Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; Pelagic Longline Fishery Management, 18812-18843 [2020-06925]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 64 (Thursday, April 2, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18812-18843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06925]



[[Page 18811]]

Vol. 85

Thursday,

No. 64

April 2, 2020

Part VI





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





50 CFR Part 635





Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; 
Pelagic Longline Fishery Management; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 18812]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 200330-0091]
RIN 0648-BI51


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna 
Fisheries; Pelagic Longline Fishery Management

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final action will undertake a review process to collect 
and review data to evaluate the continued need for the Northeastern 
United States Closed Area and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area; remove the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area; and adjust the 
Gulf of Mexico gear requirements to shorten the duration of required 
weak hook use from year-round to seasonal (January-June). NMFS has 
adopted a suite of measures to manage bluefin tuna bycatch in the 
pelagic longline fishery for Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS), 
including mandatory weak hook use, time/area closures, gear restricted 
areas, and electronic monitoring and the Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) 
Program adopted in 2015 through Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP. However, quotas for target species have continued to be 
significantly underharvested and available IBQ allocation remains 
unused at the end of each year, indicating that all of the measures in 
tandem may not be necessary to appropriately limit incidental catch of 
bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery and may not best achieve 
other management objectives, such as allowing fishermen a reasonable 
opportunity to harvest available quotas. These actions will ensure that 
conservation obligations are met and that bluefin bycatch continues to 
be minimized, but in a way that is not unnecessarily restrictive of 
pelagic longline fishery effort.

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) containing a 
list of references used in this document is available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/pelagic-longline-bluefin-tuna-area-based-and-weak-hook-management-measures. The Western Atlantic bluefin 
tuna stock assessment is available on the website for the International 
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) at https://www.iccat.int/en/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Cockrell at (301) 427-8503, or 
Jennifer Cudney or Randy Blankinship at (727) 824-5399.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Atlantic HMS are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 
as amended, and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). The Magnuson-
Stevens Act, at 16 U.S.C. 1802(21), defines the term ``highly migratory 
species'' as ``tuna species, marlin (Tetrapturus spp. and Makaira 
spp.), oceanic sharks, sailfishes (Istiophorus spp.), and swordfish 
(Xiphias gladius).'' The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments 
are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. A summary of the 
background of this final rule is provided below. Additional information 
regarding bluefin tuna and pelagic longline fishery management can be 
found in the FEIS and proposed rule (84 FR 33205; July 12, 2019) 
associated with this rulemaking, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 
amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 
(SAFE) Reports, and online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.
    This rulemaking examined the continued need for several existing 
management measures related to the incidental catch of bluefin tuna in 
the pelagic longline fishery given implementation and the effects of 
the IBQ Program. A 1998 Recommendation by ICCAT to establish a 
Rebuilding Program for Western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Rec. 98-07) 
required that all Contracting Parties, including the United States, 
minimize dead discards of bluefin tuna to the extent practicable and 
set a country-specific dead discard allowance. Given the status of 
bluefin tuna and recommendations from ICCAT at that time, NMFS 
investigated a range of different time/area options for potential 
management measures in locations with high bluefin tuna bycatch through 
the rulemaking process for the 1999 HMS FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Sharks, 
and Swordfish (64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999). In the final rule for that 
FMP, NMFS implemented the Northeastern United States Closed Area based, 
in part, on a redistribution analysis (referred to as a ``disbursement 
analysis'' in the FEIS for that rule) that showed that a closure during 
the month of June could reduce bluefin tuna discards by 55 percent in 
this area, without any substantial changes to target catch or other 
bycatch levels. This area, located off the coast of New Jersey, has 
been closed from June 1 through June 30 each year. Considerable fishing 
effort has been occurring on the outer seaward edges of the closed area 
for the past 20 years.
    From 2007-2010, NMFS conducted research on the use of weak hooks by 
pelagic longline vessels operating in the Gulf of Mexico to reduce 
bycatch of spawning bluefin tuna. A weak hook is a circle hook that 
meets NMFS' hook size and offset restrictions for the pelagic longline 
fishery. Weak hooks are constructed of round wire stock that is a 
thinner gauge (i.e., no larger than 3.65 mm in diameter) than the 
circle hooks otherwise used in the pelagic longline fishery. Weak hooks 
straighten to release large fish, such as bluefin tuna, when they are 
caught, while retaining smaller fish, such as swordfish and other 
tunas. Research results showed that the use of weak hooks can 
significantly reduce the amount of bluefin tuna caught by pelagic 
longline vessels. Some reductions in the amount of target catch of 
yellowfin tuna and swordfish were noted but were not statistically 
significant. In 2011, a large year class (2003) of bluefin tuna was 
approaching maturity and was expected to enter the Gulf of Mexico to 
spawn for the first time. Consistent with the advice of the ICCAT 
Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) that ICCAT may 
wish to protect the strong 2003 year class until it reaches maturity 
and can contribute to spawning, and for other stated objectives, NMFS, 
in a final rule on Bluefin Tuna Bycatch Reduction in the Gulf of Mexico 
Pelagic Longline Fishery, implemented mandatory use of weak hooks on a 
year-round basis to reduce bycatch of bluefin tuna (76 FR 18653; April 
5, 2011). Weak hooks have since been required for vessels fishing in 
the Gulf of Mexico that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that 
have been issued, or are required to have been issued, a swordfish, 
shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category limited access permit (LAP) 
for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf 
of Mexico.
    In 2015, Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMP FMP (79 FR 71510; 
December 2, 2014) implemented the Gulf of Mexico and Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Areas. These gear restricted areas were designed based on 
the identification of areas with relatively high bluefin interaction 
rates with

[[Page 18813]]

pelagic longline gear (see page 29 of the Amendment 7 FEIS), and were 
implemented to address incidental catch of bluefin tuna in the pelagic 
longline fishery The Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, which 
consists of two areas in the central and eastern Gulf of Mexico, is 
closed to pelagic longline gear from April 1 through May 31 annually. 
This coincides with the peak of the spawning season for bluefin in the 
Gulf of Mexico. The time and location were also selected to reduce 
bluefin interactions based on past patterns of interactions with the 
pelagic longline fishery. The Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area was closed to all vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard 
(unless the gear is properly stowed), rather than using performance-
based criteria for access, because the distribution of interactions was 
more widespread across both the areas and fishery participants.
    The Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, established off the coast 
of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina is effective each year from December 1 
through April 30. While the area encompassed by the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area had a high level of bluefin interactions, the majority 
of those interactions were by only a few pelagic longline vessels. Due 
to this dynamic, NMFS implemented performance measures to grant 
``qualified'' fishery participants access to the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area provided they meet specific criteria. Access is granted 
based on an annual assessment of pelagic longline vessels using 
performance-based metrics. Pelagic longline vessels are evaluated on 
their ratio of bluefin interactions to designated species landings, 
compliance with the Pelagic Observer Program, and timely submission of 
logbooks. Designated target species include swordfish, the ``BAYS'' 
tunas (bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas), pelagic sharks 
(shortfin mako, thresher, and porbeagle), dolphin, and wahoo. For the 
2019-2020 effective period of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, 
70 out of 89 vessels evaluated were granted access to the area based on 
these metrics.
    In 2015, Amendment 7 reconfigured the management and allocation of 
bluefin tuna quota, and shifted the focus of managing bluefin bycatch 
in the HMS pelagic longline fishery from fishery-wide management 
measures to individual vessel accountability through the implementation 
of a bluefin tuna catch share program (i.e., the Individual Bluefin 
Quota, or IBQ, Program). The IBQ Program distributes IBQ allocation 
(i.e., an amount of bluefin quota, expressed as a weight in pounds or 
metric tons) that may be used to account for landings and dead discards 
by fishery participants, with the annual initial distribution based on 
the IBQ share percentage associated with an eligible Atlantic Tunas 
Longline permit. NMFS recently published the Three-Year Review of the 
IBQ Program, which concluded that the IBQ Program has met or exceeded 
expectations with respect to reducing bluefin interactions and dead 
discards in the pelagic longline fishery, improved timely catch 
reporting across the fleet, and addressed previous problems with 
Longline category quota overages. The Three-Year Review of the IBQ 
Program also noted that a healthy, functioning IBQ allocation leasing 
market exists to support the IBQ Program. However, the Three-Year 
Review also found that effort--as defined by the number of vessels, 
trips, sets, and hooks within the pelagic longline fishery--has 
continued to decrease. The Three-Year Review of the IBQ Program noted 
that it is difficult to separate out the effects of the IBQ Program 
from other factors, including the effect of swordfish imports on the 
market for U.S. product, other regulations such as closed and gear 
restricted areas, as well as target species availability/price.
    This rulemaking began with a scoping process to identify issues to 
be addressed related to the management of Atlantic HMS in March 2018. 
As IBQ Program implementation progressed, and with early signs of its 
success at limiting bluefin tuna interactions and catch in the pelagic 
longline fishery, NMFS received comments from pelagic longline fishery 
participants and other interested parties suggesting that NMFS examine 
whether fleet-wide measures intended to reduce bycatch (such as gear 
requirements, area restrictions, or time/area closures) remained 
necessary to effectively manage the Longline category quota and bluefin 
tuna bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery. Commenters (including the 
public and HMS Advisory Panel members) specifically requested that NMFS 
evaluate ways to potentially reduce regulatory burden or remove 
regulations that may have been rendered redundant with implementation 
of the IBQ Program. On March 2, 2018, NMFS published a Notice of Intent 
in the Federal Register to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement and to undertake a public process to identify the scope of 
issues to be addressed related to the management of Atlantic HMS (83 FR 
8969). The Notice of Intent included a request for comments on area-
based and weak hook management measures implemented to reduce discards 
of, and interactions with, bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline 
fishery. Concurrent with the Notice of Intent, NMFS published a scoping 
document (available at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/pelagic-longline-bluefin-tuna-area-based-and-weak-hook-management-measures), 
accepted public comments, and hosted five scoping meetings between 
March 1 and May 30, 2018, to obtain public feedback. The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) published the notice of availability for the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on May 17, 2019 (84 FR 
22492), and NMFS published a proposed rule on July 12, 2019 (84 FR 
33205). The DEIS and proposed rule identified and analyzed 14 
alternatives that would either retain, modify, or remove certain 
management measures, including the Northeastern United States Closed 
Area, Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area, and Gulf of Mexico weak hook requirements. NMFS 
subsequently published a correction notice (August 8, 2019; 84 FR 
38918) to address some minor errors in the description two preferred 
alternatives, and a notice announcing an additional hearing in 
Gloucester, MA (August 30, 2019; 84 FR 45734). In addition to the 
Advisory Panel meeting, NMFS hosted five public hearings and two 
webinars on the DEIS and the proposed rule. The comment period closed 
on September 30, 2019. The comments received on the DEIS and the 
proposed rule, and responses to those comments, are summarized below in 
the section labeled ``Responses to Comments.''
    This final rule implements the measures preferred and analyzed in 
the FEIS for this rulemaking in order to: (1) Continue to minimize, to 
the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna 
and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear consistent with the 
conservation and management objectives (e.g., prevent or end 
overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, manage Atlantic HMS fisheries 
for continuing optimum yield) of the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS 
FMP, its amendments, and all applicable laws; (2) simplify and 
streamline Atlantic HMS management, to the extent practicable, by 
reducing any redundancies in regulations established to reduce bluefin 
tuna interactions that apply to the pelagic longline fishery; and (3) 
optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fishery to harvest target

[[Page 18814]]

species quotas (e.g., swordfish), to the extent practicable, while also 
considering fairness among permit/quota categories. The FEIS analyzed 
the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the human environment as 
a result of the preferred management measures. The Notice of 
Availability for the FEIS, including the preferred management measures, 
was published in the Federal Register on January 24, 2020 (85 FR 4320). 
On March 30, 2020, the Assistant Administrator for NOAA signed a Record 
of Decision (ROD) adopting these measures. The FEIS, which includes 
detailed analyses of a reasonable range of alternatives to meet 
rulemaking objectives, is available on the HMS Management Division 
website (see ADDRESSES). This final rule implements the preferred 
alternatives identified in the FEIS. In the FEIS, NMFS divided the 
alternatives into the following four broad categories for 
organizational clarity and to facilitate effective review: Northeastern 
United States Closed Area, Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, Spring 
Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, and Gulf of Mexico Weak Hook. NMFS 
considered 14 alternatives within these categories in the FEIS and is 
implementing four measures (one in each category).
    In developing the final measures, NMFS considered public comments 
received on the proposed rule for this action, comments received at HMS 
Advisory Panel meetings, other conservation and management measures 
that have been implemented in HMS fisheries since 2006 that have 
affected relevant fisheries and bycatch issues, and public comments 
received during scoping on the Issues and Options paper for this 
rulemaking (83 FR 8969; March 2, 2018), including comments provided at 
HMS Advisory Panel meetings.
    The final rule implements the following preferred alternatives 
identified in the FEIS:

--Conversion of the Northeastern United States Closed Area and the 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area to monitoring areas, and 
establishes a three-year evaluation period during which fishing is 
initially allowed at times when these areas were previously closed 
to pelagic longline fishing provided the amount of IBQ allocation 
used to account for bluefin catch from sets made within these areas 
stays below a specified threshold;
--Elimination of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area; and
--Modification of the requirement to use weak hooks in the Gulf of 
Mexico from a year-round requirement to a seasonal (January-June) 
requirement.

    In response to public comment on this proposed rule, NMFS made two 
clarifying changes to the measures as finalized. The Northeastern 
United States Closed Area and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area are changed to ``Monitoring Areas'' and initially allow pelagic 
longline vessels to fish in the areas under a set of controlled 
conditions during an evaluation period. NMFS has added a clarifying 
provision to address what would happen if the ICCAT quota changes. If 
the ICCAT western Atlantic bluefin tuna quota were to decrease, the 
final rule specifies that NMFS would adjust the threshold downward to 
an equivalent threshold level. If the quota increases, the threshold 
would remain the same. A second minor clarification is made concerning 
the timing of inseason closure notices that could occur in response to 
the Monitoring Area thresholds being met. These changes are described 
in greater detail in the section titled ``Changes from the Proposed 
Rule.'' For quota-managed stocks, including western Atlantic bluefin 
tuna and North Atlantic swordfish, the measures in this final rule 
would not affect or alter the science-based quotas for the stocks. Any 
action considered in the alternatives and finalized in this rule would 
manage stocks within these already-established levels. For these 
stocks, NMFS previously implemented the quotas through rulemaking with 
the appropriate environmental analyses of the effects of quota 
implementation. While some increases in catch in the pelagic longline 
fishery may occur, any such increases would be within previously-
analyzed quotas and would be consistent with other management measures 
that appropriately conserve the stocks. Other measures established in 
2015 in Amendment 7 regarding the amount of quota and IBQ allocation 
available to the Longline category, regional IBQ allocation 
designations, and inseason quota transfers among categories, among 
other things, remain unchanged. The rule only affects the time, place, 
and manner in which established quotas may be caught.

Response to Comments

    Approximately 11,460 comments, many of which were form letter 
campaign submissions, were submitted to NMFS, including comments from 
the EPA, the Department of the Interior, and the State of Florida. Many 
of the comments submitted to NMFS concerned the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Gear Restricted Area. While some constituent groups supported the 
proposed action to undertake a review process to evaluate the continued 
need for these management measures, many of the commenters were 
concerned that any change in management of the area could lead to 
negative impacts to spawning bluefin tuna. NMFS received similar 
comments about changing the management of the Northeastern United 
States Closed Area. In general commenters supported the removal of 
regulations associated with the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, and 
the modification of the Gulf of Mexico weak hook requirement to a 
seasonal requirement. All written comments can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/ by searching for ``0648-BI51.'' NMFS included a 
preliminary Response to Comments in Appendix F of the FEIS and the 
responses below refer to the analyses and Preferred Alternatives in the 
FEIS. The FEIS can be accessed at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/pelagic-longline-bluefin-tuna-area-based-and-weak-hook-management-measures for cross references.

General Rulemaking Comments

    Comment 1: NMFS received comments in favor of and in opposition to 
the implementation of changes to gear restricted areas. Commenters 
supported changing the gear restricted areas to monitoring areas for a 
variety of reasons, such as collecting more data to determine a future 
action, and balancing the objective of protecting bluefin tuna and 
optimizing the harvest of target species. Other commenters opposed 
changes to the gear restricted areas because existing management 
measures have been effective at reducing bluefin tuna dead discards 
that they characterize as having led to a recent rebound of the bluefin 
stock and should be kept in place. Commenters opposed to changes in the 
gear restricted area also noted that the International Union for the 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has identified bluefin as a ``critically 
endangered'' species. Commenters opposed to the evaluation processes 
described under Preferred Alternatives A4 and C3 noted that if the 
threshold is not met during the review process for the monitoring areas 
(and thus the area would not be closed for the following year), the 
process does not allow for other responsive action if needed. Some 
commenters noted that fisheries regulations should be based on the best 
available science to facilitate continued recovery. Other commenters 
felt that NMFS should not implement any measures that would increase 
bluefin mortality on the spawning grounds.
    Response: NMFS agrees that existing management measures such as the 
gear restricted areas and weak hooks have been effective at reducing 
bluefin tuna interactions and dead discards but also notes that 
available quota for pelagic

[[Page 18815]]

longline fishery target species has gone unharvested under the current 
management measures and that the fishery has caught well below the 
available IBQ allocation each year since Amendment 7's implementation. 
NMFS agrees that the actions in this final rule, which implement the 
FEIS preferred alternatives, are consistent with balancing the 
objectives of this rulemaking. NMFS agrees with commenters that it is 
important to collect additional data to help inform any potential 
future action for certain spatially managed areas that have been closed 
for extended periods of time. This is certainly the case when the lack 
of fishery-dependent or -independent data creates high levels of 
uncertainty. To address such uncertainties, for instance, NMFS prefers 
to undertake an evaluation process for removal of certain restrictions 
to collect data from pelagic longline vessels fishing in what would 
become monitoring areas under the preferred alternatives. Aside from 
establishing a path to evaluation, the preferred alternatives also 
balance the objectives to ``optimize the ability of the fleet to 
harvest target species quota'' (via reopening previously closed areas) 
and to ``continue to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of 
bluefin'' (via thresholds established for each area and the expectation 
that vessels still must abide by the requirements of the IBQ Program 
and use weak hooks). Because both the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area and the IBQ Program were implemented at the same time, 
it is difficult to isolate the specific ecological impacts of the gear 
restricted areas alone. Data collected during evaluation periods would 
either support or refute the contention that gear restricted areas or 
closed areas established to minimize bluefin catch within the IBQ 
allocation levels adopted in Amendment 7 are not needed or whether they 
continue to be needed in addition to the IBQ Program. Similarly, NMFS 
has determined that implementing an evaluation process for the 
Northeastern United States Closed Area also reflects the best balance 
of objectives for this rulemaking.
    NMFS also agrees that the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 
reduced bluefin tuna interactions and discards in the pelagic longline 
fishery. The removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is 
consistent with the objective of this action to ``simplify and 
streamline HMS management by reducing redundancies in regulations'' 
given that it appears that not all of the regulations in place are 
necessary to appropriately limit incidental bluefin tuna catch in the 
pelagic longline fishery within the limits established in Amendment 7. 
The Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area was implemented under an access 
determination system that granted access to vessels that demonstrated 
high rates of bluefin avoidance and compliance with observer and 
reporting requirements. The area was based on identification of a 
bluefin tuna interaction ``hotspot'' that occurred from 2006 to 2012 
that was used to delineate the boundaries of this gear restricted area 
(e.g., Figure 4.9 of the FEIS for this rule). It was uncertain at the 
time of Amendment 7 implementation whether the IBQ Program 
implementation alone would have the intended effects in relation to 
issues with the pelagic longline fishery exceeding its bycatch quota. 
Through collection of fishery dependent data within this area since its 
implementation, NMFS was able to determine that the hotspot no longer 
exists, even with the majority of vessels qualifying for access to the 
area. Since the area no longer has the same high rate of bluefin 
interactions, and bluefin tuna catch in the pelagic longline fishery 
since implementation of Amendment 7 is well below the amount of IBQ 
allocation available consistent with provisions in Amendment 7, NMFS 
determined its removal to be consistent with the objective of 
``continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin'' and 
to ``optimize the ability of the fleet to harvest target species 
quotas.''
    NMFS disagrees that the current status of the western Atlantic 
bluefin stock is justification for not undertaking the actions in this 
rule. The critically endangered listing referred to is under IUCN 
standards, which are not the same as domestic standards for listing a 
species under the Endangered Species Act and generally do not drive 
decisions regarding needed management action under that Act or the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Bluefin tuna are not currently listed as 
threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, which 
specifies criteria for listing a species as endangered or threatened. 
Domestic stock status is determined in accordance with stock status 
determination criteria established under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, based on the best scientific 
information available, which for western Atlantic bluefin tuna is the 
stock assessment conducted by the ICCAT SCRS. The western Atlantic 
bluefin stock is not experiencing overfishing. However, whether the 
stock is overfished remains unknown as of the last stock assessment 
(completed in 2017). ICCAT adopted a 20-year rebuilding program for 
western Atlantic bluefin in 1998. The rebuilding plan period was set as 
1999 through 2018. In 2017, ICCAT adopted an interim conservation and 
management plan (ICCAT Recommendation 17-06) for western Atlantic 
bluefin tuna as an interim measure to transition from the rebuilding 
program to a long-term management strategy for the stock. This interim 
plan included an annual Total Allowable Catch set for 2018 through 2020 
while ICCAT develops a management strategy evaluation approach to 
future stock management. The management measures in this action respect 
the science-based quotas for the stock as well as the relevant 
subquotas established in Amendment 7 in 2015.
    NMFS disagrees that the evaluation process does not allow for 
responsive action if needed. The evaluation period includes a threshold 
of combined bluefin catch and dead discards that, if exceeded, would 
result in NMFS closing the monitoring area for the remainder of the 
three-year evaluation period. Provided that the threshold is not 
exceeded during the three-year evaluation period, the area would remain 
open until NMFS decides to take additional action. Following the three-
year evaluation period, NMFS will review data collected from the 
Monitoring Areas and compile a report. Based on the findings of the 
report, NMFS may then initiate a follow up action to implement new 
management measures for the area, if needed.
    NMFS agrees that fisheries management should be based on the best 
science information available. As discussed in Chapter 9 of the FEIS, 
the preferred alternatives are consistent with National Standard 2 
because they are based on the best scientific information available, 
including the latest stock assessments, scientific research, and up-to-
date data sources. The data sources cited throughout the FEIS represent 
the best available science. Additionally, the actions in this rule are 
designed in full consideration of science-based quotas set by ICCAT for 
western Atlantic bluefin tuna and with the category subquotas 
established in Amendment 7. The IBQ Program was designed with specific 
provisions in place to prevent potential increases in bluefin catch in 
the Gulf of Mexico, which could occur if fishing effort was 
redistributed from the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico through either 
vessel or permit movement or purchase of IBQ allocation. The IBQ 
Program limits incidental catch of bluefin tuna in the

