Amendment were
specifically implemented to ensure that the pelagic longline BFT catch
remains an incidental fishery, not a directed fishery. Although the
management measures do not require a portion of the revenue from the
sale of bluefin by Longline category vessels to fund research, NMFS may
utilize bluefin quota from the Reserve category in support of relevant
research.
Comment 71: A commenter stated that, in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS
should limit catch using gear restrictions and the use of alternative
gears instead of IBQs. Some commenters noted that NMFS should separate
Gulf of Mexico quota from Atlantic quota.
Response: A discussion of alternative gears is provided in the
response to Comments 66 and 67. Alternative gears alone are unlikely to
provide the same benefits of the IBQ Program, which will limit total
catch and provide accountability at the level of individual vessels.
The IBQ management measures include a provision that designates quota
share as either Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic, and prohibits the use of
Atlantic quota in the Gulf of Mexico to prevent potential increases in
the relative amount of bluefin caught in the Gulf of Mexico.
Comment 72: Several commenters had concerns or made suggestions
regarding some of the specific aspects of the design of the IBQ Program
that are not among the principal design elements. These comments were
as follows: NMFS should implement strict enforcement and fines
associated with the IBQ system; the annual distribution of quota should
take place in time for the January 1 start of the fishing year; NMFS
should not allow quota to carryforward from year to year; NMFS should
not allow vessels to land and sell bluefin without sufficient quota;
money from the sale of bluefin should be put in escrow until quota is
purchased to account for all catch, and; NMFS should not implement the
IBQ system because it is too complex.
Response: Enforcement is an important aspect of ensuring the
effectiveness of any regulatory program. New management tools such as
the preferred electronic monitoring will augment NMFS' ability to
effectively enforce the regulations.
On an annual basis, IBQ allocation will be distributed to eligible
permit holders in time for vessels to begin fishing on January 1.
Adjustments to the IBQ allocations may occur, but are not limited to
changes in ICCAT recommendations, inseason actions, or NMFS' annual
adjustment authority.
Under this final rule, if an eligible permit holder has been
awarded IBQ allocation and does not fully utilize that IBQ allocation
(i.e., account for bluefin caught, or leases the IBQ allocation to
another eligible participant) during the year, and has a balance of
quota at the end of the year, the quota would not carry forward into
the subsequent year as IBQ in association with a particular permit.
However, based on the unused IBQ allocation associated with individual
vessels, NMFS would calculate the total amount of unused IBQ allocation
for the Longline category as a whole, and carry that quota forward (or
a portion of that quota) as allowed under ICCAT into the subsequent
fishing year. U.S. bluefin quota that is allowed to be carried forward
from one year to the next will be placed in the Reserve category and
may be reallocated to any/all domestic quota categories.
Under Amendment 7, pelagic longline vessel operators will be able
to land and sell any legal-sized retained bluefin, in order to maintain
full accountability, retain flexibility to accommodate variable bluefin
catches, and to provide incentives to retain rather than discard fish.
Although a vessel operator may land and sell bluefin in excess of their
quota, they may not depart on a subsequent trip using pelagic longline
gear until the fish have been fully accounted for with quota
allocation. The revenue derived from the sale of the bluefin will
facilitate the ability of a vessel owner to lease additional quota. If,
at the end of the year, they have not paid the `quota debt' with
additional quota (obtained through leasing), the balance of quota owed
will be `paid' for from the subsequent year's allocation or the vessel
will be prohibited from fishing with pelagic longline gear. The vessel
owner is fully accountable.
In contrast, a system in which a vessel operator must place the
revenue from the sale of a bluefin in escrow until they account for the
fish with quota (as suggested by a commenter) is a more complex system
that would provide a stronger incentive to discard bluefin, impose
additional administrative burdens, and would not provide the
flexibility a vessel operator may need. If while still at sea the
vessel operator catches more bluefin than they have quota,, there would
be more incentive to discard the fish because the vessel owner would
face the uncertainty of whether they would be able to lease quota (and
at what price) and the operator would be uncertain whether or not any
revenue could be derived from
[[Page 71545]]
the sale of the bluefin. If the revenue were to be placed in escrow,
the vessel operator may have insufficient revenue to lease additional
quota allocation, and therefore the system itself would be an
impediment to the operation of a leasing market. Additionally, there
would be questions associated with an escrow requirement such as: If
the vessel operator is unable to lease additional quota, and forfeited
the revenue, would the vessel still be responsible for accounting for
the bluefin, (i.e., would the `quota debt' remain with the vessel into
the following year), even though the vessel owner never obtained any
revenue from the fish?
Although the IBQ Program will result in a more complex management
system than currently exists, NMFS has minimized complexity in the
design of the preferred management measures (including the IBQ
Program), and has noted examples in the Response to Comments. While
this is first catch share program for Atlantic HMS fisheries, the
elements and approach of the Amendment 7 IBQ Program are similar to
that of the many successful catch share programs currently in operation
in the United States. NMFS will educate the public regarding the
program, and provide the public with ongoing access to the information
to facilitate the smooth operation of the preferred IBQ Program and
enhance transparency.
Comment 73: Commenters noted that NMFS did not pr