[[Page 18816]]

pelagic longline fishery by putting limits on available IBQ allocation 
and puts the responsibility for compliance with the Program 
requirements on individual vessels. This action is expected to continue 
to limit bluefin tuna incidental catch to the levels previously 
established and implemented in Amendment 7. Furthermore, the preferred 
alternative for the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area includes 
a provision to adjust the threshold incorporated into the evaluation 
option in the event that the U.S. allocation of bluefin quota is 
adjusted via a future ICCAT Recommendation. The threshold adopted in 
this final rule would limit the amount of Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation 
(lb of quota) that could be used to account for bluefin landings and 
dead discards in the monitoring area. As described in Comment #11, if 
the ICCAT quota and U.S. allocation are decreased, then the threshold 
could become too large to be effective at minimizing bycatch and 
bycatch mortality of bluefin relative to the new ICCAT quota. This is a 
change between the DEIS and the FEIS made after consideration of a 
public comment asking NMFS to increase the threshold level if the ICCAT 
quota increases. While NMFS considered this comment, it determined it 
would not be appropriate to adjust the threshold upward but that it 
would be appropriate to adjust the threshold downward if the ICCAT 
quota is adjusted downward, consistent with a conservative approach to 
re-opening areas. This final action does not change regulations that 
prohibit directed fishing for bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico and 
are consistent with ICCAT recommendation 17-06's prohibition of 
targeting bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Comment 2: NMFS received comments that the reduction in the number 
of active pelagic longline vessels and fishing effort began before gear 
restricted areas were implemented, and that the gear restricted areas 
were not the cause of such reduction.
    Response: NMFS agrees that decreases in the number of active 
vessels and effort, landings, and revenue began prior to the 
implementation of the gear restricted areas under Amendment 7 in 2015. 
Table 1.1 in the FEIS (which shows data from 2012 through 2018) 
indicates that a decrease in estimated pelagic longline revenue and 
effort started prior to implementation of Amendment 7 despite efforts 
to revitalize the U.S. swordfish fishery for a number of years. Prior 
to initiation of this action, NMFS received suggestions from the public 
to consider the regulatory burden on the pelagic longline fleet and, at 
minimum, to evaluate whether current regulations are still needed to 
achieve management objectives (see Section 1.1.4 and Appendix A of the 
FEIS associated with this rulemaking for a history of public feedback 
concerning these issues and a summary of comments received during 
scoping, respectively). While the gear restricted areas may not be the 
sole factor influencing recent trends in the fleet, NMFS received 
public comment on the proposed rule noting that the collective 
regulatory burden may have had a role in decreasing the number of 
active vessels, effort, landings, and revenue of some target species 
(e.g., swordfish).
    Comment 3: NMFS received comments that relieving regulations 
associated with the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, the 
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, and the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area will increase billfish, sea turtle, and other non-target 
species bycatch mortality to levels that are not sustainable. NMFS also 
received comments that all preferred alternatives in this rulemaking 
would lead to unsustainable harvest of billfish, which would adversely 
affect recreational fishing communities. Specifically, commenters 
stated that reopening the closed areas and implementing a seasonal weak 
hook requirement would result in higher numbers of billfish 
interactions from pelagic longline fishing activity that could in turn 
reduce numbers of billfish in these areas. Such reductions in billfish 
would adversely affect Atlantic HMS tournaments and the jobs created by 
the recreational fishing industry.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that implementing the actions in this 
final rule would increase bycatch mortality in a manner inconsistent 
with stock assessments or inconsistent with the requirement that NMFS 
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. In 
the FEIS, NMFS presented an impacts analysis in Chapter 4 that 
discussed the potential effects of alternatives on restricted and 
protected species, such as marlin, spearfish, sailfish, shortfin mako, 
dusky shark, and sea turtles. Predicted total annual catch was, where 
possible, presented as a range of catch per unit effort (CPUE) in 
impact tables. NMFS also provided in the tables the annual catch from 
the applicable region for comparison to the No Action Alternative.
    Regarding elimination of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 
(Preferred Alternative B2 in the FEIS) ecological impacts to these 
species and sea turtles were anticipated to be neutral due to minimal 
change in fishing effort, as the majority of the fleet has recently 
already had access to the area. The vessels denied access to this area 
in recent years had few to no interactions with restricted and 
protected species in the boundaries of the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area (see discussion in Ecological Impacts on Restricted or 
Protected Species, Section 4.2.2 of the FEIS). Regarding the action 
that establishes the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline 
Monitoring Area (Preferred Alternative A4 in the FEIS), the predicted 
total annual discards of spearfish and dusky shark, and interactions 
with sea turtles, were less than predicted discards or interactions 
under the No Action Alternative. This suggests that the ecological 
impacts to spearfish, dusky shark, and sea turtles are anticipated to 
be more beneficial under the Preferred Alternative than under the No 
Action Alternative due to predicted redistribution away from areas with 
high CPUE. The predicted annual interactions of shortfin mako and 
discards of white and blue marlin, and sailfish, under the preferred 
alternative were calculated to be similar to the No Action Alternative, 
interactions or discards associated with the No Action Alternative fell 
within the range of predicted total annual interactions or discards 
that might occur under Preferred Alternative A4, suggesting that the 
ecological impacts would also be similar for these species. Regarding 
the action that would establish the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring 
Area (Preferred Alternative C3 in the FEIS), the predicted total annual 
interactions with shortfin mako and discards of dusky sharks was 
calculated to be less than the current annual interactions and discards 
of these species in open areas of the Gulf of Mexico. This suggests 
that the ecological impacts to shortfin mako and dusky shark are 
predicted to be more beneficial under Preferred Alternative C3 than the 
No Action Alternative, due to predicted redistribution away from areas 
with high CPUE. The predicted annual sea turtle interactions, and 
discards of blue and white marlin and sailfish, were similar between 
the No Action Alternative and Preferred Alternative C3, suggesting 
comparable ecological impacts across the two alternatives for these 
species.
    NMFS disagrees that allowing pelagic longline vessels access to 
these areas would adversely affect fishing tournaments or reduce jobs 
associated with recreational fishing. Roundscale

[[Page 18817]]

spearfish was the only species for which the predicted range of Gulf of 
Mexico discards under Preferred Alternative C3 exceeded the ongoing 
average levels (i.e., the No Action Alternative). Given the results of 
these analyses, which do not imply a large increase in the number of 
interactions with most billfish species, NMFS does not anticipate that 
implementing the action would adversely affect the billfish stocks in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    NMFS also disagrees that the action to implement a seasonal weak 
hook requirement (Preferred Alternative D2 in the FEIS) would adversely 
affect billfish populations in the Gulf of Mexico. As noted in Appendix 
B of the FEIS, research conducted by the NOAA Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center (SEFSC) indicated that weak hook use did not have a 
statistically significant effect on CPUE of Atlantic sailfish or blue 
marlin. However, a statistically significant increase in CPUE of white 
marlin and roundscale spearfish was associated with weak hook use. 
Because catch per unit effort of white marlin and roundscale spearfish 
increases in the second half of the year, the implementation of a 
seasonal weak hook requirement is anticipated to have a positive impact 
on these stocks.
    NMFS would continue to monitor bycatch of roundscale spearfish and 
other species during the evaluation period included in the alternatives 
related to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area and the 
Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area (Preferred 
Alternatives C3 and A4) and compile results in a report generated from 
data collected during the evaluation period. The evaluation report may 
include, but not be limited to, target species landings and effort, 
bluefin catch rates, IBQ debt from vessels fishing in the area, 
percentage of IBQ allocation usage, compliance with other pelagic 
longline regulations, enforceability concerns, and amount of bycatch of 
restricted or protected species. Based on the findings of the report, 
NMFS may initiate a follow up action to implement new management 
measures for the area if necessary. As part of this evaluation, NMFS 
could compare these data to other data collected by the agency, such as 
tournament reporting, to determine whether a change in the number of 
landed billfish occurred during the evaluation period. The actions 
provide opportunities to monitor bycatch and bycatch mortality of 
numerous species in the Gulf of Mexico, and would not commit the agency 
to an action that would remove these protected areas from the 
regulations. Reopening the gear restricted area to fishing could 
provide more flexibility for fishermen to move away from areas with 
higher bycatch to areas with lower bycatch. By establishing the three-
year evaluation period for the monitoring area before considering 
removal of gear restrictions for the longer term, NMFS is balancing the 
objective of ``minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin and 
other Atlantic HMS'' with the other two objectives of this rulemaking.
    Comment 4: NMFS received comments that suggested modifying 
regulations associated with the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area, the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, and the Northeastern 
United States Closed Areas could negatively impact Atlantic HMS 
essential fish habitat (EFH) and critical habitat identified under the 
ESA for loggerhead sea turtles. These commenters suggested that opening 
gear restricted or closed areas that overlap with EFH and critical 
habitat designations is not consistent with objectives of minimizing 
bycatch or bycatch mortality of these species.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area, the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, and the 
Northeastern United States Closed Area do overlap with critical habitat 
and EFH designations for Atlantic HMS and other species. However, NMFS 
disagrees that opening closed or restricted areas that overlap with 
loggerhead sea turtle critical habitat (79 FR 39855; August 11, 2014) 
or EFH is inconsistent with objectives to minimize bycatch and bycatch 
mortality of these species. Since NMFS is not changing any bluefin tuna 
or other quotas with this rulemaking, the likely effect of this 
rulemaking would be redistribution of fishing effort back into areas 
previously closed (but without a significant overall increase in 
effort). Some of this redistribution will occur from areas that have 
been designated as EFH and/or critical habitat. NMFS is currently 
undergoing reinitiated consultation over the effects of the pelagic 
longline fishery on ESA-listed species and habitat under the ESA. The 
HMS Management Division will continue to coordinate with the NMFS 
Office of Protected Resources during the consultation and on 
implementation of a new Biological Opinion after it is completed, which 
will include consideration of the impacts of fishing activities on 
listed species. Atlantic HMS EFH is not designated in a way that can 
distinguish the value of habitats in specific locations or across 
multiple scales (i.e., it is based on Level 1 or presence/absence 
data); there is therefore no basis to determine that redistribution of 
effort from one location designated as EFH to another location 
designated as EFH would have either an adverse or beneficial ecological 
impact.
    Based on the analysis presented in Amendment 10 to the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP, HMS gears fished in upper water column 
were determined to not have adverse effects on Atlantic HMS EFH or the 
EFH of other pelagic species. The importance of these habitats is based 
more on the combination of oceanic factors such as current influences, 
temperature edges, and surface structure. As discussed in Chapter 4 of 
the FEIS, NMFS has not identified new information that would supplant 
the conclusions of Amendment 10. The closed and gear restricted areas 
considered in this rulemaking do not in themselves provide protection 
for a specific type of habitat. Rather, the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area was implemented in response to a 1996 ICCAT recommendation 
that the United States reduce BFT discards. NMFS used pelagic longline 
logbook data collected between 1992 and 1997 to select a preferred 
alternative for the Northeastern United States Closed Area. The Gulf of 
Mexico and Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Areas were designed using HMS 
logbook geographically referenced set data from 2006-2012 to identify 
areas with relatively high bluefin interaction rates with pelagic 
longline gear (see page 29 of the Amendment 7 FEIS). Given that the 
data used to implement these areas are dated, and that environmental 
conditions and distribution of fish may change, having an opportunity 
to collect new fishery-dependent data in these areas may assist with 
future evaluations of fishing impacts on EFH. The end of the three-year 
evaluation period in the preferred alternatives coincides with the 
timing of the next Atlantic EFH 5-Year Review, which provides an 
opportunity for the new fishery-dependent data collected in these areas 
to be incorporated into the EFH review.
    Comment 5: NMFS received comments that any increased bluefin tuna 
landings from the pelagic longline fishery that result from having 
access to previously closed areas or gear restricted areas will 
negatively impact market prices of bluefin caught in directed 
fisheries.
    Response: NMFS agrees that increased landings of bluefin tuna can 
have localized impacts on market prices if the landings are 
concentrated geographically and increase dramatically over a short 
period of time. However, the pelagic longline fleet only lands 
approximately 8.7% (88.1 metric

[[Page 18818]]

tons) of total Atlantic bluefin tuna landings of 1013 metric tons (U.S. 
total landings as reported in the 2019 U.S. Report to ICCAT). Often the 
global market for bluefin tuna has a more direct impact on the market 
prices for bluefin caught by the U.S. Atlantic directed fisheries than 
any change in U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna incidental landings.
    Comment 6: NMFS received comments that relieving restrictions on 
the pelagic longline fleet could result in, and/or encourage, the 
pelagic longline fishery targeting bluefin, and this should be avoided. 
Specifically, commenters expressed that allowing pelagic longline 
fishing in the Gear Restricted Area was comparable to allowing targeted 
fishing on Gulf of Mexico spawning bluefin, and that allowing pelagic 
longline vessels to retain spawning bluefin caught in the Gulf of 
Mexico has unintentionally resulted in a de facto ``incidental'' catch 
fishery for bluefin in this area in violation of ICCAT mandated 
measures.
    Response: NMFS agrees that pelagic longline vessels are prohibited 
from targeting bluefin tuna and reiterates that current management 
measures are structured as such (see, e.g., Amendment 7). NMFS has 
managed the pelagic longline fishery as an incidental category for 
bluefin for many years and has implemented a number of regulations to 
discourage interactions with bluefin and limit the bluefin that can be 
retained or discarded. Furthermore, ICCAT recommendations including the 
current management measure (Rec. 17-06) specify that there ``shall be 
no directed fishery on the bluefin tuna spawning stock in the western 
Atlantic spawning grounds (i.e., the Gulf of Mexico).''
    NMFS disagrees that implementing the preferred alternatives would 
result in targeting of bluefin tuna by pelagic longline vessels. The 
Longline quota category is an incidental category for bluefin tuna used 
to account for known bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery during 
directed fishing operations for other species. Specifically, bluefin 
tuna are caught as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries that target 
swordfish and yellowfin tuna, and any mortality of that bycatch 
(retained or discarded dead) is subject to being accounted for via IBQ 
allocation. Longline category permit holders who qualified for IBQ 
shares through the process established in Amendment 7 annually receive 
a limited IBQ allocation, which they are required to use to account for 
incidentally caught bluefin tuna. Active vessels not associated with 
IBQ shares must lease IBQ allocation to depart on a trip with pelagic 
longline gear and must account for all bluefin bycatch during targeted 
fishing for other species. In limited circumstances (i.e., when 
available and following consideration of regulatory determination 
criteria provided at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8)), NMFS has distributed IBQ 
allocation directly to active vessels, where available, to facilitate 
fishing for other species that are the target.
    Amendment 7 provided an amount of bluefin quota to the pelagic 
longline fishery that reduces dead discards yet accounts for a 
reasonable amount of incidental catch that can be anticipated and will 
enable the continued generation of revenue associated with the pelagic 
longline fishery's target catch while limiting allowable bluefin 
incidental catch. Implementation of the preferred alternatives would 
not change the amount of regionally specific pelagic longline IBQ 
allocation that is designated as either ``Atlantic'' or ``Gulf of 
Mexico.'' It would only change where fishing could occur within these 
regions. Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit holders would continue 
to be required to use IBQ allocation to account for incidental catch of 
bluefin tuna during directed fishery operations. When actively fishing, 
vessel operators are encouraged to modify their fishing behavior to 
minimize bluefin tuna interactions and therefore ensure that catch does 
not exceed the available IBQ allocation to cover the vessel's 
incidental catch of bluefin. Any exceedances must be accounted for via 
a lease of IBQ allocation (and may incur financial and logistical 
costs) to account for this catch, or the owner/operators risk limiting 
their ability to continue to participate in the fishery if outstanding 
quota debt is not resolved. Quota debt must be repaid on a quarterly 
basis or continued fishing would be prohibited. Overall limits are 
placed on available IBQ allocation consistent with the measures adopted 
in Amendment 7, and this action does not change the provisions on IBQ 
allocation availability.
    NMFS disagrees that allowing pelagic longline vessels to retain 
bluefin tuna caught in sets made within the boundaries of the Spring 
Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area incentivizes directed fishing on 
bluefin tuna. Any interactions with pelagic longline gear are 
incidental to other directed fishing, and regulations have been 
designed to discourage any such interactions and to minimize bycatch to 
the extent practicable. The boundaries of the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Gear Restricted Area were originally delineated based on increased 
catch rates of bluefin tuna in the area relative to other areas in the 
Gulf of Mexico during the years of analysis for Amendment 7, not based 
on reports of targeted fishing.
    NMFS disagrees that allowing retention of incidentally-caught 
bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico is in violation of ICCAT recommendations. 
The ICCAT recommendation, implemented as necessary and appropriate 
through regulations under ATCA, specifies that there is to be no 
directed fishery on the bluefin tuna spawning stock in the Gulf of 
Mexico. It does not prohibit retention of incidentally-caught bluefin 
tuna in the Gulf of Mexico during directed fishing operations for other 
species. Through the limitations in place (i.e., weak hooks, GOM IBQ 
allocation limits, electronic monitoring), the regulations 
appropriately limit the pelagic longline fleet to an incidental fishery 
for bluefin tuna.
    Comment 7: NMFS received comments that the DEIS mentions the 
removal of measures that could reduce redundancies in regulations 
without identifying or enumerating the alleged redundancies. Some 
commenters agreed that some or all of the management measures are 
redundant with other regulations such as the IBQ Program, while other 
commenters disagreed that these measures were redundant with the IBQ 
Program.
    Response: The DEIS and proposed rule clearly articulated which 
regulations are being considered in this rulemaking as potentially 
having redundant effects with regard to limiting incidental catch of 
bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery, after considering public 
input at earlier stages of the rulemaking. Each of these regulations 
has similar objectives related to limiting and managing bluefin tuna 
incidental catch in the pelagic longline fishery. Specifically, these 
include regulations for the Northeastern United States Gear Restricted 
Area (implemented to reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna), the Cape 
Hatteras Gear Restricted Area and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area (implemented to reduce interactions, thereby decreasing 
dead discards of bluefin tuna), and the current year-round weak hook 
requirements (implemented to reduce bluefin tuna bycatch in the Gulf of 
Mexico). The proposed rule clearly described the proposed management 
measures, and NMFS facilitated communication with the public via the 
internet and its website and through public hearings and Atlantic HMS 
Advisory Panel meetings.
    As discussed in the scoping document and later in the proposed 
rule, NMFS

[[Page 18819]]

selected management measures for inclusion in the rulemaking because 
they had similar objectives to the IBQ Program. The IBQ Program was 
implemented to, among other things, limit the amount of landings and 
dead discards of bluefin tuna and incentivize the avoidance of bluefin 
tuna interactions. Through this rulemaking, NMFS is reviewing whether 
all of these measures implemented are still needed to appropriately 
limit incidental bluefin tuna catch, given the success of the IBQ 
Program, and, if not, whether leaving them all in place is 
unnecessarily restrictive of the pelagic longline fishery.
    This review was undertaken, as explained in the proposed rule and 
DEIS, because significant regulatory action overhauled management of 
bluefin tuna several years ago, and it appears that not all of the 
measures in place remain needed to accomplish the management objectives 
of that rulemaking. To address, limit, and account for bluefin tuna 
incidental catch in the pelagic longline fishery, Amendment 7 modified 
the distribution of quota among categories, implemented the IBQ 
allocation program and electronic monitoring of every pelagic longline 
set, established regional limits on bluefin incidental catch--including 
in the Gulf of Mexico, which provided additional protections for 
spawning bluefin tuna--and implemented gear restricted areas. This was 
in addition to other measures already in place (e.g., closed areas, 
weak hooks). Adopted in 2015, these measures were developed respecting 
science-based quotas and also making difficult management decisions 
regarding the need to balance multiple objectives, including limiting 
the pelagic longline fishery to incidental bluefin catch, the 
requirement to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent 
practicable, and the requirement to provide vessels a reasonable 
opportunity to catch available quotas (i.e., swordfish).
    Several years later, participation in the pelagic longline fishery 
has continued to decline, available quota for target species remains 
unharvested (e.g., swordfish), and available IBQ allocation within the 
limits set in the 2015 action goes unused. Given these factors and 
public feedback starting at the scoping stage, not all of the measures 
in place remain needed or useful in appropriately limiting incidental 
catch of bluefin tuna in the pelagic longline fishery consistent with 
the approach first established in Amendment 7. Through this rulemaking, 
NMFS also considers whether there are ecological benefits that warrant 
retaining management measures with similar objectives.
    This rule analyzes multiple regulations in effect that are intended 
to reduce bluefin tuna bycatch, interactions, and/or discards. 
Specifically, NMFS has posed the question of whether weak hooks and 
gear restricted area measures are still needed in concert with the IBQ 
Program to meet overall management objectives of reducing bluefin 
interactions or dead discards. In some cases, where warranted by the 
extent of the benefits in relation to conservation objectives, it may 
be appropriate to maintain regulations that may be redundant in effect 
in relation to other objectives. Here, the SEFSC noted a statistically 
significant decrease in bluefin CPUE by 46 percent with the use of weak 
hooks. This rule maintains the weak requirement during the times that 
the hooks offer a substantial conservation benefit for bluefin. 
However, the SEFSC also noted a statistically significant increase in 
white marlin and roundscale spearfish catch-per-unit effort by 46 
percent associated with weak hooks deployment. This suggests that the 
use of weak hooks may have an adverse ecological impact on white marlin 
and roundscale spearfish. Therefore, NMFS is retaining the weak hook 
requirement when bluefin tuna are present in the Gulf of Mexico but 
removing the requirement from July through December to mitigate the 
negative effects of the weak hook requirement on white marlin and 
roundscale spearfish. Even though weak hooks and the IBQ Program were 
implemented to reduce bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic longline 
fishery, the need and ecological benefit of weak hooks for bluefin 
remains when it is most effective, and NMFS has determined that the 
preferred alternative strikes the best balance between multiple 
objectives of this rulemaking and conservation objectives for white 
marlin and roundscale spearfish.
    Because the IBQ Program and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area were implemented at the same time, NMFS acknowledges 
that it is challenging to separate out the impacts of the individual 
management measures. Data collection from this area during a Monitoring 
Area period would allow NMFS to isolate the impacts of implementing 
both the gear restricted areas and the IBQ Program versus just 
implementing the IBQ Program. Should the gear restricted areas be 
considered necessary to achieving management objectives, NMFS could 
consider retaining them in a future rulemaking despite the similar 
goals for the gear restricted areas and the IBQ Program. NMFS has 
addressed similar concerns regarding the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area, the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, and weak hook 
implementation in relevant sections of this Response to Comments.
    Comment 8: NMFS received comments in support of and in opposition 
to modifying the spatial extent of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area and the Northeastern United States Closed Area. 
Specifically, commenters suggested that NMFS create a large box (on the 
map of the management area) that contains both areas comprising the 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, and expand the Northeastern 
United States Closed Area northeastward to encompass an area south of 
Georges Bank along the continental shelf that includes areas with 
higher bluefin interactions (e.g., see dark blue cells southeast of 
Cape Cod in Figure 3.11 of the FEIS associated with this rulemaking). 
NMFS received comments expressing concern that pelagic longline fishery 
participants have fished around the edges of the closure for years, 
particularly to the east of the Northeastern United States Closed Area, 
and that reopening the area could result in high bluefin tuna bycatch, 
including ``disaster sets.''
    Response: NMFS disagrees that it is appropriate to expand existing 
gear restricted areas to cover adjacent areas where pelagic longline 
interactions with bluefin occur. While such an expansion would be 
consistent with objectives to ``minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality 
of bluefin,'' expanding these areas to include additional productive 
fishing grounds in these regions is not consistent with the objective 
to ``optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fleet to harvest 
target species quotas.'' Although some fishing activity did occur along 
the northeastern corner of the Northeastern United States Closed Area 
in 2015-2016, and was included in analyses for the FEIS alternatives, 
the implementation of the National Monument has shifted fishing effort 
out of this area due to lack of space in which to deploy gear between 
the boundaries of the two closures. NMFS acknowledges that there is 
uncertainty associated with reopening the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area due to the amount of time that has passed since fishery 
dependent data has been collected in this area during the month of 
June. For this reason, instead of selecting an alternative that would 
reopen the area immediately, NMFS has preferred an alternative that 
would allow for fishery-dependent data

[[Page 18820]]

collection provided that bluefin landings and dead discards do not 
exceed a specified threshold. Because these suggestions do not 
represent a reasonable balance between the three rulemaking objectives, 
NMFS has not included them for further consideration in the FEIS.
    Comment 9: NMFS received comments on the evaluation of spatially 
managed areas (i.e., Preferred Alternatives A4 and C3). Some commenters 
felt that review processes for spatially managed areas are important 
and should be included in the implementing design for any closed area 
to understand the effectiveness/level of impact of the areas and to 
gather data. Other commenters felt that the review process should also 
include consideration of whether the size and shape of the closed area 
should be adjusted. Many commenters were opposed to the changes 
proposed to the Northeastern United States Closed Area and the Spring 
Gulf of Mexico Closed Area (Preferred Alternative A4 and Preferred 
Alternative C3 in the FEIS) because they felt that the design of the 
evaluation period that is a component of the new ``monitoring areas'' 
is unscientific. NMFS received comments that the agency should only 
explore data collection from gear restricted or closed areas through a 
separate initiative on how to collect data in support of area-based 
fishery management and not make any decisions about opening any areas 
to fishing until after such data collection and evaluation processes 
that come from that initiative are implemented. NMFS also received 
suggestions to research the location and variability of bluefin 
preferred habitat (temperature, chlorophyll, depth, etc.), and use 
electronic tagging data to check incidence of bluefin in the proposed 
closed areas. Some commenters felt that NMFS should incorporate the 
implementation of target catch requirements (previously removed in 
Amendment 7) in the evaluation process for the Northeastern United 
States Monitoring Area and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area 
(Preferred Alternatives A4 and C3 in the FEIS) to ensure that pelagic 
longline vessels do not target bluefin in sensitive areas.
    Response: NMFS agrees that it is important to undertake periodic 
evaluations of management measures to ensure that they meet FMP 
objectives. In particular, NMFS agrees that review processes for 
spatially managed areas that impose restrictions or closures in space 
or time are important, because distribution of fishing effort, managed 
species, or environmental conditions upon which Atlantic HMS are 
dependent may change with time. NMFS acknowledges that modifications to 
the spatial extent of the area may be included as a future management 
option for these areas if the outcomes of the evaluation process 
indicates that such an idea warrants further consideration. As part of 
the monitoring area actions, NMFS would compile data for an evaluation 
report that may include, but not be limited to, target species landings 
and effort, bluefin catch rates, IBQ debt from vessels fishing in the 
area, percentage of IBQ allocation usage, compliance with other pelagic 
longline regulations, enforceability concerns, and amount of bycatch 
with restricted or protected species. NMFS will use data from this 
report to consider additional next steps for the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Gear Monitoring Area and the Northeastern United States Monitoring 
Area, which may include consideration of the size and shape of the area 
in addition to options such as reinstating the areas, removing the 
areas from the regulations, or some form of provisional access. NMFS 
chose to include bluefin tuna fisheries management measures in this 
rulemaking that were originally implemented with similar objectives; 
namely, to minimize bluefin tuna interactions or dead discards with 
pelagic longline gear. NMFS is undertaking a separate initiative which 
considers data collection and research in closed areas to consider 
other time area closures implemented for different species or different 
reasons. The initiative on HMS spatial management data collection and 
research will consider spatial management measures for all HMS.
    NMFS disagrees that the actions being implemented in this rule are 
unscientific, as they have been developed to work within science-based 
quotas for target and bycatch species, and with the intent of 
collecting fishery dependent data upon which to base ongoing and future 
management measures in accordance with the monitoring protocols 
established by this action.
    NMFS disagrees that target catch requirements should be re-
instituted and included in the evaluation process to prevent targeting 
of bluefin in sensitive areas. The pelagic longline fishery in the 
United States does not target bluefin tuna; rather, it targets 
swordfish and yellowfin tuna and catches bluefin tuna incidentally. 
Regulations minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna in 
the fishery and limit it to an incidental fishery through the IBQ 
Program, and the use of available fishery data including vessel 
monitoring system (VMS) set reporting and monitoring via electronic 
monitoring (EM) to ensure that targeted fishing of bluefin is not 
occurring. Prior to Amendment 7, target catch requirements were used to 
limit retention of bluefin tuna incidentally caught during directed 
fishing operations for other HMS species. As discussed in Amendment 7, 
however, this sometimes led to wasteful discards of bluefin tuna if the 
amount of target species catch was insufficient to retain the numbers 
of bluefin caught. Under Amendment 7's approach, vessels that caught 
some bluefin tuna but had insufficient target species to meet the 
target catch requirement would not have to choose between discarding 
bluefin or fishing for more target species; rather the vessel would use 
its available IBQ allocation or lease allocation. The IBQ Program 
replaced 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. The Amendment 7 management 
measures, inclusive of the IBQ Program and removal of target catch 
requirements, have had a substantial effect on the number of dead 
discards occurring in the pelagic longline fishery. As noted in the 
Three-Year Review of the IBQ Program, the average amount of dead 
discards in the pelagic longline fishery was 89 percent less after 
(2015-2017) implementation of the IBQ Program than in the three years 
immediately prior to implementation (2012-2014). Reinstating the target 
catch requirements, while also maintaining the IBQ Program as a means 
of limiting the amount of bluefin landed and discarded dead, is 
unnecessarily restrictive on pelagic longline fishery effort and not 
consistent with the objective to ``simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS 
management, to the extent practicable, by reducing redundancies in 
regulations.''
    Comment 10: NMFS received comments suggesting that there was a 
significant role for government observers in the design or 
implementation of the Northeastern United States and Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Monitoring Areas, or in making changes to the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area. For example, some commenters felt that only data 
collected by an official government observer should be used in 
designing evaluative options to ensure that there is no bias. Others 
felt that the monitoring areas would only be effective if an official 
government observer (not contracted commercial fishing industry 
observer or technician) is on board to ensure no bias.

[[Page 18821]]

    Response: NMFS agrees that the observer program provides important 
scientific data for management and science-based stock assessments. 
NMFS has available a variety of sources of commercial fisheries data to 
inform management decisions. While extremely useful in estimating dead 
discards and providing other information, the observer program is not a 
complete census of the fishery, and the extent of observer coverage is 
not necessarily useful in all cases in assessing ecological or economic 
effects of time/area closures, especially on a very fine scale. 
Furthermore, there is a small percentage of vessels that have not been 
observed. In addition to observer data, there are other fishery-
dependent data streams that NMFS finds acceptable for use in these 
monitoring areas and their evaluation including the HMS logbook, EM, 
and the IBQ Program. NMFS disagrees that the presence of observers 
should be a condition for entry into the Northeastern United States 
Monitoring Area or the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area. NMFS 
believes that the current data streams, including but not limited to 
the observer program, provide sufficient mechanisms to crosscheck data 
validity and ensure compliance.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter that only observer data should 
have been used in the design and analysis of the evaluation process in 
the DEIS and FEIS, or in making management decisions about the Cape 
Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. NMFS would consider all available 
sources of fishery data, including observer program data, collected 
between 2020 and 2022 when finalizing the report generated as part of 
the evaluation process for the Northeastern United States Monitoring 
Area or the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area (Preferred 
Alternatives A4 and C3 in the FEIS). NMFS considered multiple data 
sources in the development of this action, as reflected in the DEIS and 
FEIS. This action focuses on area-based measures, whether related to 
fishing vessel access or gear requirements. Given that the action 
addresses discrete geographical area designations and gear 
configuration within certain areas, rather than, for example, the 
amount of allowable catch for a stock or estimates of stock abundance 
for a stock assessment, the most relevant data sources for this action 
are fishery-dependent data that reflect the needed geographic and other 
data for the area-based analyses. Atlantic HMS logbook data is 
required, self-reported data that includes landings, discards, gear, 
location, and other set and trip information. All pelagic longline 
fishermen with Atlantic HMS permits are required to use this logbook. 
NMFS used the HMS logbook as the primary data source for the analysis 
of ecological and socioeconomic impacts on preferred alternatives for 
the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area, and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area in this 
rulemaking for the following reasons: (1) The need for action focuses 
on the HMS pelagic longline fishery; (2) all HMS pelagic longline 
fishermen are required to report in this logbook; (3) data can be 
cross-validated with other data sources; and (4) the HMS logbook data 
provides location and other fishing variables required for various 
analyses of ecological and socio-economic impacts. NMFS also used some 
Atlantic HMS electronic dealer data and weighout slips provided to the 
fishermen by dealers (which must be submitted with the logbooks) for 
the socioeconomic calculations.
    Comment 11: NMFS received comments in support of and in opposition 
to incorporating thresholds into the evaluation process component of 
the Northeastern United States Monitoring Area and the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Monitoring Area (Preferred Alternatives A4 and C3 in the FEIS). 
Commenters in support of the threshold (particularly for the 
Northeastern United States Monitoring Area) expressed concern that the 
threshold would be met quickly, triggering a closure. These commenters 
questioned whether NMFS would disburse additional IBQ allocation via an 
inseason quota transfer if that occurs. NMFS also received suggestions 
that a threshold in the evaluation process was not necessary, as the 
evaluation process itself was too complex for a rulemaking with an 
objective focused on simplifying or streamlining regulations, and would 
result in micromanagement. NMFS also received comments with suggested 
modifications to the threshold, including the use of a percentage of 
the available Gulf IBQ allocation instead of setting a hard poundage 
limit for a threshold in the Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area. Regarding 
thresholds established for the Northeastern United States Monitoring 
Area, the 150,519-pound threshold for June in just the Northeastern 
area is equivalent to 68 mt. Since this is almost the entire longline 
catch for all months and all areas of 2018 (88.1 mt), commenters 
questioned whether such a threshold is limiting as part of an 
``evaluation'' program.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the threshold for the Northeastern 
United States Monitoring Area would be met quickly. The analysis of 
Preferred Alternative A4 predicts that between 14 and 68 bluefin would 
be retained per year from the Northeastern United States Monitoring 
Area and adjacent reference area as a result of implementing this 
action. If all of these fish were harvested from sets made within the 
Northeastern United States Monitoring Area, based on the average weight 
of an Atlantic region landed bluefin (275 lb), the amount of IBQ 
allocation used to account for these landed fish would be between 3,850 
lb and 18,700 lb per year. Under the No Action Alternative, 48 bluefin 
are estimated to be retained per year. Using the same calculation, the 
amount of IBQ allocation used to account for landed fish in this region 
under the No Action Alternative is estimated to be around 13,200 lb. 
NMFS therefore predicts that a range of impacts could occur, which 
might result in a small increase in the number of landed bluefin (+ 20 
fish per year, based on the high end of the estimated range of fish 
kept) and the corresponding amount of IBQ allocation required to 
account for those fish (+5,500 lb IBQ allocation) (Table 4.9 in the 
FEIS associated with this rulemaking). This increase would not meet the 
threshold established in the action, and fishing could occur for the 
three-year evaluation period if the high range estimate were to occur. 
While the provisions on the evaluative period and opening the 
Northeastern United States Monitoring Area are new, the provisions in 
Amendment 7 regarding inseason quota transfers among categories remain 
the same as those adopted in 2015. The disbursement of inseason quota 
transfers to the Longline category depends on several factors and are 
listed at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8). NMFS would continue to evaluate any 
inseason quota transfers on a case by case basis consistent with 
regulatory criteria and provisions previously established.
    NMFS acknowledges that the review process is complex with several 
steps involved, but disagrees that the threshold is not necessary. The 
threshold was designed to address uncertainties associated with 
allowing access back into areas that had previously been closed, and to 
ensure that steps taken by the agency to assess potential deregulation 
does not compromise management goals and objectives for the pelagic 
longline fishery. Specifically, the evaluation periods for the 
Northeastern United States Monitoring Area and the Spring

[[Page 18822]]

Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area (Preferred Alternatives A4 and C3 in the 
FEIS) include a mechanism to collect fishery dependent data from these 
Monitoring Areas, monitor the fishing practices and close the area if 
excessive incidental catch of bluefin tuna during directed fishing 
occurs, and formulate a report of data collected to determine the best 
management decision for the area based on current data. NMFS agrees 
that there are situations where it makes sense to codify a percentage 
instead of a hard number into the regulations for the thresholds 
identified for the evaluation process for the Monitoring Areas. The 
63,150 lb IBQ allocation threshold for the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Monitoring Area (Alternative C3) and the 150,519 lb IBQ allocation 
threshold for the Northeastern United States Monitoring Area 
(Alternative A4) are respectively equivalent to 55 percent of the total 
Gulf of Mexico IBQ annual allocation and 72 percent of the total 
Atlantic IBQ annual allocation issued to the fleet in 2018. The final 
rule modifies the proposed action to adjust the threshold to a 
comparable percentage of Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation (i.e., 55 
percent) and Atlantic IBQ allocation (i.e., 72 percent) in the event 
that ICCAT reduces the U.S. allocation of bluefin quota. Although NMFS 
acknowledges that the threshold is large for the Northeastern United 
States Monitoring Area, it is less than the entire Longline category 
quota. NMFS based the threshold for the Northeastern United States 
Monitoring Area on the recent average amount of available quota on June 
1 because fishing is happening in multiple locations along the east 
coast at this time of year. While it is true that this threshold is 
equivalent to a large proportion of the bluefin catch (landings and 
dead discards), NMFS designed the threshold is to ensure that opening 
the area to fishing would not compromise the ability of fishery 
participants to obtain enough IBQ allocation to account for Atlantic-
wide bluefin landings and dead discards for the rest of the year. This 
threshold will allow for data collection to continue for the three-year 
period and continue to manage incidental catch of bluefin tuna in the 
pelagic longline fishery consistent with the Longline category 
subquota, the limits established for use of IBQ allocation in the 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions, and with the science-based overall 
quotas.
    Comment 12: NMFS received comments that generally supported 
deregulation. Specifically, these comments expressed that the IBQ 
Program is an output control, and that input controls are not needed as 
much when the output control is effective. Other comments expressed 
that removing spatial restrictions would enhance the ability of the 
fleet to avoid bycatch, as closures hinder the ability to move away 
from a problem area and locate elsewhere. These comments also noted 
that in order for the IBQ Program to work well, fishermen need access 
to enough productive fishing grounds in order to make choices about 
location based on bluefin interactions of the fleet. If they don't have 
good alternatives to fish in, they will be forced to fish in riskier 
areas. Some commenters felt that fishermen have better tools and 
information (e.g., rapid access to environmental data to make informed 
decisions on fishing locations), and increased capabilities to avoid 
bluefin. Fishermen can therefore be precautionary in selecting where to 
fish.
    Response: NMFS agrees that it was appropriate to evaluate through 
this rulemaking and the associated FEIS whether certain regulations are 
necessary to meet management objectives. Under the IBQ Program, 
fishermen are incentivized to minimize incidental catch of bluefin in 
the pelagic longline fishery directing on other Atlantic HMS direct 
accountability for such incidental catch and associated costs and risks 
if it exceeded (e.g., the cost to lease additional IBQ allocation, risk 
of not fishing in a quarter if quota debt is not resolved). NMFS also 
agrees that fishermen have tools to make informed decisions in advance 
of trips to select fishing locations that optimize target catch and 
minimize bluefin bycatch, such as the availability of free or 
commercially available environmental or satellite data and 
communication with other members of the fleet. While outright removal 
of spatially managed areas would provide the most flexibility 
concerning site selection for commercial fishermen, NMFS is 
implementing actions that would include an evaluation period to collect 
fishery-dependent data before such areas would be removed. NMFS 
believes this provides a more precautionary approach and a better 
balance of rulemaking objectives than removing the areas immediately 
without an evaluative period.
    Comment 13: NMFS received comments that the Secretary of Commerce 
recently called for action in removing unnecessary restrictions on U.S. 
fishermen which contributes to the United States reliance on imported 
seafood to meet consumer demand.
    Response: This rulemaking is considered to be deregulatory in 
nature, and would either remove restrictions, or provide a mechanism to 
evaluate whether the management measures are still needed to meet 
management objectives. The latter would provide information to support 
a future potential rulemaking that could modify or remove restrictions 
on U.S. commercial fishermen.
    Comment 14: NMFS received comments requesting geographically 
referenced catch and effort data in the form of ``shot charts'' be 
included in the FEIS.
    Response: In order to be responsive to the request for information, 
NMFS provided the requested charts in Appendix D of the FEIS associated 
with this rulemaking. ``Shot charts,'' as referenced by the commenters, 
are based on a graphic tool initially popularized by Kirk Goldsberry 
for depicting basketball statistics. Spatial data are joined to a 
hexagon grid, which removes clustering and allows for easier pattern 
visualization. Unlike other maps produced by NMFS, shot charts contain 
a bivariate display that allows a single symbol to convey two pieces of 
information. For example, colors might be used to confer rate 
information while size indicates frequency. Commenters requested that 
NMFS include higher resolution shot charts for bluefin, yellowfin, and 
swordfish in the areas surrounding the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area in the 
FEIS. Although the shot charts provide a new way to visualize 
information, the underlying catch and effort data was presented in the 
DEIS in the form of tables, figures, and maps depicting single 
variables on 10' x 10' grid cells. No new or different information from 
that analyzed in the DEIS and proposed rule is presented. The new 
charts are only a new visual presentation of the earlier data. The 
administrative burden to create a shot chart is significantly higher 
than other data maps that were included in the DEIS (4 hours versus a 
half hour), therefore NMFS retained current data mapping protocols and 
analyses in addition to including shot charts as an appendix of the 
FEIS. NMFS will continue to evaluate the best tool to depict data in 
the future on an as-needed basis.
    Comment 15: NMFS received comments suggesting that the proposed 
rule is not aligned with National Standard 9, which requires NMFS to 
``avoid or minimize bycatch'' and ``minimize the mortality of bycatch 
which cannot be avoided.'' 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(9). NMFS also received 
comments that this rule is not aligned with Sec.  1853(a)(11), which 
requires all

[[Page 18823]]

FMPs to contain measures to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, 
because it does not propose that bycatch be avoided or reduced.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the proposed rule is not consistent 
with National Standard 9. NMFS analyzed consistency with the National 
Standards in Chapter 9 of the FEIS. This rulemaking includes as an 
objective the need to ``continue to minimize, to the extent 
practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna and other 
Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear consistent with conservation and 
management objectives. . . .'' NMFS evaluated and selected preferred 
alternatives that best meet and/or balance the rulemaking objectives. 
As an example, NMFS has chosen to retain a seasonal weak hook 
requirement in the Gulf of Mexico as a tool to continue to minimize 
bycatch and bycatch mortality of both bluefin and white marlin. 
Furthermore, although the establishment of the Northeastern U.S. 
Monitoring Area and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring Area 
(preferred alternatives A4 and C3 in the FEIS) would allow the pelagic 
longline fleet access to previously closed areas, there would still be 
measures in place requiring individual accountability for bluefin catch 
and incentivizing avoidance of bluefin tuna (accountability 
requirements, regional IBQ share/allocation designations, minimum IBQ 
allocation requirements, enhanced monitoring and reporting) and to 
provide a safety precaution against uncertainty (thresholds) in the 
monitoring areas. Pelagic longline fishing would be allowed in the 
areas provided total catch (landings and dead discards) remains under 
an established threshold, measured by the amount of IBQ allocation used 
to account for bluefin catch in the area. After the 2020-2022 
evaluation period, NMFS will evaluate data collected from the 
Monitoring Area and compile a report. Based on the findings of the 
report, NMFS may then decide to initiate a follow-up action to 
implement new, longer-term management measures for the area (e.g., 
retaining the closure, removing the closure, applying another 
monitoring period, applying performance metrics for access). This 
evaluation would review new fishery-dependent data collected on bluefin 
tuna and other bycatch that would inform future decisions. Furthermore, 
the requirement that bycatch be minimized to the extent practicable 
does not require the agency to reduce bycatch to zero with every 
fishery action, as to do so would not be practicable, given other 
fishery objectives and requirements.

Northeastern United States Closed Area

    Comment 16: NMFS received comments in favor of and in opposition to 
making any changes to the Northeastern United States Closed Area under 
the preferred alternative. Comments in favor of the preferred 
alternative noted that the evaluation process provides a reasonable 
level of precaution to ensure that pelagic longline fleet-wide bluefin 
tuna mortality is appropriately managed. Comments in opposition noted 
that the existing closed area regulations have been effective in 
managing the bluefin tuna fishery and reducing bluefin tuna dead 
discards and have effectively created a conservation area. NMFS 
received comments that this area overlaps with the migratory pathway 
for bluefin headed north to forage in the Gulf of Maine, and that 
bluefin tuna are vulnerable to high catches by the pelagic longline 
fleet in the area encompassed by the Northeastern United States Closed 
Area, (i.e., the area is still a ``hot spot.'')
    Response: NMFS agrees that the evaluation process that is a 
component of the Northeastern United States Monitoring Area (Preferred 
Alternative A4 in the FEIS) provides an opportunity to collect 
information about the area and determine what future management action 
would be appropriate for the Northeastern United States Closed Area. 
After the three-year evaluation period, NMFS would analyze data 
collected and compile an evaluation report. This report would be used 
to inform any necessary management changes to the Northeastern United 
States Closed Area. The processes established for the Northeastern 
United States Monitoring Area could include a number of options for 
NMFS action after the evaluation period.
    NMFS acknowledges that there is considerable uncertainty concerning 
the Northeastern United States Closed Area. Since this area closure was 
implemented, fishery-dependent data have not been collected from the 
area in over 20 years. While this area may provide a conservation 
benefit for bluefin tuna as they migrate northward, changes in both the 
ocean environment and pelagic longline fishery have occurred since 1999 
making it difficult to ascertain both its value as a conservation area 
and as a location where bluefin are vulnerable to high catches by the 
pelagic longline fleet in that area. The preferred alternative in the 
FEIS will provide a way to collect fishery dependent data from the area 
under close monitoring and evaluation. The preferred alternative 
includes a threshold of allowable bluefin catch (landings and dead 
discards) for the area during the month of June. If mortality exceeds 
this threshold, NMFS would re-close the area. Data collection is 
essential in order to determine if this area is still necessary for the 
management of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.
    Comment 17: NMFS received comments suggesting we change the shape 
of the Northeastern United States Closed Area by removing the western 
area as considered in Alternative A2 and potentially shift the area 
eastward to include certain canyon areas to account for areas of higher 
CPUE. The commenter notes that this would free up western portions of 
the closure that historically had low pelagic longline bluefin tuna 
interactions.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that shifting the Northeastern United 
States Closed Area eastward would result in additional protections 
beyond those currently in place for bluefin tuna. Much of the area to 
the east of the Northeastern United States Closed Area is now part of 
the Northeast Canyon and Seamount Marine National Monument as shown in 
Figure 3.4 of the FEIS. This area prohibits commercial fishing 
operations, including pelagic longlining, thus the area immediately 
east of the Northeastern United States Closed Area is effectively 
closed to the pelagic longline fishery.
    NMFS did consider opening the western portion of the Northeastern 
United States Closed Area (Alternative A2 in the FEIS) based on 
historically low catches from that area in 1996 and 1997. NMFS did not 
prefer this alternative in the DEIS or the FEIS because this area also 
had historically low catch rates of target species and little effort, 
making this alternative less aligned than others with the objective to 
``optimize the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to harvest target 
species quotas.'' While this alternative would allow for some data 
collection in western portions of the closure, the ecological and 
socio-economic benefits of this alternative for bluefin, target 
species, and protected or restricted species were anticipated to be 
neutral. NMFS therefore is implementing an action (Alternative A4) that 
would collect data, under close scrutiny, from the entire closure in 
order to evaluate fishery trends from within the entire spatial extent 
of the Northeastern United States Closed Area.
    Comment 18: NMFS received comments in opposition to Alternative A2 
in the FEIS, which considered

[[Page 18824]]

modifying the Northeastern United States Closed Area to remove a 
western portion of the closure. The comment stated the alternative 
relies on outdated data that are irrelevant to current fishing 
practices and the ecosystem and that it would maintain a substantial 
part of the closure, which in their view is ineffective, inefficient, 
and redundant.
    Response: NMFS agrees that this alternative does rely on some 
historical data for justification of where the Northeastern United 
States Closed Area should be opened and where it should remain closed. 
Current catch rates from a surrounding reference area, delineated by 
NMFS, were used to predict catch rates that would occur in the area 
that would be opened under Alternative A2. NMFS included this data in 
the analysis because it is the most recent fishery-dependent data 
collected in the area which can be used for management decisions.
    NMFS is not implementing this approach because it does not balance 
the objectives of this rulemaking as well as other alternatives. 
Retaining portions of the closure might coarsely address uncertainty 
associated with bluefin distribution through retaining portions of the 
closure where historically there were elevated fishery interactions, 
especially if bluefin distribution is presumed to not have changed 
since the early to mid-1990s. In this case, this alternative is aligned 
with the objective to ``minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of 
bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS . . .''. When this area was open, 
the pelagic longline fleet largely fished for target species in areas 
that became the eastern portion of the closure. Retaining this area as 
a closure may, depending on the distribution and abundance of target 
species, not be consistent with the rulemaking objective to ``optimize 
the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to harvest target species 
quotas.'' Given the uncertainty, NMFS believes it is appropriate to 
evaluate the entire closed area to determine if it is still needed to 
manage bluefin tuna bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery. Retaining 
a portion of the Northeastern United States Closed Area does not 
provide the same opportunity in this area to ``simplify and streamline 
HMS regulations . . . by reducing any redundancies in regulations 
established to reduce bluefin tuna interactions.''
    Comment 19: NMFS received comments that NMFS should eliminate the 
Northeastern United States Closed Area (Alternative A5) as this closed 
area is an ineffective and inefficient input-control measure and is 
redundant with the far more effective and efficient output control IBQ 
Program now in place. It also is an important fishing area for pelagic 
longline vessels because of the continental shelf break and local 
current patterns, and may now be where longliners need to have access 
to fishing ground while avoiding bluefin tuna.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that it is appropriate to eliminate the 
Northeastern United States Closed Area without an appropriate 
evaluative period, given the lack of data collected since 
implementation of the closure in 1999. The lack of current data makes 
it difficult to determine if bycatch of bluefin tuna would be a problem 
in the Northeastern United States Closed Area. It is therefore 
difficult to determine the extent to which this alternative can be 
aligned with objectives to ``minimize . . . bycatch and bycatch 
mortality of bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS . . .''. This 
alternative does not provide NMFS the ability to restrict fishing if 
bycatch impacts to bluefin tuna or other species are beyond acceptable 
levels. This alternative also does not provide a mechanism for NMFS to 
initiate the review of the monitoring area after the three-year 
evaluation period, which makes it difficult to ascertain whether 
removal of this area is an appropriate balance between the objective to 
``simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS management . . . by reducing 
redundancies in regulations established to reduce bluefin tuna 
interactions'' with other objectives. NMFS is aware that the area 
around the edge of the continental shelf in the Northeastern United 
States Closed Area is an important area for pelagic longline fishermen 
to target swordfish and BAYS tunas. The preferred alternative will 
allow access to that area for fishermen to pursue target species and 
collect fishery-dependent data to inform future management of the 
Northeastern United States Closed Area. Presuming that the distribution 
of target species in this area has not changed, removing the 
regulations associated with this area might provide additional fishing 
opportunities to pelagic longline fishermen, and therefore be aligned 
with the objective to ``optimize the ability of the pelagic longline 
fishery to harvest target species quotas.'' However, given the 
uncertainty associated with the length of time the area has been 
closed, it is unclear how closely aligned Alternative A5 would be with 
this objective. For these reasons, NMFS did not prefer this alternative 
in the DEIS or FEIS.

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

    Comment 20: NMFS received comments in support of and in opposition 
to removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Alternative B2). 
Specifically, comments in favor of removal noted that this area is 
potentially redundant with the IBQ Program; that ecological benefits 
may be negligible due to low numbers of vessels which did not meet 
criteria for access; that the stock condition is improving; and removal 
of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is consistent with section 
304(g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (which requires fishing vessels be 
provided a reasonable opportunity to harvest allocation). NMFS also 
received suggestions on future steps if the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area is removed. Specifically, comments suggested that 
continued oversight over bluefin interactions with pelagic longline 
vessels in the Cape Hatteras region (utilizing observers) is necessary 
to monitor interactions with bluefin tuna and other species.
    Comments in opposition to removing the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area noted that the existing gear restricted area measures 
have been effective at managing bluefin tuna and reducing bluefin tuna 
discards and serve as a deterrent against future bad behavior. Removal 
of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area could change fishing behavior 
and result in vessels directly targeting bluefin tuna. NMFS also 
received comments that the gear restricted area should be retained 
because it has not caused any economic hardships to date. NMFS also 
received comments that the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area should be 
maintained because climate change may shift the location of future 
bluefin spawning into this area.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the commenters that the Cape Hatteras 
Gear Restricted Area should be removed given data about the results of 
the implementation of the performance metrics, and the broader context 
of quota management of bluefin. NMFS would closely monitor future 
fishing activity by vessels in this area, and levels of bluefin tuna 
bycatch would be limited by the IBQ Program and other measures such as 
EM. Although removal of the gear restricted area would give vessel 
owners more flexibility in deciding where to fish, NMFS does not 
anticipate substantive changes to fishing behavior as a result of 
removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area because a majority of 
the fleet has had access to this area in recent years. Data presented 
in Chapter 4 of the FEIS (e.g., Figure 4.9 and Figure 4.11) shows that 
despite the majority of the fleet meeting criteria to access the area, 
the interaction and CPUE hotspots that previously was noted within the

[[Page 18825]]

boundaries of the gear restricted area no longer exist. NMFS therefore 
agrees that the overall impact of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted 
Area on reducing bluefin interactions is likely low due to the small 
proportion of total effort that was excluded from the area as a result 
of access decisions and the temporary nature of the access decisions. 
Removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is not anticipated to 
have negative impacts on the Western Atlantic bluefin stock. Since 
2015, the catch of bluefin tuna (landings and dead discards) by the 
pelagic longline fishery has been well within the bluefin quota 
allocated to the Atlantic tunas longline category. The western Atlantic 
bluefin stock is not experiencing overfishing (see description of stock 
status under Response to Comment #1). However, whether the stock is 
overfished remains unknown as of the last stock assessment (completed 
in 2017). The total U.S. bluefin quota is consistent with ICCAT 
recommendations, which are based upon the best available scientific 
information on the status of the Western Atlantic bluefin stock.
    NMFS agrees that in addition to evaluating the utility of the gear 
restricted area in reducing bluefin interactions, providing reasonable 
fishing opportunity is an important consideration in determining 
management actions. NMFS will continue to closely monitor bluefin catch 
in the Cape Hatteras area, and in the future may take additional steps 
to manage fisheries within this or other areas to address bycatch 
concerns. NMFS does not anticipate changes to observer requirements 
applicable to pelagic longline vessels fishing off Cape Hatteras or 
elsewhere.
    Although the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area has had some 
positive impacts in reducing bluefin tuna discards through the 
incentives associated with the performance metrics and conditional 
access, as a whole, the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area is not 
needed to maintain the low level of bluefin catch documented by NMFS 
for 2015 through 2018. NMFS agrees that the gear restricted area may 
have curtailed interactions within the first few years following 
implementation, given that nearly 40 percent of vessels that fished in 
the area did not meet criteria for access in the first year of the 
program. However, more recently the vessels fishing locally within the 
Cape Hatteras region have met criteria for access to the gear 
restricted area. Vessels that did not meet criteria for access 
primarily fish in other regions, and therefore may not be incentivized 
to adjust and maintain ``good behavior'' to ensure access to the gear 
restricted area. NMFS disagrees that removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area will change behavior. As discussed above, only a small 
proportion of vessels recently did not meet criteria for access to the 
gear restricted area. The fishery has adjusted to new requirements 
under the IBQ Program, and new VMS reporting and EM monitoring 
requirements. Pelagic longline vessels are prohibited from targeting 
bluefin tuna with pelagic longline gear. However, while fishing for 
other target species they may elect to retain more bluefin than what 
was previously allowed (i.e., target catch requirements prior to 2015). 
These vessels must account for all incidental catch of bluefin tuna 
during direction fishing operations of the pelagic longline fishery for 
other Atlantic HMS, possibly incurring significant financial costs to 
obtain sufficient quota to cover landings or dead discards. NMFS 
disagrees that the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area has not had any 
negative economic impacts. It is highly likely that some vessels not 
qualified to fish in the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area incurred 
greater fishing costs on some trips where they fished in alternate 
locations instead of in the boundary of the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area. NMFS agrees that climate change may substantially 
alter the spatial distribution of the life stages of fish, including 
bluefin tuna, but disagrees that continuation of the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area is warranted based on current information concerning 
the primary spawning grounds for western Atlantic bluefin tuna or any 
hypothetical future changes thereof.
    Comment 21: NMFS received comments that supported retaining the 
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area and questioned whether there is a 
relationship between the performance metrics and the ability of vessels 
to avoid bluefin. Specifically, comments indicated that there was no 
rigorous scientific evaluation of the metrics, and that the Cape 
Hatteras Gear Restricted Area has weak accountability associated with 
it (i.e., no observers or ``other recording system''). NMFS also 
received comments suggesting that the bluefin performance metric, which 
is used in part to determine access to the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area, may reward under-reporting.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the performance metrics provided no 
incentive to avoid bluefin tuna. NMFS acknowledges that the 
relationship of the performance metrics to fishers' avoidance behavior 
is complex and drivers of such behavior may be variable, depending upon 
the performance metric formulas, the level of interest of vessels in 
fishing in the area, and the regulatory context of the gear restricted 
area. The performance metric formulas were specifically tailored to 
address an observed hotspot of bluefin interactions and compliance 
issues that were observed in the Cape Hatteras region at the time of 
implementation. Nearly 40 percent of the vessels that fished in the 
gear restricted area did not meet criteria for access in the first year 
that the gear restricted area was implemented. Most of these vessels 
have subsequently met criteria for access due to lower bluefin 
interaction rates and improvements in logbook and observer program 
compliance. As discussed in the FEIS, the number of vessels which did 
not meet criteria for access that also operate locally within the Cape 
Hatteras region has decreased. Most of the vessels that did not meet 
criteria for access to the gear restricted area have recently fished 
elsewhere, such as the South Atlantic Bight, the high seas east of the 
Bahamas, the Northeast Distant Area, or the Gulf of Mexico. These 
vessels may not be incentivized to adjust behavior by access 
determinations because they do not fish in the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area. Therefore, the application of the specific metrics in 
the context of the IBQ Program has recently had relatively low impact 
in achieving the objectives of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 
(i.e., minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna).
    The implementation of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 
coincided with the implementation of the IBQ Program under Amendment 7 
(2015), and at that time the effectiveness of the IBQ Program was 
unknown. The gear restricted area therefore served as a secondary means 
to reduce bluefin interactions in this hotspot and was intended 
specifically to address the behavior of a few vessels responsible for 
the majority of interactions in the area. These vessels must now 
account for incidental catch of bluefin tuna during pelagic longline 
fishery operations through the IBQ Program, and have not accrued the 
same number of bluefin in sets recently made within the Cape Hatteras 
Gear Restricted Area. However, the removal of the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area should not be interpreted as an indication that 
performance metrics are an invalid management tool.
    NMFS disagrees that there was no scientific basis for the 
performance metrics. The design of the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted 
Area was the result of an

[[Page 18826]]

iterative process. In Amendment 7, 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 species retained. The analysis 
considered relevant fisheries data, and also oceanographic trends. NMFS 
identified appropriate performance metrics to address two issues: (1) 
Relatively few vessels were consistently responsible for the majority 
of bluefin tuna dead discards in the Longline category; and (2) some 
vessels had poor records of compliance with reporting and monitoring 
programs that provide fishery data necessary for successful management 
of pelagic longline fisheries. Based on the performance metrics, 
between 7 and 34 vessels were determined to be not qualified to fish in 
the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (from 2014 to 2019). There was a 
declining pattern in the number of vessels that were not qualified on 
the basis of compliance with either logbook or observer requirements 
declined from 2014 to 2019. In contrast, the pattern in the number of 
vessels that did not meet criteria due to high bluefin interaction 
rates was more variable, with a slight increase over time. NMFS 
disagrees that there was weak accountability associated with the Cape 
Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. All pelagic longline vessels, including 
those that met criteria for access to fish in the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted Area were subject to observer and electronic monitoring 
system requirements.
    In the development of this final rule, NMFS could have considered 
revision of the formula underlying the performance metric so that fewer 
bluefin interactions would result in a vessel being not qualified. 
However, it is not likely that the benefits associated with a revised 
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area would outweigh the costs to vessels 
excluded from fishing in the area, given what is now known about the 
effectiveness of the IBQ Program. Reductions in bluefin interactions 
can be achieved through the IBQ Program, which provides incentives for 
vessels to reduce bluefin interactions, but also allows flexibility for 
vessels to make decisions when and where to fish.
    NMFS acknowledges that individual accountability measures may 
incentivize certain behaviors such as underreporting. NMFS has 
implemented specific, enhanced monitoring and reporting procedures to 
discourage underreporting. As discussed in the Three-Year Review of the 
IBQ Program (e.g., see page 52 and Figure 3.18), the frequency of 
bluefin catch is similar across observer, audited EM sets, and VMS set 
reports. NMFS also observed relatively good correspondence between 
logbook data and VMS data for the number of bluefin tuna released alive 
and number discarded dead (see Section 6.7 of the Three-Year Review). 
NMFS has not identified a significant underreporting issue in the Mid-
Atlantic Region, but will continue to cross-validate data streams and 
take additional management or enforcement steps as necessary to address 
future underreporting of bluefin.

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area

    Comment 22: NMFS received comments in support of and in opposition 
to Preferred Alternative C3, which would undertake an evaluation of the 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area to assess its continued need 
to meet bluefin tuna management objectives. Comments in opposition to 
the Preferred Alternative noted that the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area should be retained in order to protect western Atlantic 
bluefin tuna on their primary spawning grounds. Specifically, NMFS 
should not undertake management measures that could result in catch of 
spawning bluefin tuna or elevating the mortality rates in the Gulf of 
Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico is the known primary spawning ground for the 
western Atlantic stock of bluefin tuna, and thus the area is important 
to protect. Comments in opposition to the preferred alternative also 
noted the effectiveness of existing measures and indicated that removal 
would not meet the objective of minimizing bycatch and bycatch 
mortality of bluefin tuna. NMFS received comments in support of 
Preferred Alternative C3 for a variety of reasons, such as collecting 
more data to determine a future action, and balancing the objective of 
protecting bluefin tuna and optimizing the harvest of target species.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that current information shows the Gulf 
of Mexico contains the known primary spawning grounds for western 
Atlantic bluefin tuna, and that bluefin tuna present in the Gulf of 
Mexico during the early winter and spring are primarily there for 
spawning. NMFS agrees that bluefin tuna should be protected while on 
the spawning grounds. A number of management measures that limit 
bluefin catch and mortality in the Gulf of Mexico would still be in 
effect under the preferred alternative. For example, pelagic longline 
vessels would still be required to comply with the requirements of the 
IBQ Program. NMFS designed specific provisions of the IBQ Program to 
prevent potential increases in bluefin catch in the Gulf of Mexico, 
which could occur if fishing effort was redistributed from the Atlantic 
region. NMFS designated a separate quota for the Gulf of Mexico 
equivalent to 35 percent of the total Longline category quota, which 
limits overall bluefin catch in this region. In comparison to bluefin 
catch in the Atlantic region (which can be accounted for with 
allocation from the Purse Seine category or Gulf of Mexico IBQ 
allocation), Gulf of Mexico bluefin catch may only be accounted for 
with Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation. This regional category designation, 
and stricter rules for Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation use, provides 
additional protection for spawning bluefin by restricting the amount of 
bluefin mortalities that can occur within the Gulf of Mexico. The IBQ 
Program also provides a constraint on effort, since pelagic longline 
vessels must acquire a minimum amount of Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation 
in order to depart on a trip and must account for quota debt on a 
quarterly basis. NMFS also is retaining a seasonal weak hook 
requirement in the Gulf of Mexico (Preferred Alternative D2 in the 
FEIS) to provide additional protections for spawning bluefin. As 
discussed below and in Appendix B of the FEIS, a statistically 
significant 46 percent decline in CPUE for bluefin tuna has been 
associated with weak hook use. In addition, there are enhanced 
reporting and monitoring requirements that support data validation in 
the monitoring area under the preferred alternative.
    As discussed in Comment #1 above, NMFS agrees that existing 
management measures such as the gear restricted areas or weak hooks 
have been effective at reducing bluefin tuna interactions and dead 
discards. However, NMFS committed to a three-year evaluation of the 
effectiveness of gear restricted areas in Amendment 7. Page 30 of the 
Amendment 7 FEIS notes that the ``effectiveness of [the Gulf of Mexico 
and Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Areas] depends on the defined area 
and time of the restriction(s) coinciding with the presence of bluefin 
in the area(s), the availability of target species outside of gear 
restricted area(s), the presence of bluefin outside the gear restricted 
area(s), annual variability in bluefin interactions, environmental 
conditions that may drive the distribution of bluefin, and other 
factors that affect the feasibility of fishing for target species 
outside of the gear restricted area(s).''

[[Page 18827]]

The most efficient and relevant means of considering these 
effectiveness measures in the context of pelagic longline fishery 
operations is through fishery dependent data collection.
    NMFS disagrees that the preferred alternative would not meet the 
objective to ``continue to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of 
bluefin tuna''. Given the uncertainty associated with allowing pelagic 
longline fishing in an area that has previously been closed, NMFS 
agrees that it is appropriate to collect information to inform future 
management decisions. NMFS prefers a more incremental approach that 
focuses on data collection and requires a future rulemaking to remove 
the closed area from the regulations as opposed to removing regulations 
in this action. The evaluation period of both the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Gear Restricted Area and Northeastern United States Closed Area will be 
closely monitored under a threshold designed for each area, which is 
intended to ensure that the proposed evaluation process would not 
result in high bluefin catch rates. In the event that bluefin catch is 
higher than this threshold, NMFS would close the area to pelagic 
longline fishing. Furthermore, as discussed in the Response to Comment 
#11 above, the final action was adjusted from the proposed action but 
ensures that the threshold remains conservative in the event that the 
U.S. allocation is adjusted at a future ICCAT meeting. In the event 
that ICCAT adjusts the U.S. allocation downward, this threshold would 
also be adjusted downward such that it would be equivalent to 55 
percent of the total Gulf of Mexico allocation. Even if the threshold 
is reached, the incidental catch of bluefin tuna by the pelagic 
longline fishery would be within previously-adopted relevant levels, 
including the science-based overall quota, the Longline category quota 
and other limits adopted in Amendment 7, and the Gulf of Mexico 
allowable IBQ allocation.
    As discussed in Comment #1 above, NMFS agrees that the actions 
implemented under this rule, including the actions to evaluate the 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area and the Northeastern United 
States Closed Area by converting them to Monitoring Areas, are highly 
consistent with balancing the objectives of this rulemaking. While 
outright removal of the restrictions associated with the gear 
restricted areas or closed area would provide the most flexibility to 
fishermen to select locations that would optimize target species catch 
and minimize bluefin bycatch that alternative would not provide the 
same amount of agency monitoring and control as would occur under an 
evaluation process. As discussed in Comment #1, the actions undertaken 
in this rule would also provide an opportunity to evaluate the 
continued need for these spatially managed areas, with removal being 
one of many potential outcomes in a future rulemaking that considers 
next steps. Establishing such an evaluation process, instead of 
outright removal of the area, is therefore consistent with balancing 
the objectives to ``simplify and streamline HMS regulations . . . by 
reducing redundancies in regulations'' and the need to ``continue to 
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin.''
    Comment 23: NMFS received comments that the DEIS and proposed rule 
did not demonstrate whether the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area still contains areas of high concentration of bluefin, and 
therefore the agency has not determined whether the original rationale 
for closing the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area (``locations 
of high bluefin tuna concentrations and interactions with pelagic 
longline gear'') is still valid.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the current regulations do not 
routinely allow for fishery-dependent data collection in areas that 
have been closed, which makes it difficult to determine if these areas 
still meet the objectives for which they were originally implemented. 
Interannual variability in biological, oceanographic, or fishery 
conditions may shift the location of fishery interactions. As new 
information comes available concerning spatio-temporal bluefin 
interactions with the longline fleet, NMFS will consider whether it is 
appropriate to undertake different management actions. NMFS has 
incorporated such information into management in recent years. For 
example, between the draft and final EIS for Amendment 7, NMFS adjusted 
the boundaries of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 
eastward (as part of a new alternative) and added a second area for 
inclusion adjacent to the Desoto Canyon closure. As discussed in the 
FEIS for Amendment 7, this adjustment was based on new information that 
had recently come available and public comment which suggested the 
original proposed boundaries would not be as effective. In this final 
rule, NMFS is implementing a measure that would include an evaluation 
via fishery-dependent data collection to determine whether the Spring 
Gulf of Mexico Gear Monitoring Area still contains relatively high 
bluefin interaction rates. The evaluation process does not permanently 
remove the gear restricted area requirements from the regulations. 
Rather, it establishes a timeline for evaluation and dictates the 
status (i.e., whether it is open or closed to pelagic longline fishing) 
of the area during that evaluation and development of a subsequent 
action.
    Comment 24: NMFS received comments in opposition to making 
regulatory changes to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, 
noting that the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area has not had 
adverse economic impacts on the pelagic longline fleet. Comments also 
noted that the preferred alternative was bad for fishermen due to a 
decrease in the estimated pelagic longline revenue as a result of 
implementing the preferred alternative (according to the impacts 
analysis presented in the DEIS.
    Response: The analysis of socio-economic impacts of Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Gear Restricted Area alternatives in Chapter 4 of the FEIS 
includes quantitative estimates of average annual revenues. These 
analyses were updated from the DEIS with an additional year of data in 
the FEIS and reflect a range of potential annual revenues for Longline 
category permitted vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico generated from 
select target species and incidentally-caught bluefin tuna. For the No 
Action alternative, such annual revenue in April and May (2015-2018) 
averaged approximately $677,007. For Preferred Alternative C3, the 
estimated range of potential revenues is between $538,151 and $687,962.
    NMFS acknowledges that much of this range reflects a decrease in 
potential revenue from the Preferred Alternative compared to the No 
Action alternative. We expect, however, that fishermen would operate to 
optimize their revenues. Access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring 
Area will give fishermen the opportunity to make decisions about where 
to fish depending on fish availability, and the flexibility to fish in 
areas that optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. If swordfish 
and yellowfin tuna landings in the Gulf of Mexico decrease due to 
shifting effort into the Monitoring Areas, then fishermen would likely 
continue fishing outside of the areas. Thus, we expect that revenue 
results would bear out at the high end of the range.
    NMFS disagrees that the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 
has not had adverse economic impacts on pelagic longline fishermen. In 
addition to the quantitative analyses, pelagic longline fishermen have 
commented during this rulemaking process that

[[Page 18828]]

there are adverse economic impacts and regulatory burdens associated 
with complying with the number of regulations and restrictions on the 
fishery. During the effective period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area, pelagic longline fishermen in the northern Gulf of 
Mexico must conduct fishing operations around the geographic patchwork 
of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area's two designated 
areas as well as the Desoto Canyon closure (See Figure 3.4 of the FEIS 
associated with this rulemaking). These restrictions on available 
fishing grounds limit operational flexibility and fishermen cannot 
react as quickly to changing conditions--a particularly variable factor 
when fishing for highly migratory species such as bluefin tuna, 
yellowfin tuna, and swordfish. This, in turn, means that they cannot 
make decisions to best increase revenue and best avoid potential costs 
associated with accounting for incidental bluefin tuna catch. Fishermen 
have also reported general operational costs of having to move to 
fishing grounds farther away and incurring fuel and opportunity costs 
given the additional time that can be needed.
    Given that we have concluded that all of the measures in place are 
likely not needed to continue to appropriately limit incidental catch 
in the pelagic longline fishery as first established in Amendment 7, it 
is appropriate for the agency to consider this feedback in examining 
how to relieve regulatory burden on individuals, minimize costs, and 
avoid unnecessary regulatory duplication. See 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(7) 
(National Standard 7). This is consistent with the guidelines, which 
specify that management measures should be designed ``to give fishermen 
the greatest possible freedom of action in conducting business and 
pursuing recreational opportunities that are consistent with ensuring 
wise use of the resources and reducing conflict in the fishery.''
    Comment 25: Commenters questioned the impact of the IBQ Program on 
reducing discards of bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. Some 
commenters stated that the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, 
not the IBQ Program, is the reason for reductions in bluefin tuna 
bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery since implementation of 
Amendment 7 in 2015. Other commenters felt that the IBQ Program by 
itself cannot be credited with reduction in mortality in the Gulf of 
Mexico; therefore, removing the gear restricted area could compromise 
management objectives and could inappropriately increase catch of 
spawning bluefin tuna. Commenters noted that, based on Table 6.32 in 
the Draft Three-Year Review of the IBQ Program (page 151), the rate of 
change in bluefin tuna catch in February and March versus in April and 
May is not constant before and after implementation of the closed area. 
Since the reduction in catch was not the same, these commenters felt 
that the IBQ Program alone cannot be credited with this reduction in 
mortality.
    Response: Both the IBQ Program and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area, along with reduced fishery effort that has been 
occurring within the Gulf of Mexico over the last decade, have likely 
played a role in reducing bluefin tuna interactions. Because the IBQ 
Program and the gear restricted areas were implemented at the same 
time, it is difficult to separate out the impact each has had in 
relation to reducing bluefin tuna interactions and catch. NMFS 
therefore strongly prefers an evaluative option that will enable 
certain data collection under a single management tool, which is the 
IBQ Program. These data could then be compared to data that were 
collected while both the IBQ Program and the gear restricted areas were 
in place to better evaluate the impacts when both regulatory measures 
were in place against the impacts of having just one measure (the IBQ 
Program) in place. This evaluation will enable NMFS to determine 
whether there remains sufficient justification to retain both 
management measures, each of which may be effective in their own right 
but are not necessarily needed to continue in tandem to minimize 
bluefin tuna bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable 
given other management objectives that also must be considered, 
particularly where all of these actions occur within an overall, 
science-based total allowable catch.
    NMFS received a specific comment on the Proposed Rule and DEIS, 
which drew conclusions about the continued need for the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Gear Restricted Area in tandem with the IBQ Program. The 
commenter concluded, based on a relatively simple analysis of a limited 
set of data, that the IBQ Program alone could not appropriately limit 
incidental catch of bluefin tuna by the pelagic longline fishery in the 
Gulf of Mexico. As a number of other comments used this conclusion as 
their foundation, we determined a more in-depth response was warranted. 
Although NMFS considered the comment as presented, we concluded that it 
oversimplified a number of relevant factors, and that the conclusions 
drawn were not consistent with those that would be drawn from a broader 
analysis. In Appendix E of the FEIS associated with this rulemaking, 
NMFS offers information to support our response to this comment, 
reviewing pelagic longline catch data from the Gulf of Mexico prior to 
and following the implementation of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area and the IBQ Program in Amendment 7. The information is 
included in an Appendix given its length and the inclusion of several 
figures. Appendix E of the FEIS associated with this rulemaking does 
not present any new or different information than was in the DEIS, the 
referenced Three-Year Review of the IBQ Program, or in the analyses 
developed for Amendment 7.
    NMFS agrees with public comment noting that Table 6.32 in the Draft 
Three-Year Review shows a reduction between two time periods (2012-2014 
vs. 2015-2016), and that the magnitude of that reduction is greater for 
the months during which the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 
was effective (April and May), however these data reflect landings, 
which are only a subset of the relevant interactions that could inform 
effects, including reported mortalities, reported landings, reported 
discards, and reported dead discards across multiple time periods. The 
comment also compared an uneven number of years before (2012-2014, 
i.e., 3 years) and after (2015-2016, i.e., 2 years) implementation of 
Amendment 7 without standardizing the data, which might influence 
results since more years presumably result in more data and influences 
the weight of the variables influencing catch. As discussed in Appendix 
E of the FEIS, events in the management environment may influence year-
to-year behavior within the fishery. In general, temporal data 
variables can influence fishery trend analyses. For example, analyzing 
years of data under different management requirements (e.g., the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP versus previous FMPs; target catch requirements 
for retention of bluefin tuna versus accounting for bluefin incidental 
catch through the IBQ Program; before and after weak hook 
implementation) or in years where significant events may have an impact 
on fishing behavior (e.g., Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Hurricane 
Katrina) may have an impact on the conclusions of these analyses that 
might either be not relevant to the current management environment or 
unlikely to occur under normal circumstances. Furthermore, it takes 
time for a fishery to adapt to change. As shown in Table

[[Page 18829]]

3.4 of the DEIS, the number of swordfish retained by the fleet in the 
Gulf of Mexico decreased after implementation of Amendment 7 for two 
years before starting to increase in 2017. Therefore, just considering 
2015 and 2016 as representative of a post-Amendment 7 environment may 
not be reflective of the current state of the fishery. This is why NMFS 
tends to estimate potential ecological impacts over multiple years of 
data and carefully considers the selection of years included in 
ecological impacts analyses. Therefore, for the information presented 
in Appendix E of the FEIS associated with this rulemaking, NMFS 
presented data from different time periods in an effort to balance out 
the suite of variables that could have influenced information derived 
from the pelagic longline fishery's operations in the Gulf of Mexico.
    As presented in Appendix E of the FEIS associated with this 
rulemaking, NMFS found that the difference in the percent change by 
month varied depending on time period and which variable was considered 
in the analysis. For example, the change in landings of fish was higher 
during Gear Restricted Area effective months (April and May) than it 
was in the two months preceding the Gear Restricted Area effective 
months (February and March) when comparing time periods immediately 
prior to (2012-2014) and after (2015-2017) implementation of Amendment 
7 management measures (Table E.3). However, a slightly different 
analysis comparing the change in average annual number of landings 
noted similar reductions in landings in February, April and May across 
a historical (2006-2012) and more recent (2015-2018) time period (Table 
E.3). NMFS found that adding a year of data can change the conclusions 
that might be drawn (e.g., comparing reductions in landings in Table 
E.2 and E.3 in Appendix E of the FEIS associated with this rulemaking).
    In general, given the influence of time on data trends and the 
short periods of time analyzed by the commenter, NMFS believes these 
analyses demonstrate a benefit of data collection to inform future 
management.
    The preferred alternative would allow fishery-dependent data 
collection to explore catch rates, landings, mortality, and other data 
in the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area. By collecting 
fishery dependent data in this area while vessels are operating under 
the IBQ Program, NMFS will be better able to isolate the impacts of the 
gear restricted area and determine if both management measures are 
needed to meet the objectives for reducing bluefin tuna bycatch in the 
pelagic longline fishery as set out in Amendment 7 when both measures 
were adopted and consistent with the objectives of this rulemaking. 
Certain aspects of the IBQ Program (e.g., regional IBQ allocation 
designations and individual accountability) and design elements of this 
evaluation process (e.g., thresholds) will both allow for this data 
collection and stop pelagic longline fishing in the area if the fleet 
were to use Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation in exceedance of an 
established annual threshold to account for bluefin landings or dead 
discards caught within the boundaries of the Monitoring Area. This will 
ensure that fishing is not counter to the objectives of ``minimiz[ing], 
to the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin 
tuna and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear consistent with 
the conservation and management objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS 
FMP, its amendments, and all applicable laws.''
    Regarding the effects of the preferred alternative specifically on 
spawning bluefin tuna, the preferred alternative may increase catch of 
bluefin tuna compared to the No Action alternative, although the actual 
predicted increase (versus the potentially allowable amount) is 
relatively minor. While some increases in target catch and bluefin tuna 
bycatch could occur as a result of removal of the area, any such 
increases would be within previously analyzed, applicable quotas and 
would be consistent with other management measures that NMFS determined 
appropriately limit bycatch and conserve the stock in Amendment 7, 
including the Longline subquota and the IBQ allocation provisions.
    Comment 26: NMFS received comments requesting that NMFS expand the 
current Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, by creating a 
larger box that encompasses both areas within a single larger closure 
in time and space.
    Response: NMFS' management objectives under Amendment 7 included 
both the reduction of bluefin tuna interactions and dead discards, and 
to balance the need to limit landings and dead discards with the 
objective of optimizing fishing opportunity and maintaining 
profitability, among other things. One of the objectives of this 
rulemaking was to optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fishery 
to harvest target species quotas while also considering fairness among 
permit/quota categories. Expansion of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area is not considered to be consistent with current 
management objectives or objectives of this rulemaking because such a 
box would likely encompass the remaining, non-regulated pelagic 
longline fishing grounds in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Closing these 
areas would remove most fishing opportunity for fleets that fish in 
these areas. Thus, NMFS did not determine expansion of this area was 
warranted.
    In an analysis completed for the Amendment 7 rulemaking, NMFS also 
considered the need to gather scientific data from the Gulf of Mexico 
longline fishery for the development of effective conservation and 
management measures. A larger Gear Restricted Area (e.g., such as the 
Gulf of Mexico EEZ) was noted to 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 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. Closing 
additional area would likely reduce the amount of available data for 
these stock assessment indices.

Weak Hooks

    Comment 27: NMFS received comments that expressed support for the 
Preferred Alternative (D2) to require weak hooks in the pelagic 
longline fishery for six months of the year (January-June) in order to 
reduce bycatch of bluefin in the winter and spring and white marlin in 
the summer and fall. NMFS also received comments in opposition to the 
preferred alternative, indicating that weak hook use in the summertime 
has no ecological value, so fishermen will not care if the requirement 
goes away. Other comments indicated that the IBQ Program is sufficient 
for its purpose.
    Response: NMFS agrees that implementing a seasonal requirement for 
weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico will provide protections for bluefin 
tuna during the spawning season and may decrease bycatch of white 
marlin in the

[[Page 18830]]

summer and fall. The preferred alternative, which would implement a 
seasonal weak hook requirement, was selected in the DEIS and the FEIS 
as the alternative expected to strike the best balance between the 
objectives of ``continue to minimize . . . bycatch and bycatch 
mortality of bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline 
gear . . .''. and to ``optimize the ability of the pelagic longline 
fishery to harvest target species quotas.'' This alternative provides 
increased flexibility with respect to hook requirements in the second 
half of the year (provided basic circle hook requirements are still 
met). This alternative only requires the use of gear intended to 
minimize bluefin bycatch when spawning bluefin are abundant in the Gulf 
of Mexico and the ecological benefits for spawning bluefin are the 
greatest (i.e., in the first half of the year). The preferred 
alternative in the FEIS would not prohibit the use of weak hooks in the 
summer and fall. Some commenters from pelagic longline fishermen in the 
central Gulf of Mexico prefer the use of weak hooks year round. These 
fishermen noted that yellowfin tuna catch is slightly higher with weak 
hooks and they may continue to use weak hooks during the months that 
they are not required. NMFS agrees that the use of weak hooks in the 
summer (i.e., after June) may not provide ecological benefits to 
bluefin tuna. Removing the weak hook requirements when they have 
negligible ecological benefit for spawning bluefin (due to low 
abundance in the second half of the year) is consistent with the 
rulemaking objectives to simplify and streamline Atlantic HMS 
management by reducing redundancies in regulations established to 
reduce bluefin interactions. NMFS also designed this alternative to 
mitigate bycatch of white marlin. This alternative therefore balances 
the bycatch mitigation needs for two different species, which is 
consistent with the alternative to ``continue to minimize . . . bycatch 
and bycatch mortality of bluefin tuna and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic 
longline gear . . .''
    Comment 28: NMFS received comments that suggested that weak hooks 
should only be required while pelagic longline vessels are fishing in 
the within the boundaries of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area if the preferred alternative (Alternative C3) was finalized.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment to require weak hooks 
within the boundaries of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area. Although the catch rates were higher in the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Gear Restricted Area during the Amendment 7 rulemaking, distributions 
of spawning bluefin tuna may change throughout the Gulf of Mexico and 
requiring their use in all portions of the Gulf of Mexico will maximize 
the conservation benefit provided by weak hooks. Additionally, 
requiring weak hook use in a discrete area of the Gulf of Mexico may 
present enforcement challenges and require extensive at-sea resources. 
Some fishing could occur on the border of the current Gear Restricted 
Area and gear drift could inadvertently create compliance issues.
    Comment 29: Weak hook regulations are obsolete and redundant given 
that the restrictions of a vessel's IBQ allocation maintains the 
conservation goals in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that weak hooks are redundant with the IBQ 
Program for maintaining low levels of bycatch of bluefin tuna in the 
Gulf of Mexico. While the IBQ Program incentivizes fishery participants 
to avoid bluefin tuna, there is a proven scientific benefit in the use 
of weak hooks with pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Research has shown a statistically significant 46 percent decline in 
bluefin tuna catch-per-unit-effort associated with weak hook use. The 
release of large spawning bluefin tuna caught on weak hooks creates 
conservation benefits to the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock during 
the spawning season.
    Comment 30: NMFS received comments that a weak hook requirement 
from January through June would continue to severely impact the winter 
swordfish fishery in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Comments indicated 
that there has been a large reduction in swordfish landings in the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico winter swordfish fishery; that there is no 
conservation value to maintaining this regulation in the eastern Gulf 
of Mexico; and that the loss of revenue is making it harder to find 
crew for longline boats. NMFS received comments suggesting that NMFS 
create a new spatially managed area in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico 
where weak hook use would not be required. NMFS also received comments 
suggesting that the monofilament on swordfish leaders that have 
straightened hooks are usually very opaque instead of clear, which may 
indicate physical stress on the line from a swordfish bill striking the 
leader as the escaped fish reacts to being hooked. One commenter 
estimated their 2017 losses at 5,000-6,000 lb of swordfish, with an 
estimated value of $30,000.
    Response: NMFS investigated catch rates of several target species 
occurring in the area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico delineated by 
several pelagic longline fishermen during the development of the FEIS. 
Appendix D of the FEIS includes this data analysis. NMFS compared catch 
rates from the area from 2009-2011 (3 years prior to weak hook 
implementation; 2011 included since weak hooks were not mandatory until 
May) and 2015-2017 (3 years after implementation). Overall catch rates 
and landings of swordfish were annually variable from before and after 
implementation of weak hooks. Although variable from year to year, data 
suggested landings and catch rates have not changed in this area since 
implementation of weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico
    NMFS also analyzed bluefin tuna landings and dead discard catch 
rates and catch numbers. Bluefin tuna catches were slightly higher in 
the eastern Gulf of Mexico area delineated by several pelagic longline 
fishermen prior to the implementation of weak hooks. Since higher catch 
rates were experienced prior to implementation of weak hooks, there is 
likely to be a continued conservation benefit to retaining a seasonal 
weak hook requirement in the area shown in Appendix E of the FEIS 
because bluefin tuna are likely to still occur in the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Comment 31: NMFS received comments indicating that the original 
NOAA weak hook experiments conducted between 2008 and 2012 occurred in 
a yellowfin tuna fishery, and resulted in few swordfish data points 
(and the swordfish interactions were mostly juvenile). This gives an 
inaccurate portrayal of the swordfish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico and 
the results of the study should not be used for management purposes.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the weak hook research was not 
representative of the entire Gulf of Mexico fishery. During the 
research conducted from 2007-2010, eight vessels were involved in the 
experiment observing 418 sets and deploying 245,881 hooks. An 
additional 51,067 hooks were deployed over 111 sets on 2 vessels in 
2012. A Fisher's Exact, which is a common statistical test used to 
determine significance of two classes of objects, in this case the 
object being hooks (weak and standard) and significant differences in 
their catch rates, was used to analyze results. The research did show 
reductions in the amount of target catch of yellowfin tuna and 
swordfish; however, these reductions were not statistically 
significant.

[[Page 18831]]

    NMFS also compared the catch rates, prior to and after 
implementation, of weak hooks of several species from the entire Gulf 
of Mexico in Appendix C of the FEIS. In general, actual weak hook 
effects match results from the 2007-2010 research project. Bluefin tuna 
catch-per-unit effort and interactions both dropped after the 
requirement while catch-per-unit effort and interactions for swordfish, 
yellowfin tuna, and blue marlin remained relatively stable. White 
marlin and roundscale spearfish catch-per-unit effort and interactions 
increased with the use of weak hooks (Table C.2 in the FEIS). White 
marlin and roundscale spearfish were combined for analytical purposes 
because they can be difficult to tell apart, and because combination of 
data enabled a more robust sample size for analysis. Therefore, this 
data suggest that the weak hook research was an accurate representation 
of the Gulf of Mexico fishery.
    Comment 32: NMFS received comments regarding a seasonal weak hook 
requirement stating that there is a substantial expense in changing 
gear type in labor and materials. Financial burden is not just 
associated with the cost of hooks. As shown in Chapter 3 of the FEIS 
associated with this rulemaking, Figure 3.2 and 3.3, pelagic longline 
gear consists of a mainline suspended in the water column, from which 
branch lines (which hang off the mainline and are used to suspend hooks 
in the water column). Monofilament line is used widely for both the 
mainline (the longline) and branchlines. Branchlines may incorporate a 
section of line (of variable length) known as a leader, with a lead 
weight at one end and the baited hook at the other. Commenters noted 
that they must purchase a different, stretchy type of leader to deploy 
with weak hooks that keep small swordfish from straightening the hooks. 
NMFS received comments that there is an impracticality to carrying 
double gear and/or storing the non-weak hook gear shoreside. Its takes 
a full crew two days to change out the gear. Additionally, because of 
regulations, the hooks must be corrosive and the aluminum crimps will 
eventually fail; extra supplies to support the deployed hook of choice 
are needed to be stored onboard. Few boats in the fishery have the deck 
capacity to carry double gear.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment because fishermen may 
fish with weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico for the entire year if they 
wish to do so. The removal of the requirement for the July-December 
time period does not prohibit the use of weak hooks during that period. 
If fishermen find that using weak hooks throughout the year is less 
burdensome they may do so. NMFS recognizes that vessels that fish 
outside the Gulf of Mexico, may not be rigged with weak hooks and would 
need to re-rig their gear to use weak hook when the requirement is in 
effect. Due to little change in the catch and catch rates of swordfish 
in the Gulf of Mexico and the conservation benefit afforded to bluefin 
tuna when spawning, NMFS is at this time preferring a seasonal 
requirement. NMFS also notes that currently in the entire Gulf of 
Mexico, all vessels with pelagic longline onboard must only possess 
weak circle hooks 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) (with a limited 
exception when greenstick gear is also onboard).
    Comment 33: NMFS received comments that noted a seasonal weak hook 
requirement may create enforcement concerns when switching between weak 
hooks and standard circle hooks.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that modifying the weak hook requirement 
to become seasonal would reduce enforceability of the requirement. 
Enforcement officers have tools that allow them to determine the type 
of hook on board a vessel and are accustomed to making those 
determinations during vessel boardings. With this rule, the only change 
from an enforcement perspective is that it will not be necessary to 
verify the exclusive use of weak hooks on pelagic longline vessels in 
the Gulf of Mexico during the months of July to December.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    This section explains the changes from the proposed rule to the 
final rule and resulting changes in the regulatory text. NMFS is making 
two minor clarifying changes to actions proposed regarding the 
Northeastern United States Closed Area and the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Gear Restricted Area were made in response to public comment. NMFS has 
also made some minor clarifications to regulatory text for the final 
rule in support of these changes.
    NMFS has added two clarifying modifications from the DEIS to the 
FEIS to Preferred Alternative A4. The first addresses what would happen 
if the U.S. allocation of bluefin is changed at a future ICCAT meeting. 
The 150,519 lb threshold is approximately 72 percent of the adjusted 
total Atlantic IBQ allocation currently distributed to the fleet. In 
the event that the western Atlantic bluefin tuna quota later is reduced 
at ICCAT and the U.S. allocation of bluefin quota is adjusted downward 
as a result, the threshold would also be adjusted. Such adjustment 
would make the threshold 72 percent of the total Atlantic IBQ 
allocation disbursed to the fleet as a result of the lower U.S. 
allocation. If the ICCAT quota were to increase and the United States' 
allocation increased as well, adjustments would not be made to increase 
the threshold for several reasons. The second clarifying modification 
concerns the timing of inseason notices that could be filed in response 
to the threshold for this area being met. NMFS originally noted in the 
DEIS in the description of the preferred alternative that ``If no 
closure notice is filed between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022, 
the Monitoring Area would remain open, unless, and until, NMFS decides 
to take additional action''. Since the thresholds are not cumulative in 
nature with respect to IBQ allocation use by the pelagic longline 
fishery to account for landings and dead discards, the design of this 
process would not necessitate inseason closure to be filed until after 
the respective start dates for monitoring. NMFS is adjusting this 
statement to read ``If no closure notice is filed between April 1, 2020 
and December 31, 2022, the Monitoring Area would remain open, unless, 
and until, NMFS decides to take additional action.''
    NMFS has added two clarifying modifications from the DEIS to the 
FEIS to Preferred Alternative C3. The first addresses what would happen 
if the U.S. allocation of bluefin is changed at a future ICCAT meeting. 
The 63,150 lb threshold is approximately 55 percent of the adjusted 
total Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation currently distributed to the fleet. 
In the event that the western Atlantic bluefin tuna quota later is 
reduced at ICCAT and the U.S. allocation of bluefin quota is adjusted 
downward as a result, the threshold would also be adjusted. Such 
adjustment would make the threshold 55 percent of the total Gulf of 
Mexico IBQ allocation disbursed to the fleet as a result of the lower 
U.S. allocation. The second clarifying modification concerns the timing 
of inseason notices that could be filed in response to the threshold 
for this area being met. NMFS originally noted in the DEIS in the 
description of the preferred alternative that ``If no closure notice is 
filed between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022, the Monitoring 
Area would remain open, unless, and until, NMFS decides to take 
additional action''. Since the thresholds are not cumulative in nature 
with respect to IBQ allocation use by the pelagic longline fishery to 
account for landings and dead discards, the design

[[Page 18832]]

of this process would not necessitate inseason closure to be filed 
until after the respective start dates for monitoring. NMFS is 
adjusting this statement to read ``If no closure notice is filed 
between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022, the Monitoring Area would 
remain open, unless, and until, NMFS decides to take additional 
action.''

Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that the final rule is consistent with the 
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to 
further consideration after public comment.
    NMFS is waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this final 
rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for good cause and because it is in the 
public interest. Among other things, this final rule will allow pelagic 
longline fishing in two previously closed or gear restricted areas, 
subject to a monitoring and evaluation period. For the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Closed Area, if this final rule does not become effective by 
April 1, the area will close under the existing regulations. It would 
then re-open as a Monitoring Area when the final rule becomes 
effective. In such an event, delaying the effectiveness of this final 
rule would unnecessarily deny vessels fishing opportunities and 
flexibility in choosing fishing locations by keeping the area closed. 
Furthermore, multiple actions in relation to the area in a short time 
could confuse the regulated community. A delay in effectiveness could 
also affect the evaluation process for the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Monitoring Area. If this measure is not implemented on or before April 
1, pelagic longline fishermen would not be able to fish in the area 
until later in the period, affecting the efficacy of the evaluation. 
The fishery would be subject to the requirements of the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Gear Restricted Area for the first part of the April 1-May 31 
time period, and then subject to a different set of requirements when 
the 30-day delay in effectiveness period ends. The evaluation process 
culminates in the compilation of data and creation of a report that 
would guide future management measures for the area. Delayed 
implementation would reduce the amount of information that could be 
incorporated into the evaluation for future management of the area and 
would affect the comparability of the before- and after- rulemaking 
components of the evaluation. Finally, the action relieves regulatory 
burden in relation to access to these fishing grounds, by allowing 
fishing in a previously closed area, and the regulated community does 
not need a 30-day period in which to come into compliance with that 
provision. It is in the public interest to implement these measures in 
a timely manner to fully achieve the objectives of the rulemaking and 
to implement the deregulatory action in a way that is concurrent with 
the relevant timing provisions of the new evaluative measures. 
Therefore, NMFS is waiving the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the rule effective immediately upon 
publication in the Federal Register.
    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. This final rule is an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action.
    In compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA), NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) for 
this final rule. The FRFA analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of 
the final actions and any significant economic impacts on small 
entities. The FRFA is below. This FRFA has been updated from the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) to reflect analyses that 
were updated with the inclusion of an additional year of data (2018). 
In the FRFA, revenue estimates associated with the Northeastern United 
States Closed Area are adjusted in response to a calculation error that 
occurred in the IRFA. The revenue calculations for all the alternatives 
related to the Northeastern United States Closed Area inadvertently 
omitted the prices for each of the target species (resulting in a 
default value of $1 per pound). This error resulted in the 
underestimate of revenue for these alternatives. Irrespective of the 
calculation error, the estimated changes in revenue associated with the 
alternatives presented in the FEIS falls within a similar range to 
those presented in the DEIS, when compared to the no action 
alternative.
    Section 604(a)(1) of the RFA requires a succinct statement of the 
need for and objective of the rule. Please see Chapter 1 of the FEIS 
associated with this rulemaking for a full description of the need for 
and objectives of this action. Consistent with the provisions of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, NMFS is adjusting measures put in place 
to manage incidental catch of bluefin in the pelagic longline fishery, 
namely the Northeastern United States Closed Area, the Cape Hatteras 
Gear Restricted Area, and the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area, as well as the weak hook requirement in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS 
has identified the following objectives with regard to this action: (1) 
Continue to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch 
mortality of bluefin and other Atlantic HMS by pelagic longline gear 
consistent with the conservation and management objectives (e.g., 
prevent or end overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, manage Atlantic 
HMS fisheries for continuing optimum yield) of the 2006 Consolidated 
Atlantic HMS FMP, its amendments, and all applicable laws; (2) simplify 
and streamline Atlantic HMS management, to the extent practicable, by 
reducing any redundancies in regulations established to reduce bluefin 
tuna interactions that apply to the pelagic longline fishery; and (3) 
optimize the ability for the pelagic longline fishery to harvest target 
species quotas (e.g., swordfish), to the extent practicable, while also 
considering fairness among permit/quota categories. This evaluation is 
necessary given the IBQ Program's shift in management focus towards 
individual vessel accountability for bluefin tuna bycatch in the 
pelagic longline fishery; the continued underharvest of quotas in the 
associated target fisheries, particularly the swordfish quota; comments 
from the public and the HMS Advisory Panel members indicating that 
certain regulations may be redundant in appropriately limiting bluefin 
incidental catch in the pelagic longline fishery and thus may be 
unnecessarily restrictive of pelagic longline fishery effort; and 
requests from the public and HMS Advisory Panel members to reduce 
regulatory burden in relation to carrying out fishery operations.
    Section 604(a)(2) requires a summary of significant issues raised 
by public comment in response to the IRFA and 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 did not receive any 
comments specifically on the IRFA, however the Agency did receive some 
comments regarding the anticipated or perceived economic impact of the 
rule. These comments are summarized below. NMFS did not receive any 
comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration in response to the proposed rule or the IRFA. All of the 
comments and responses to the

[[Page 18833]]

comments are summarized in Appendix F of the FEIS.
    Comment: NMFS received a comment that the reduction in the number 
of active pelagic longline vessels and fishing effort began before gear 
restricted areas were implemented, and that the gear restricted areas 
were not the cause of such reduction.
    Response: NMFS agrees that decreases in the number of active 
vessels and effort, landings, and revenue began prior to the 
implementation of the gear restricted areas under Amendment 7 in 2015. 
Table 1.1 in the FEIS (which shows data from 2012 through 2018) 
indicates that a decrease in estimated pelagic longline revenue and 
effort started prior to implementation of Amendment 7 despite efforts 
to revitalize the U.S. swordfish fishery for a number of years. Prior 
to initiation of this action, NMFS received suggestions from the public 
to consider the regulatory burden on the pelagic longline fleet and, at 
minimum, to evaluate whether current regulations are still needed to 
achieve management objectives. While the gear restricted areas may not 
be the sole factor influencing recent trends in the fleet, NMFS 
received public comment noting that the collective regulatory burden 
may have had a role in decreasing the number of active vessels, effort, 
landings, and revenue of some target species (e.g., swordfish).
    Comment: NMFS received comments that reopening the closed areas and 
implementing a seasonal weak hook requirement would result in higher 
numbers of billfish interactions from pelagic longline fishing activity 
that could in turn reduce numbers of billfish in these areas. Such 
reductions in billfish would adversely affect Atlantic HMS tournaments 
and the jobs created by the recreational fishing industry.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that implementing the actions in this 
final rule would increase bycatch mortality in a manner inconsistent 
with stock assessments or inconsistent with the requirement that NMFS 
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. In 
the FEIS, NMFS presented an impacts analysis in Chapter 4 that 
discussed the potential effects of alternatives on restricted and 
protected species, such as marlin, spearfish, sailfish, shortfin mako, 
dusky shark, and sea turtles. Predicted total annual catch was, where 
possible, presented as a range of catch per unit effort in impact 
tables. NMFS also provided in the tables the annual catch from the 
applicable region for comparison to the No Action Alternative.
    Comment: NMFS received comments that any increased bluefin landings 
from the pelagic longline fishery that result from having access to 
previously closed areas or gear restricted areas will negatively impact 
market prices of bluefin caught in directed fisheries.
    Response: Increased landings of bluefin tuna can have localized 
impacts on market prices if the landings are concentrated 
geographically and increase dramatically over a short period of time. 
However, the pelagic longline fleet only lands approximately 8.7% (88.1 
metric tons) of total Atlantic bluefin tuna landings of 1013 metric 
tons (U.S. total landings as reported in the 2019 U.S. Report to 
ICCAT). Often the global market for bluefin tuna has a more direct 
impact on the market prices for bluefin caught by the U.S. Atlantic 
directed fisheries than any change in U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna 
incidental landings.
    Comment: NMFS received comments in opposition to making regulatory 
changes to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, noting that 
the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area has not had adverse 
economic impacts on the pelagic longline fleet. Comments also noted 
that the preferred alternative was bad for fishermen due to a decrease 
in the estimated pelagic longline revenue as a result of implementing 
the preferred alternative (according to the impacts analysis presented 
in the DEIS).
    Response: The analysis of socio-economic impacts of Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Gear Restricted Area alternatives in Chapter 4 of the FEIS 
includes quantitative estimates of average annual revenues. These 
analyses were updated from the DEIS with an additional year of data in 
the FEIS and reflect a range of potential annual revenues for Longline 
category permitted vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico generated from 
select target species and incidentally-caught bluefin tuna. For the No 
Action alternative, such annual revenue in April and May (2015-2018) 
averaged approximately $677,007. For Preferred Alternative C3, the 
estimated range of potential revenues is between $538,151 and $687,962.
    NMFS acknowledges that much of this range reflects a decrease in 
potential revenue from the Preferred Alternative compared to the No 
Action alternative. We expect, however, that fishermen would operate to 
optimize their revenues. Access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Monitoring 
Area will give fishermen the opportunity to make decisions about where 
to fish depending on fish availability, and the flexibility to fish in 
areas that optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. If swordfish 
and yellowfin tuna landings in the Gulf of Mexico decrease due to 
shifting effort into the Monitoring Areas, then fishermen would likely 
continue fishing outside of the areas. Thus, we expect that revenue 
results would bear out at the high end of the range.
    NMFS disagrees that the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 
has not had adverse economic impacts on pelagic longline fishermen. In 
addition to the quantitative analyses, pelagic longline fishermen have 
commented during this rulemaking process that there are adverse 
economic impacts and regulatory burdens associated with complying with 
the number of regulations and restrictions on the fishery. During the 
effective period of the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area, 
pelagic longline fishermen in the northern Gulf of Mexico must conduct 
fishing operations around the geographic patchwork of the Spring Gulf 
of Mexico Gear Restricted Area's two designated areas as well as the 
Desoto Canyon closure (See Figure 3.4 of the FEIS associated with this 
rulemaking). These restrictions on available fishing grounds limit 
operational flexibility and fishermen cannot react as quickly to 
changing conditions--a particularly variable factor when fishing for 
highly migratory species such as bluefin tuna, yellowfin tuna, and 
swordfish. This, in turn, means that they cannot make decisions to best 
increase revenue and best avoid potential costs associated with 
accounting for incidental bluefin tuna catch. Fishermen have also 
reported general operational costs of having to move to fishing grounds 
farther away and incurring fuel and opportunity costs given the 
additional time that can be needed.
    Given that we have concluded that all of the measures in place are 
likely not needed to continue to appropriately limit incidental catch 
in the pelagic longline fishery as first established in Amendment 7, it 
is appropriate for the agency to consider this feedback in examining 
how to relieve regulatory burden on individuals, minimize costs, and 
avoid unnecessary regulatory duplication. See 16 U.S.C. 1851(a)(7) 
(National Standard 7). This is consistent with the guidelines, which 
specify that management measures should be designed ``to give fishermen 
the greatest possible freedom of action in conducting business and 
pursuing recreational opportunities that are consistent with ensuring 
wise use of the resources and reducing conflict in the fishery.''

[[Page 18834]]

    Comment: NMFS received comments that a weak hook requirement from 
January through June would continue to severely impact the winter 
swordfish fishery in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Comments indicated 
that there has been a large reduction in swordfish landings in the 
eastern Gulf of Mexico winter swordfish fishery; that there is no 
conservation value to maintaining this regulation in the eastern Gulf 
of Mexico; and that the loss of revenue is making it harder to find 
crew for longline boats. NMFS received comments suggesting that NMFS 
create a new spatially managed area in the southeastern Gulf of Mexico 
where weak hook use would not be required. NMFS also received comments 
suggesting that the monofilament on swordfish leaders that have 
straightened hooks are usually very opaque instead of clear, which may 
indicate physical stress on the line from a swordfish bill striking the 
leader as the escaped fish reacts to being hooked. One commenter 
estimated their 2017 losses at 5,000-6,000 lb of swordfish, with an 
estimated value of $30,000.
    Response: NMFS investigated catch rates of several target species 
occurring in the area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico delineated by 
several pelagic longline fishermen during the development of the FEIS. 
Appendix D of the FEIS includes this data analysis. NMFS compared catch 
rates from the area from 2009-2011 (3 years prior to weak hook 
implementation; 2011 included since weak hooks were not mandatory until 
May) and 2015-2017 (3 years after implementation). Overall catch rates 
and landings of swordfish were annually variable from before and after 
implementation of weak hooks. Although variable from year to year, data 
suggested landings and catch rates have not changed in this area since 
implementation of weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico.
    NMFS also analyzed bluefin tuna landings and dead discard catch 
rates and catch numbers. Bluefin tuna catches were slightly higher in 
the eastern Gulf of Mexico area delineated by several pelagic longline 
fishermen prior to the implementation of weak hooks. Since higher catch 
rates were experienced prior to implementation of weak hooks, there is 
likely to be a continued conservation benefit to retaining a seasonal 
weak hook requirement in the area shown in Appendix E of the FEIS 
because bluefin tuna are likely to still occur in the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico.
    Comment: NMFS received comments regarding a seasonal weak hook 
requirement stating that there is a substantial expense in changing 
gear type in labor and materials. Financial burden is not just 
associated with the cost of hooks. As shown in Chapter 3 of the FEIS 
associated with this rulemaking, Figure 3.2 and 3.3, pelagic longline 
gear consists of a mainline suspended in the water column, from which 
branch lines (which hang off the mainline and are used to suspend hooks 
in the water column). Monofilament line is used widely for both the 
mainline (the longline) and branchlines. Branchlines may incorporate a 
section of line (of variable length) known as a leader, with a lead 
weight at one end and the baited hook at the other. Commenters noted 
that they must purchase a different, stretchy type of leader to deploy 
with weak hooks that keep small swordfish from straightening the hooks. 
NMFS received comments that there is an impracticality to carrying 
double gear and/or storing the non-weak hook gear shoreside. Its takes 
a full crew two days to change out the gear. Additionally, because of 
regulations, the hooks must be corrosive and the aluminum crimps will 
eventually fail; extra supplies to support the deployed hook of choice 
are needed to be stored onboard. Few boats in the fishery have the deck 
capacity to carry double gear.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment because fishermen may 
fish with weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico for the entire year if they 
wish to do so. The removal of the requirement for the July-December 
time period does not prohibit the use of weak hooks during that period. 
If fishermen find that using weak hooks throughout the year is less 
burdensome they may do so. NMFS recognizes that vessels that fish 
outside the Gulf of Mexico, may not be rigged with weak hooks and would 
need to re-rig their gear to use weak hook when the requirement is in 
effect. Due to little change in the catch and catch rates of swordfish 
in the Gulf of Mexico and the conservation benefit afforded to bluefin 
tuna when spawning, NMFS is at this time preferring a seasonal 
requirement. NMFS also notes that currently in the entire Gulf of 
Mexico, all vessels with pelagic longline onboard must only possess 
weak circle hooks 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) (with a limited 
exception when greenstick gear is also onboard).
    Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide an 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. 
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria 
for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish 
harvesters. Provision is made under the SBA regulations for an agency 
to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation 
with SBA Office of Advocacy and an opportunity for public comment (see 
13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size 
standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size 
Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of 
conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the 
agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS 
must publish such size standards in the Federal Register, which NMFS 
did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194; December 29, 2015). In this 
final rule effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business 
size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all 
businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA 
compliance purposes. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small 
entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 
million for commercial fishing. The Small Business Administration (SBA) 
has established size standards for all other major industry sectors in 
the U.S., including the scenic and sightseeing transportation (water) 
sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/party boat 
entities. The SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one 
with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million.
    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the 
preferred alternatives, 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 between 2006 and 2016 was less than $1.9 million, well 
below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing 
businesses of $11 million. Other non-longline HMS commercial fishing 
vessels typically generally earn less revenue than pelagic longline 
vessels. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic HMS commercial permit 
holders to be small entities (i.e., they are engaged in the business of 
fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant 
in their field of operation, and have combined annual receipts not in 
excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide). The 
preferred commercial alternatives would apply to the 280 Atlantic tunas 
Longline category permit holders, 221 directed shark permit holders, 
and 269 incidental shark permit holders. Of these 280 Atlantic tunas 
Longline category permit holders, 85 pelagic

[[Page 18835]]

longline vessels were actively fishing in 2016 based on logbook 
records.
    NMFS has determined that the proposed measures would not likely 
directly affect any small organizations or small government 
jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate 
economic impacts between large and small entities. More information 
regarding the description of the fisheries affected can be found in 
Chapter 3.0 of the DEIS.
    Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new 
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. The action 
does not contain any new collection of information, reporting, or 
record-keeping requirements.
    Under Section 604(a)(6) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe 
the steps taken to minimize the significant economic impact 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 why each one of 
the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency 
which affect the impact on small entities was rejected. These impacts 
are discussed in Chapters 4 and 6 of the FEIS associated with this 
rulemaking.

Northeastern United States Closed Area

    Alternative A1, the No Action alternative, would maintain the 
current regulations regarding the Northeastern United States Closed 
Area. The currently defined area would remain closed to all vessels 
using pelagic longline gear onboard from June 1 through June 30 of a 
given year. Average annual revenue for bluefin and target species 
combined during this time period in the surrounding open reference area 
was $178,847. Since 16 vessels operated in this area in June between 
2015 and 2018, the average annual revenue per vessel during this time 
period was $11,178. This alternative would maintain the recent landings 
levels and corresponding revenues, resulting in neutral direct economic 
impacts to these small entities. This alternative does not balance the 
objective of appropriately managing and limiting bluefin bycatch in the 
pelagic longline fishery and the requirement to provide vessels with a 
reasonable opportunity to harvest available target species quotas 
consistent with objectives of this rulemaking and those established in 
Amendment 7. Retaining, or not evaluating continued need for, a closed 
area intended to limit bluefin discards while at the same time 
requiring fishery participants to individually account for their 
incidental bluefin catch with IBQ allocation appears to be redundant in 
effect. Not all of the regulations currently in place appear to be 
needed to appropriately limit incidental catch of bluefin in the 
pelagic longline fishery, and maintaining all of the restrictions may 
unnecessarily restrict pelagic longline fishery effort and create 
unnecessary regulatory burden for fishery participants. Furthermore, 
NMFS is required under ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to give 
fishing vessels a reasonable opportunity to harvest the ICCAT quotas. 
See 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D). The gear restricted areas, if no longer 
necessary to manage bluefin incidental catch, may unnecessarily 
restrict the longline fleet in this regard. Therefore, this alternative 
is not preferred at this time.
    Alternative A2 would modify the current Northeastern United States 
Closed Area to remove portions of the closure (i.e., those areas west 
of 70[deg] W longitude) that current analyses indicate: (1) Did not 
historically have high numbers of bluefin discards reported in the HMS 
logbook during the timeframe of data (1996-1997) originally analyzed 
for implementation of the closure in 1999, and (2) were adjacent to 
areas that recently (2015-2018) did not have bluefin interactions. 
Total average annual revenue for bluefin and target species in June of 
2015 through 2018 was $178,847. The predicted range of total average 
annual revenue under this alternative would be $172,389. As mentioned 
above regarding Alternative A1, in the reference area, total average 
annual revenue for the 16 vessels for bluefin and target species in 
June of 2015 through 2018 was $$11,178 per vessel. The predicted total 
average annual revenue under Alternative A2 would be $10,774,528 per 
vessel). Under Alternative A2, revenue from most species is predicted 
to decrease during the month of June, particularly for swordfish. 
Revenue from bigeye tuna, on the other hand, could increase slightly. 
Some of the analyses in the DEIS predicted that, if fishing effort 
moved directly and proportionately from the now-open areas to the 
newly-opened areas, catch rates could be lower for most species, and 
revenue would also be lower. This analysis rests, however, on the 
presumption of direct movement of the same levels of effort from one 
area to the other. It does not account for a critical element of 
fishing behavior that is determinative of how and where effort changes 
would actually occur under this rule: Namely, fishermen selection of 
productive fishing grounds. In practical application, we expect that 
fishermen would make decisions about productive fishing grounds and 
move their effort responsively and accordingly, thus offsetting any 
impact that the change in area could otherwise produce. Fishermen will 
make decisions about productive fishing grounds in any given year 
depending on fish availability and will likely decide not to fish in 
the area being considered for opening if they discover it could lower 
their fishing revenue. Thus, fishing revenue impacts for this 
alternative are expected to be neutral. Given the low numbers of 
expected target catch in the area that could be opened under this 
alternative, this alternative would not provide access to the more 
productive areas of the modified Northeastern United States Closed 
Area. Also, this alternative does not provide an evaluative mechanism 
for the modified Northeastern United States Closed Area that would 
remain closed, available fishery data for this area is over 20 years 
old, and there are considerable differences in management strategies 
for the fishery. Therefore, NMFS is not preferring Alternative A2 at 
this time.
    Alternative A3 considered converting the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area to the ``Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area'', 
and allowing performance-based vessel access therein using the access 
criteria currently used for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 
(currently codified at Sec. Sec.  635.21(c)(3) and 635.14). Vessels 
would be evaluated against criteria (i.e., performance metrics) 
evaluating a vessel's ability to avoid bluefin tuna, comply with 
Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and comply with HMS logbook 
submission requirements using the three most recent years of available 
data associated with a vessel. If no data are available, then NMFS 
would not be able to make a determination about vessel access, and such 
vessels would be excluded from gear restricted area access until NMFS 
has collected sufficient data for assessment (consistent with current 
procedures for the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area). Those vessels 
that meet the criteria for performance metrics would be allowed to fish 
in the closed area. This measure would be evaluated after at least 
three years of data have been collected to determine whether it 
effectively achieves the management objectives of this rulemaking.
    Total average annual revenue for bluefin and target species in June 
of 2015 through 2018 was $178,847, which is on average $11,178 per 
vessel for the

[[Page 18836]]

16 vessels fishing in that area. The predicted range of average annual 
revenue per vessel during this time period under this alternative would 
be $5,720 to $12,140. Revenue from some species is predicted to 
decrease during the month of June, particularly for swordfish and 
dolphin, because anticipated catch rates for some species in the 
Northeastern United States Gear Restricted Area were lower than those 
in the reference area. Revenue from yellowfin tuna, on the other hand, 
could increase substantially. Some of the analyses in the FEIS 
predicted that, if fishing effort moved directly and proportionately 
from the now-open areas to the newly-opened areas, catch rates could be 
lower for most species, and revenue would also be lower. This analysis 
rests, however, on the presumption of direct movement of the same 
levels of effort from one area to the other. It does not account for a 
critical element of fishing behavior that is determinative of how and 
where effort changes would actually occur under this rule: Namely, 
fishermen selection of productive fishing grounds. In practical 
application, we expect that fishermen would make decisions about 
productive fishing grounds and move their effort responsively and 
accordingly, thus offsetting any impact that the change in area could 
otherwise produce. Fishermen will make decisions about productive 
fishing grounds in any given year depending on fish availability and 
will likely decide not to fish in the Northeastern United States Closed 
Area if they qualify for access and discover it could lower their 
fishing revenue. Thus, fishing revenue impacts for this alternative are 
expected to be neutral. Implementing performance-based access would 
provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing 
distributions and concentrations of bluefin and target catch. This 
alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on 
where to fish to optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. An 
unquantified short-term economic benefit of this alternative is a 
reduction in trip length and associated fuel cost. The Northeastern 
United States Gear Restricted Area would open areas for qualified 
pelagic longline vessels that are closer to shore than where most of 
the effort is currently occurring during the month of June in the 
adjacent open areas. The closure is approximately 320 miles wide from 
west to east, so allowing fishing in the area could reduce some trips 
by hundreds of miles. Less fuel consumption would lower the trip cost 
and increase the trip profit, which may influence fishermen's decisions 
on fishing in the Monitoring Area. In addition, shorter trip lengths 
could also reduce the opportunity costs for crew and captains on the 
vessel by reducing the number of days they are away at sea fishing.
    In the short-term, overall economic impacts are expected to range 
between minor positive to neutral based on the increased flexibility in 
fishing areas, potentially shorter trips and associated lower fuel 
costs, and thus potentially increased profits from fishing.
    This alternative does not present much difference in ecological or 
socioeconomic impacts from opening this area as a Monitoring Area 
(Alternative A4) or eliminating the Closed Area (Alternative A5). 
Depending on the access levels, this alternative may not meet the 
objectives of optimizing the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to 
harvest target species. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this 
alternative at this time.
    Alternative A4, the preferred alternative, would convert the 
``Northeastern United States Closed Area'' to a ``Northeastern United 
States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area.'' This area has been closed to 
pelagic longline fishing during the month of June since 1999. This 
alternative would have a three-year evaluation period (January 1, 2020 
through December 31, 2022) for the Monitoring Area, which would be 
managed as follows:
--The Monitoring Area would initially remain open to pelagic longline 
fishing from June 1 to June 30.
--There would be an annual 150,519 pound IBQ allocation threshold for 
landings and dead discards of bluefin caught within the Monitoring 
Area.
--If the threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS 
would file a closure notice for the Monitoring Area with the Office of 
the Federal Register.
--On and after the effective date of the notice, the Monitoring Area 
would be closed to pelagic longline fishing each year from June 1 
through June 30, unless NMFS takes further action.
--If no closure notice is filed between June 1, 2020 and December 31, 
2022, the Monitoring Area would remain open, unless and until NMFS 
decides to take additional action regarding the area.

    The 150,519 lb threshold is based on the average annual amount of 
unused Atlantic IBQ allocation that is available for use by the pelagic 
longline fleet from June 1 through December 31. Using unused allocation 
as the threshold helps to ensure that opening the area to fishing would 
not compromise adherence to the overall bluefin quota or the ability of 
fishery participants to obtain enough IBQ allocation to cover bluefin 
landings and dead discards for the rest of the year. It should be noted 
that the threshold does not mean that 150,519 lb of IBQ allocation can 
be used only in the Monitoring Area. IBQ allocation is still subject to 
the same regulations previously applicable. The threshold is for NMFS' 
monitoring and evaluation purposes for the Area only. After the 2020-
2022 evaluation period, NMFS will evaluate data collected from the 
Monitoring Area and compile a report. Based on the findings of the 
report, NMFS may then decide to initiate a follow-up action to 
implement new, longer-term management measures for the area. As 
discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the FEIS, the status of the Monitoring 
Area following the three-year evaluation period is dependent on whether 
the threshold has been reached in any of those three years.
    NMFS received comment suggesting that if the ICCAT western Atlantic 
bluefin quota, and thus the U.S. allocation of bluefin quota, were to 
be adjusted upwards by ICCAT, maintaining a threshold based on a 
designated poundage would make the threshold disproportionately small 
in relation to the new quota. NMFS agrees that using a percentage as 
well as a specific poundage for management of the monitoring areas may 
be appropriate. However, given the concerns expressed by the public 
about the uncertain ecological effects of pelagic longline fishing in 
the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area and the Northeastern 
United States Closed Area, NMFS prefers to take a more conservative 
approach to managing these areas and only make adjustments based on a 
percentage if the U.S. allocation is adjusted downwards by ICCAT. The 
150,519 lb threshold is equivalent to 72 percent of the Atlantic IBQ 
allocation issued to the fleet in 2018. If the ICCAT quota is adjusted 
downward, the threshold would also be adjusted downward, to reflect a 
percentage of overall IBQ allocation commensurate with the current 
threshold (i.e., 72 percent of the new Atlantic IBQ allocation 
disbursed to the fleet, the equivalent percentage of the current 
threshold in relation to the overall available IBQ allocation).
    This Monitoring Area will provide increased flexibility for 
fishermen to adapt to changing distributions and concentrations of 
bluefin and target catch. This alternative will also give fishermen the 
ability to make choices about where to fish to optimize target

[[Page 18837]]

catch while minimizing bycatch. An unquantified benefit of this 
alternative could be a reduction in trip length and associated fuel 
cost. The alternative would open areas for pelagic longline fishing 
that are closer to shore than where most of the effort is currently 
occurring during the month of June in the adjacent open areas. The 
short-term economic impacts would be very similar to those of 
Alternative A3. Long-term economic impacts would depend on the result 
of the three-year evaluation period for this Monitoring Area. If NMFS 
were to decide to take action so that these areas remain open after 
three years, long-term impacts would be expected to be the same as 
short-term impacts.
    This alternative is consistent with the objectives of optimizing 
the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to harvest target species, 
because it provides a carefully controlled mechanism to allow fishermen 
back into areas that were previously closed. This alternative also 
helps with the uncertainty due to lack of data from within the closed 
area as to whether the area is still appropriately located or needed to 
meet bluefin management objectives. This alternative gives fishermen 
more flexibility to determine where to fish to optimize target catch in 
the region encompassing the Northeastern United States Closed Area. 
This alternative would also be expected to have neutral ecological 
impacts on bluefin, as it provides measures to minimize bluefin bycatch 
via the threshold and evaluative aspects of the program. It should 
allow the pelagic longline fishery vessels to continue fishing from 
January through May, within the same levels of IBQ allocation usage 
(2015-2018), and have a threshold level that provides both sufficient 
opportunities for fishermen to target swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye 
tuna, as well as other pelagic species, and limits catch of bluefin 
while the Monitoring Area is effective. The individual accountability 
aspects of the IBQ Program would still be relied upon to incentivize 
bluefin avoidance, meaning that there is still a proven means to 
achieve the objectives of continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch 
mortality of bluefin and other Atlantic HMS. In addition, this 
alternative simplifies and streamlines regulations in the Atlantic 
intended to reduce bluefin, and is therefore consistent with that 
corresponding objective for this rulemaking. For these reasons this 
alternative is preferred at this time. Alternative A5 would eliminate 
all current restrictions associated with the Northeastern United States 
Closed Area. Since this alternative would allow access to all vessels 
in the month of June by removing regulations related to the 
Northeastern United States Closed Area, the socioeconomic impacts would 
be the same as presented in the preferred alternative, Alternative A4. 
In the long-term, overall economic impacts are expected to range 
between minor positive to neutral based on the increased flexibility in 
fishing areas, potentially shorter trips and associated lower fuel 
costs, and thus potentially increased profits from fishing. Elimination 
of the Northeastern United States Closed Area is anticipated to have 
similar impacts as the evaluative option (Alternative A4), and the 
modification of the Northeastern United States Closed Area (Alternative 
A3). However, NMFS is not preferring this alternative at this time, 
given uncertainty with the catch estimates in the analysis and 
inability to quickly restrict fishing if bycatch impacts to the bluefin 
or other species are beyond acceptable levels. This alternative also 
does not provide an automatic mechanism for NMFS to initiate the review 
of the impacts of opening the area. This alternative does not align 
with the objective of adequately conserving and managing the bluefin 
stock and minimizing bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin and other 
Atlantic HMS with the lack of NMFS ability to quickly restrict fishing 
if bycatch levels of any Atlantic HMS are beyond acceptable levels. 
This alternative is not preferred at this time.

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

    Alternative B1, the No Action alternative, would maintain the 
current boundaries and restrictions associated with the Cape Hatteras 
Gear Restricted Area. Access to the area would be based on an 
evaluation of performance metrics. Since implementation of the program, 
the majority of the pelagic longline fleet has been granted access to 
the gear restricted area. However, the number of permit holders with 
data available for analysis has declined, coincident with an increase 
in the number of permits in ``NOVESID'' status (i.e., permits are 
renewed but not associated with a vessel). In the first year of the 
program, 136 vessels (~48 percent of the 281 pelagic longline permits) 
were determined to have sufficient data for the analysis, while 145 
permits were either in NOVESID status, were inactive during the initial 
analysis period, or were in an invalid status. Approximately 75 percent 
of active vessels were granted access to the gear restricted area. 
During the 2019-2020 effective period, 89 vessels (~31.7 percent) had 
data available for analysis. Of these, 79 percent of active vessels met 
criteria for access to the gear restricted area in the 2019-2020 
effective period.
    Since implementation of the IBQ Program in 2015, revenue in the 
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area for highly valued target species has 
increased. Although still higher than the revenue estimated for sets 
deployed within the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area during the first 
two years of the program, estimated set revenue decreased by 23 percent 
between 2017 and 2018. These patterns likely reflect fishermen 
adjusting business practices to the gear restricted area and IBQ 
Program, and annual variability in effort, landings, and market forces. 
During the gear restricted area's December through April effective 
period, from 2015 through 2018, sets made within this gear restricted 
area contributed approximately 8.9 percent of the revenue generated for 
swordfish, 4.3 percent of the revenue from yellowfin tuna, 28.5 percent 
of the revenue from bigeye tuna, and 21.2 percent of the revenue from 
bluefin.
    Retaining this gear restricted area is likely to have neutral 
economic impacts fleet-wide, as the majority of vessels qualified for 
access, and those not qualified for access to the gear restricted area 
did not make sets within this area either prior to implementation or 
after implementation when access was granted. Retaining the gear 
restricted area may have temporary, minor adverse economic impacts to 
individual vessels that either recently made sets in the gear 
restricted area or may be denied access in the future.
    Retaining a gear restricted area with performance-based access to 
limit bluefin interactions (which no longer restricts many active fleet 
participants) while at the same time requiring fishery participants to 
individually account for their incidental bluefin catch with IBQ 
allocation, is unnecessarily restrictive of pelagic longline fishery 
effort, particularly where overall limits on quota are established 
through scientifically supported quotas and subsequently enforced and 
monitored through a careful management regime that further divides and 
manages that quota at several stages, including limits on the amount of 
IBQ allocation available. Given this, NMFS determined that this 
alternative is not aligned with the objective to simplify and 
streamline HMS management. Because it does not meet all the objectives 
of the rulemaking, NMFS is not preferring the No Action alternative at 
this time.

[[Page 18838]]

    Alternative B2 would remove the current gear restricted area off 
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, as currently defined in Sec.  635.2 and 
all associated regulatory provisions, restrictions, and prohibitions. 
Removing the gear restricted area is likely to have neutral to minor 
and beneficial economic impacts, depending on the scale of 
consideration. Fleet-wide effects on fishing revenue for this time 
period are anticipated to be neutral as the majority of the fleet had 
met access criteria to the area and continued to fish in it following 
implementation of Amendment 7 management measures. Vessels that 
recently did not meet criteria for access (e.g., for the 2019-2020 
effective period) to the gear restricted area fished in a variety of 
locations between 2016 and 2018. Many of these vessels did not make 
sets within this area either prior to implementation or after 
implementation when they did meet the criteria for access to the gear 
restricted area. Revenue for these vessels may therefore be based on 
factors other than access to the gear restricted area. Removing the 
gear restricted area may have temporary, localized and minor beneficial 
economic impacts to a small number of individual vessels. Removing this 
restriction would remove regulations that are perceived by fishery 
participants to be a regulatory burden and no longer necessary in 
tandem with the IBQ Program. It may also reduce year-to-year 
uncertainty associated with access decisions for fishermen that do fish 
in the Cape Hatteras region. These fishermen may also have more options 
regarding fishing locations. The gear restricted area is situated in a 
location where wintertime fishing activities are largely dependent on 
weather and wind direction. Cape Hatteras and adjacent Diamond Shoals 
shelter fishing grounds to the south and west from northerly and 
westerly winds, and to the north from southerly and westerly winds. 
Removing the closures could enable greater flexibility for fishermen to 
safely conduct fishing activities in short, favorable wintertime 
weather windows. Removing the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 
balances the objectives to optimize ability to harvest target species 
with continuing to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality. It also 
simplifies and streamlines HMS management by reducing redundant 
regulations. For these reasons, this alternative is preferred at this 
time.

Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area

    Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, would maintain the 
current regulations regarding the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area (comprised of two areas). NMFS would maintain current restrictions 
which prohibit fishing to all vessels with pelagic longline gear 
onboard from April 1 through May 31 each year (vessels may transit the 
area if gear is properly stowed). Outside of the gear restricted area, 
average annual revenue for bluefin tuna and target species from April-
May in 2015 through 2018 was $677,007. There were 34 pelagic longline 
vessels active in the Gulf of Mexico during that time period, thus each 
vessel generated an average of $19,912 annually between April-May. This 
alternative would maintain the recent landings levels and resulting 
revenues, resulting in neutral direct economic impacts. Although the No 
Action alternative could meet the objective of continuing to minimize 
bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin, it does not meet the 
objectives of optimizing the ability of the pelagic longline fleet to 
harvest target species quotas or streamlining and simplifying HMS 
management by reducing regulations that may be redundant in effect and 
pose an unnecessary regulatory burden on fishery participants. For 
these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative C2 would apply performance-based access to the Spring 
Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area. Vessels would be evaluated against 
criteria (i.e., performance metrics) evaluating their ability to avoid 
bluefin tuna, comply with Pelagic Observer Program requirements, and 
comply with HMS logbook submission requirements using the three most 
recent years of available data associated with a vessel. If no data are 
available, then NMFS would not be able to make a determination about 
vessel access, and such vessels would be excluded from gear restricted 
area access until NMFS has collected sufficient data for assessment 
(consistent with current operational Amendment 7 implementation 
procedures). Those vessels that meet the criteria for performance 
metrics would be allowed to fish in the closed area. This measure would 
be evaluated after at least three years of data have been collected to 
determine whether it effectively achieves the management objectives of 
this rulemaking. In the analyses of gear restricted area access for 
2015 through 2019, up to 3 pelagic longline vessels associated with 
Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares have been excluded from the Cape Hatteras 
Gear Restricted Area in any given year, out of a total of 52 vessels 
associated with Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares. Those same vessels would 
also be excluded from the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 
under this alternative. Therefore, given these past access 
determinations, at least 94 percent of vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ 
allocation would be expected to have access to the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Gear Restricted Area under this alternative. As noted under 
Alternative C1, average annual revenue per vessel for bluefin tuna and 
target species in April-May of 2015 through 2018 was $19,912. The 
predicted range of average annual revenue per vessel under this 
alternative would be $15,828 to $20,234. Revenue from some species is 
predicted to decrease during these two months, particularly for 
swordfish, because anticipated catch rates for some species in the 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area with performance access were 
lower than those in the open portions of the Gulf of Mexico. Revenue 
from bigeye tuna, on the other hand, is predicted to remain the same or 
increase. Some of the analyses in the DEIS predicted that, if fishing 
effort moved directly and proportionately from the now-open areas to 
the newly-opened areas, catch rates could be lower for most species, 
and revenue would also be lower. This analysis rests, however, on the 
presumption of direct movement of the same levels of effort from one 
area to the other. It does not account for a critical element of 
fishing behavior that is determinative of how and where effort changes 
would actually occur under this rule: Namely, fishermen selection of 
productive fishing grounds. In practical application, we expect that 
fishermen would make decisions about productive fishing grounds and 
move their effort responsively and accordingly, thus offsetting any 
impact that the change in area could otherwise produce. Fishermen will 
make decisions about productive fishing grounds in any given year 
depending on fish availability. Access to the gear restricted areas 
will provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing 
distributions and concentrations of bluefin tuna and target catch. This 
alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on 
where to fish to optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. Thus, 
fishing revenue impacts for this alternative are expected to be 
neutral.
    Long-term impacts on these species would depend on future trends in 
performance-based access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area. If the number of vessels allowed access to

[[Page 18839]]

these areas remains consistent over time, long-term impacts would be 
expected to be the same as short-term impacts. As described above, this 
analysis assumes that all vessels with Gulf of Mexico IBQ shares would 
have access to the gear restricted areas. There could be a slight 
decrease in revenues within the gear restricted areas from the values 
described here, with a corresponding increase in revenues in the open 
area, due to vessels excluded from the areas, but the predicted ranges 
of catch still represent the best estimate for these areas.
    Since the majority of vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico would 
be expected to have access to the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted 
Area under this alternative, any benefit to applying performance-based 
access would likely be minimal. This alternative does not present much 
difference in ecological or socioeconomic impacts from opening these 
areas as Monitoring Areas (Alternative C3) or eliminating the Spring 
Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area (Alternative C4). In order to meet 
the objective of optimizing the ability of the fleet to harvest target 
species, this alternative would add additional, somewhat complicated 
regulations to the area instead of streamlining and simplifying 
regulations. Therefore, this alternative is not strongly aligned with 
the objective to streamline and simplify HMS regulations. For these 
reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
    Alternative C3, the preferred alternative, would convert the 
``Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area'' to a ``Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area'' (which will continue to be 
comprised of two areas) (``Monitoring Area''). This area has been 
closed to pelagic longline fishing during the months of April and May 
since 2015. This alternative would have a three-year evaluation period 
(January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2022) for the Monitoring Area, 
which would be managed as follows:

--The Monitoring Area would initially remain open to pelagic longline 
fishing from April 1 through May 31.
--There would be an annual 63,150 pound IBQ allocation threshold for 
landings and dead discards of bluefin caught within the Monitoring 
Area.
--If the threshold is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS 
would file a closure notice for the Monitoring Area with the Office of 
the Federal Register.
--On or after the effective date of the notice, the Monitoring Area 
would be closed to pelagic longline fishing each year from April 1 
through May 31, unless NMFS takes further action.
--If no closure notice is filed between April 1, 2020 through December 
31, 2022, the Monitoring Area would remain open, unless and until NMFS 
decides to take additional action regarding the area.

    The area would be closely monitored by NMFS under a process that 
would prohibit fishing if the fleet were to use Gulf of Mexico IBQ 
allocation in exceedance of an established annual threshold to account 
for bluefin landings or dead discards caught within the boundaries of 
the Monitoring Area. The 63,150 lb threshold is based on the amount of 
IBQ annual allocation distributed to vessels that fished in the region 
while the closures were effective between 2015 and 2017. NMFS decided 
that this was an appropriate threshold because it will accommodate data 
collection in the area while keeping landings and dead discards in the 
fishery within the science based Longline category sub-quota. This 
threshold would limit the amount of IBQ allocation that could be used 
to account for bluefin landings and dead discards in the monitoring 
area to the amount of IBQ allocation that could be used by the portion 
of the fleet that was recently (2015 through 2017) active during these 
months in the Gulf of Mexico. The intent of this threshold design is to 
discourage a level of fishing beyond what has recently occurred in the 
Gulf of Mexico. Basing the threshold for closure on the annual 
allocation of active vessels from 2015 to 2017 would allow pelagic 
longline vessels to continue fishing in the same manner as they have in 
the past three years, and have a threshold level that provides 
sufficient opportunities for fishermen to target swordfish and 
yellowfin and bigeye tunas while the Monitoring Area are effective. It 
should be noted that the threshold does not mean that 63,150 lb of Gulf 
of Mexico IBQ allocation can be used only in the Monitoring Area. IBQ 
allocation is still subject to the same regulations previously 
applicable. The threshold is for NMFS' monitoring and evaluation 
purposes of the Monitoring Area only. The 63,150 lb threshold is 
approximately 55 percent of the adjusted total Gulf of Mexico IBQ 
allocation currently distributed to the fleet. In the event that the 
western Atlantic bluefin quota later is reduced at ICCAT and the U.S. 
allocation of bluefin quota is adjusted downward as a result, the 
threshold would also be adjusted. Such adjustment would make the 
threshold 55 percent of the total Gulf of Mexico IBQ allocation 
disbursed to the fleet as a result of the lower U.S allocation. After 
the 2020-2022 evaluation period, NMFS will evaluate data collected from 
the Monitoring Area and compile a report. Based on the findings of the 
report, NMFS may then decide to initiate a follow-up action to 
implement new, longer-term management measures for the area.
    As noted under Alternative C1, average annual revenue per vessel 
for bluefin and target species in April-May of 2015 through 2018 was 
$19,912. The predicted range of average annual revenue per vessel under 
this alternative would be $15,828 to $20,234. Revenue from some species 
is predicted to decrease during these two months, particularly for 
swordfish, because anticipated catch rates for some species in the 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area were lower than 
those in the open portions of the Gulf of Mexico. Revenue from bigeye 
tuna, on the other hand, is predicted to remain the same or increase. 
Some of the analyses in the DEIS predicted that, if fishing effort 
moved directly and proportionately from the now-open areas to the 
newly-opened areas, catch rates could be lower for most species, and 
revenue would also be lower. This analysis rests, however, on the 
presumption of direct movement of the same levels of effort from one 
area to the other. It does not account for a critical element of 
fishing behavior that is determinative of how and where effort changes 
would actually occur under this rule: Namely, fishermen selection of 
productive fishing grounds. In practical application, we expect that 
fishermen would make decisions about productive fishing grounds and 
move their effort responsively and accordingly, thus offsetting any 
impact that the change in area could otherwise produce. Fishermen will 
make decisions about productive fishing grounds in any given year 
depending on fish availability and will likely decide not to fish in 
the Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area if they 
discover it could lower their fishing revenue. The Monitoring Area will 
provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing 
distributions and concentrations of bluefin and target catch. This 
alternative will also give fishermen the ability to make choices on 
where to fish to optimize target catch while minimizing bycatch. Thus, 
fishing revenue impacts for this alternative are expected to be 
neutral.
    Long-term economic impacts would depend on the result of the three-
year evaluation period for this Monitoring Area. If NMFS decides to 
take action to

[[Page 18840]]

keep these areas open after three years, long-term impacts would be 
expected to be the same as short-term impacts.
    This alternative would give fishermen the flexibility to determine 
where in the Gulf of Mexico they choose to fish to optimize target 
catch. The individual accountability aspects of the IBQ Program would 
still be relied upon to incentivize bluefin avoidance, meaning that 
there is still a proven means to achieve the objectives of continuing 
to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin and other Atlantic 
HMS. In addition, this alternative simplifies and streamlines 
regulations in the Gulf of Mexico intended to reduce bluefin, and is 
therefore consistent with that corresponding objective for this 
rulemaking. For these reasons, NMFS prefers this alternative at this 
time.
    Alternative C4 would remove the Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear 
Restricted Area. Since this alternative would allow access to all 
vessels by removing regulations related to the Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Gear Restricted Area, the short-term socioeconomic impacts would be the 
same as presented in the preferred Alternative C3. As noted under 
Alternative C1, average annual revenue per vessel for bluefin and 
target species in April-May of 2015 through 2017 was $19,912. The 
predicted range of average annual revenue per vessel under this 
alternative would be $15,828 to $20,234. Revenue from some species is 
predicted to decrease during these two months, particularly for 
swordfish, because anticipated catch rates for some species in the 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area were lower than those in the 
open portions of the Gulf of Mexico. Revenue from bigeye tuna, on the 
other hand, is predicted to remain the same or increase. Overall 
economic impacts for this alternative are expected to be neutral in the 
short-term, despite the predicted decrease in overall revenue. 
Fishermen will make decisions about where to fish in any given year 
depending on fish availability. This alternative will also give 
fishermen the ability to make choices on where to fish to optimize 
target catch while minimizing bycatch. Long-term economic impacts would 
be expected to be the same as short-term impacts. Although this 
alternative gives fishermen the most flexibility to determine where in 
the Gulf of Mexico they choose to fish to optimize target catch and 
minimize bycatch under the IBQ Program, and although this alternative 
would be expected to have neutral ecological impacts on bluefin, this 
alternative does not have the agency control provided by performance 
access in Alternative C2 or by the monitoring aspects of the evaluation 
process in Alternative C3, resulting in more uncertainty in the long-
term. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this 
time.

Weak Hooks

    Under Alternative D1, NMFS would maintain the current regulations 
at 50 CFR 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(i) requiring vessels fishing in the 
Gulf of Mexico, that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have 
been issued, or are required to have been issued, a swordfish, shark, 
or Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP for use in the Atlantic Ocean, 
including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, to use weak hooks 
year-round when operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Because this 
alternative does not change current regulations, economic impacts on 
small entities would be neutral. However, this alternative would not 
address the higher bycatch of other species, such as white marlin, that 
occurs in the second half of the year on weak hooks. It also would not 
address comments NMFS has received from pelagic longline fishermen 
expressing concern about their perception that swordfish catches have 
been reduced with weak hooks. Under this alternative, fishermen would 
not have any additional flexibility to choose a stronger circle hook 
(that also meets other existing requirements for hook size and type) 
that they feel may work better for their fishing operations. Weak hook 
research conducted by NMFS from 2008-2012 indicated that there was no 
significant difference in the catch rates of any targeted species when 
compared to previously allowed stronger circle hooks, even though the 
catch rates of legally sized swordfish did in fact decrease with weak 
hooks. This alternative is not consistent with the objective of 
continuing to minimize bycatch of all Atlantic HMS; because this 
alternative would not mitigate the adverse impacts to white marlin and 
roundscale spearfish when they are present in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS 
does not prefer Alternative D1 at this time.
    Alternative D2, the preferred alternative, would modify the 
regulations described under Alternative D1 to only require use weak 
hooks from January through June. This time period is when spawning 
bluefin are highest in abundance in the Gulf of Mexico, and it includes 
the April through June bluefin tuna spawning season. Fishermen may 
voluntarily choose to continue to use weak hooks when they are not 
required. This alternative would likely result in short- and long-term 
minor beneficial economic impacts since it would give fishermen more 
flexibility in choosing how to fish. During the months without the weak 
hook requirement, fishermen could choose whether to use the gear based 
on their knowledge of bluefin tuna presence and distribution. 
Furthermore, weak hooks can help fishermen manage their IBQ allocation 
by reducing the number of captured bluefin tuna that would be counted 
against their IBQ allocation. NMFS prefers this alternative at this 
time because it increases fishermen's flexibility and helps fishermen 
manage their IBQ allocation by reducing the number of captured bluefin 
tuna that would be counted against their IBQ allocation. There may be 
potential economic benefits for recreational fishermen that fish for 
white marlin or roundscale spearfish as a result of the anticipated 
decrease in commercial bycatch rates and associated fishing mortality 
and potential improvements to stock health and status. This alternative 
is expected to strike the best balance between the objectives of 
continuing to minimize, to the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch 
mortality of bluefin and optimize the ability for the pelagic longline 
fishery to harvest target species quotas. This alternative provides 
increased flexibility with respect to hook requirements in the second 
half of the year (provided basic circle hook requirements are still 
met). This alternative also balances the objective of reducing 
potentially redundant regulations against continuing to minimize 
bluefin mortality by removing weak hook requirements in the second half 
of the year when weak hooks are not expected provide an ecological 
benefit in relation to spawning bluefin. For these reasons, NMFS is 
preferring this alternative at this time.
    Under Alternative D3, NMFS would remove the weak hook regulations 
described under Alternative D1. NMFS would continue to encourage 
voluntary use of weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico as a conservation 
strategy for bluefin tuna. This alternative would likely result in 
short- and long-term neutral economic impacts since it would give 
fishermen more flexibility in choosing how to fish. In the absence of a 
weak hook requirement, fishermen could choose whether to use the gear 
based on their knowledge of bluefin tuna presence and distribution. 
Weak hooks may have, in some cases, assisted fishermen in reducing use 
of IBQ allocation because large bluefin were able to free themselves 
from gear before coming to the boat, and therefore never needed to be 
counted against a vessel's IBQ allocation. Some fishermen may

[[Page 18841]]

still find their use beneficial in conserving their IBQ allocation, and 
would still have the option to deploy weak hooks under this 
alternative. For example, pelagic longline fishermen that plan to fish 
in areas with high rates of bluefin tuna interactions may wish to 
deploy weak hooks to reduce interactions and conserve their IBQ 
allocation. There could be some risk that not requiring weak hooks from 
January through June could result in an increased risk for high bluefin 
tuna interactions for pelagic longline vessels that fish during those 
months but decide not to use weak hooks, and therefore, those vessels 
could face a higher risk in depleting their IBQ allocation for the 
year. Under Alternative D3, NMFS would encourage the voluntary use of 
weak hooks and leave the decision up to individual fishermen based on 
their experience and on-the-water knowledge. Any potentially risky 
fishing practices leading to elevated interactions with Gulf of Mexico 
bluefin tuna would still be dis-incentivized under the IBQ Program. 
There may be potential economic benefits for recreational fishermen 
that fish for white marlin or roundscale spearfish as a result of the 
anticipated decrease in commercial bycatch rates and associated fishing 
mortality and potential improvements to stock health and status. 
Removing the weak hook requirement entirely does not align as closely 
as other alternatives with the objective to continue to minimize, to 
the extent practicable, bycatch and bycatch mortality of bluefin 
especially if fishermen do not elect to use weak hooks during spawning 
season when the risk of encountering spawning bluefin is higher. 
Although the current IBQ Program likely provides adequate protection 
for the bluefin stock in the Gulf of Mexico by limiting fishing 
mortality in the absence of weak hooks (as described in Chapter 1 and 
in the Three-Year Review of the IBQ Program), the required use of weak 
hooks may help fishermen manage their IBQ allocation by reducing each 
fisherman's catch of bluefin. The IBQ Program likely provides 
sufficient biological protection but weak hooks may provide 
socioeconomic benefits for fishermen by extending their IBQ allocation, 
allowing them to fish for a longer period each year. Additionally, 
during scoping NMFS received more support for retaining a seasonal weak 
hook requirement (Alternative D2) than removing weak hooks (this 
alternative) from multiple constituent groups including recreational 
fishermen, environmental non-government organizations, and commercial 
(pelagic longline and directed categories) fishermen. Overall, 
Alternative D2 is considered as the alternative that would achieve a 
better balance between ecological needs of the resource and 
socioeconomic needs of the fishery over Alternative D3. Therefore, 
Alternative D3 is not preferred at this time.
    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, NMFS has prepared a listserv notice 
summarizing fishery information and regulations for the pelagic 
longline fishery. This listserv notice also serves as the small entity 
compliance guide. Copies of the compliance guide are available from 
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Gear Restricted Areas, 
Performance metrics, Individual Bluefin Quota, Penalties, Fishing gear, 
Closed Areas.

    Dated: March 30, 2020.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is amended 
as follows:

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.


0
2. Amend Sec.  635.2 as follows:
0
a. Remove the definitions of ``Cape Hatteras gear restricted area'' and 
``Northeastern United States closed area'';
0
b. Add in alphabetical order a definition for ``Northeastern United 
States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area''; and
0
c. Remove the definition of ``Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted 
area'' remove the words ``Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area''; 
and
0
d. Add in alphabetical order a definition for ``Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area means 
the area bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates 
in the order stated: 40[deg]00' N lat., 74[deg]00' W long.; 40[deg]00' 
N lat., 68[deg]00' W long.; 39[deg]00' N lat., 68[deg]00' W long.; and 
39[deg]00' N lat., 74[deg]00' W long.
* * * * *
    Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring 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[deg]30' N lat., 94[deg]40' W long.; 27[deg]30' N lat., 
94[deg]40' W long.; 27[deg]30' N lat., 89[deg] W long.; 26[deg]30' N 
lat., 89[deg] W long.; 26[deg]30' N lat., 94[deg]40' W long. The second 
area is bounded by straight lines connecting the following coordinates 
in the order stated: 27[deg]40' N lat., 88[deg] W long.; 28[deg] N 
lat., 88[deg] W long.; 28[deg] N lat., 86[deg] W long.; 27[deg]40' N 
lat., 86[deg] W long.; 27[deg]40' N lat., 88[deg] W long.
* * * * *


Sec.  635.14  [Removed and Reserved]

0
3. Remove and reserve Sec.  635.14.

0
4. In Sec.  635.15, revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.15  Individual bluefin tuna quotas.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (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 any relevant restrictions based upon bluefin 
tuna catch.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  635.21:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(1)(i), (c)(2) introductory text, and 
(c)(2)(i) through (iii);
0
b. Remove paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) through (vi) and redesignate paragraph 
(c)(2)(vii) as paragraph (c)(2)(iv);
0
c. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(D), remove 
``(c)(2)(vii)(E)'' and add in its place ``(c)(2)(iv)(E)'' in its place;
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(E), remove 
``(c)(2)(vii)(D)'' and (c)(2)(vii)(C)'' and add ``(c)(2)(iv)(D)'' and 
``(c)(2)(iv)(C) in their places, respectively;
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(F), remove 
``(c)(2)(vii)(D)'' in four places and remove ``(c)(2)(vii)(C)''

[[Page 18842]]

and add ``(c)(2)(iv)(D)'' and ``(c)(2)(iv)(C) in their places, 
respectively;
0
f. In newly redesignated paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(g), remove 
``(c)(2)(vii)(D)'' in four places and remove ``(c)(2)(vii)(C)'' in two 
places and add ``(c)(2)(iv)(D)'' and ``(c)(2)(iv)(C) in their places, 
respectively;
0
g. Revise paragraph (c)(3);
0
h. In paragraph (c)(5)(ii)(C)(1), remove ``(c)(2)(vii)(D)'' and add 
``(c)(2)(iv)(D)'' in its place;
0
i. Revise paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B); and
0
j. Add paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Transiting and gear stowage: If a vessel issued or required to 
be issued a LAP under this part has pelagic or bottom longline gear 
onboard and is in a closed or gear restricted area as designated in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section or a monitoring area designated in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section that has been closed, it is a 
rebuttable presumption that any fish on board such a vessel were taken 
with pelagic or bottom longline gear in the area except where such 
possession is aboard a vessel transiting such an 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).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Has bottom longline gear on board and is in a closed or gear 
restricted area designated under paragraph (c)(2) of this section or is 
in a monitoring area designated under paragraph (c)(3) of this section 
that has been closed, 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.
* * * * *
    (2) If pelagic longline gear is on board a vessel issued or 
required to be issued a LAP under this part, persons aboard that vessel 
may not fish or deploy any type of fishing gear:
    (i) In the Charleston Bump closed area from February 1 through 
April 30 each calendar year;
    (ii) In the East Florida Coast closed area at any time;
    (iii) In the Desoto Canyon closed area at any time;
* * * * *
    (3) From April 2, 2020 to December 31, 2022, a vessel issued or 
required to be issued a LAP under this part may fish with pelagic 
longline gear in the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline 
Monitoring Area during the month of June or in the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area during the months of April and 
May until the annual IBQ allocation threshold for the monitoring area 
has been reached or is projected to be reached. The annual IBQ 
allocation threshold is 150,519 lb for the Northeastern United States 
Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area, and 63,150 lb for the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area. If between April 2, 2020 and 
December 31, 2022, the U.S. allocation of ICCAT bluefin tuna quota 
codified at Sec.  635.27(a) is reduced, and the BFT Longline category 
quota established at Sec.  635.26 (a)(3) is subsequently reduced, the 
annual IBQ allocation thresholds for each monitoring area will be 
modified as follows: The Gulf of Mexico threshold will be 55 percent of 
the Gulf of Mexico regional designation as defined at Sec.  635.15 
(b)(2) and 72 percent of the Atlantic regional designation as defined 
at Sec.  635.15 (b)(2). When the relevant threshold is reached, or is 
projected to be reached, NMFS will file for publication with the Office 
of the Federal Register a closure for that monitoring area, which will 
be effective no fewer than five days from date of filing. From the 
effective date and time of the closure forward, vessels issued or 
required to be issued a LAP under this part and that have pelagic 
longline gear on board are prohibited from deploying pelagic longline 
gear within the boundaries of the relevant monitoring area during the 
months specified for that area in this paragraph above. After December 
31, 2022, if no closure of a particular monitoring area has been 
implemented under the provisions of this paragraph, vessels with 
pelagic longline gear on board may continue to deploy pelagic longline 
gear in that area; if a closure has been issued for a particular 
monitoring area under the provisions of this paragraph, vessels with 
pelagic longline gear on board will continue to be prohibited from 
deploying pelagic longline gear in that area.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Bait. Vessels fishing outside of the Northeast Distant gear 
restricted area, as defined at Sec.  635.2, that have pelagic longline 
gear on board, and that have been issued or are required to be issued a 
LAP under this part, are limited, at all times, to possessing on board 
and/or using only whole finfish and/or squid bait except that if green-
stick gear is also on board, artificial bait may be possessed, but may 
be used only with green-stick gear.
    (C) Hook size and type. Vessels fishing outside of the Northeast 
Distant gear restricted area, as defined at Sec.  635.2, that have 
pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been issued or are 
required to be issued a LAP under this part are limited, at all times, 
to possessing on board and/or using only 16/0 or larger non-offset 
circle hooks or 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to 
exceed 10[deg]. These hooks must meet the criteria listed in paragraphs 
(c)(5)(iii)(C)(1) through (3) of this section. A limited exception for 
the possession and use of J hooks when green-stick gear is on board is 
described in paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C)(4) of this section.
    (1) For the 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to 
exceed 10[deg], the outer diameter of an 18/0 circle hook at its widest 
point must be no smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm), when measured with 
the eye of the hook on the vertical axis (y-axis) and perpendicular to 
the horizontal axis (x-axis). 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). 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.
    (2) For the 16/0 or larger non-offset circle hooks, 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 (x-
axis). The distance between the hook point and the shank (i.e., the 
gap) on a 16/0 circle hook must be no larger than 1.01 inches (25.8 
mm).
    (3) Between the months of January through June of any given 
calendar year in the Gulf of Mexico, all circle hooks must also be 
constructed of corrodible round wire stock that is no larger than 3.65 
mm in diameter. 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).

[[Page 18843]]

    (4) If green-stick gear, as defined at Sec.  635.2, is also on 
board, a vessel that has pelagic longline gear on board, 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.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  635.71, revise paragraphs (a)(31), (54), (57) and (58), and 
(b)(36) through (40) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (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 periods specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(2).
* * * * *
    (54) Possess, use, or deploy, in the Gulf of Mexico, with pelagic 
longline gear on board, any circle hook that is constructed of round 
wire stock that is larger than 3.65 mm in diameter during the months of 
January through June of any calendar year as specified in Sec.  
635.21(c)(5)(iii).
* * * * *
    (57) Fail to appropriately stow longline gear when transiting a 
closed or gear restricted area or a monitoring area that has been 
closed, as specified in Sec.  635.21(b)(2).
    (58) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a 
pelagic longline gear on board in a monitoring area that has been 
closed as specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(3).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (36) Possess J-hooks onboard a vessel that has pelagic longline 
gear on board, and that has been issued or required to be issued a LAP 
under this part, except when green-stick gear is on board, as specified 
at Sec.  635.21(c)(2)(v)(A) and (c)(5)(iii)(C).
    (37) Use or deploy J-hooks with pelagic longline gear from a vessel 
that has been issued, or required to be issued a LAP under this part, 
as specified in Sec.  635.21(c)(5)(iii)(C).
    (38) As specified in Sec.  635.21(c)(5)(iii)(C), possess more than 
20 J-hooks on board a vessel that has been issued or required to be 
issued a LAP under this part, when possessing onboard both pelagic 
longline gear and green-stick gear as defined in Sec.  635.2.
    (39) Use or deploy more than 10 hooks at one time on any individual 
green-stick gear, as specified in Sec.  635.21(c)(2)(v)(A), 
(c)(5)(iii)(C), or (j).
    (40) Possess, use, or deploy J-hooks smaller than 1.5 inch (38.1 
mm), when measured in a straight line over the longest distance from 
the eye to any part of the hook, when fishing with or possessing green-
stick gear on board a vessel that has been issued or required to be 
issued a LAP under this part, as specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(2)(v)(A) 
or (c)(5)(iii)(C).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-06925 Filed 3-30-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P