Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management, 29050-29076 [2023-08782]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29050-29076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 230419-0106]
RIN 0648-BI10


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement Draft Amendment 15 to the 
2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 15). NMFS is proposing changes to 
Atlantic HMS fishery management measures regarding four commercial 
longline spatial management areas and the administration and funding of 
the HMS pelagic longline electronic monitoring (EM) program. 
Specifically, NMFS proposes to modify the timing and boundaries of the 
Mid-Atlantic shark, Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto 
Canyon closed areas to create low- and/or high-bycatch risk areas. 
Lastly, NMFS proposes to implement a cost allocation program to 
transition electronic monitoring sampling costs to the industry, while 
NMFS remains responsible for administrative costs. These proposed 
changes would directly impact bottom and pelagic longline fishermen who 
hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits, and HMS commercial fishermen who use 
other gear types and HMS recreational fishermen may also be indirectly 
impacted given the proposed changes to the existing closed areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 15, 2023. NMFS 
will hold five public hearings via conference calls and webinars on 
Amendment 15 from June 15 through August 22, 2023. For specific dates 
and times, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2019-0035, by electronic submission. Submit all electronic 
public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and enter ``NOAA-NMFS-2019-0035'' in the Search 
box. Click the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and 
enter or attach your comments.
    Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or 
individual, or received after the close of the comment period, may not 
be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily 
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous 
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain 
anonymous). Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or 
other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained 
in this proposed rule may also be submitted via www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting 
``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the 
search function.
    NMFS will hold three in-person public hearings and two virtual 
public hearings via conference call and webinar on this proposed rule 
and Draft Amendment 15. NMFS will hold public hearings in Jupiter, FL; 
Houma, LA; and Manteo, NC. For specific locations, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Copies of the supporting documents--including Draft Amendment 15, 
which includes the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA); the Issues and Options for Research and Data Collection in 
Closed and Gear Restricted Areas in Support of Spatial Fisheries; the 
peer-reviewed journal article regarding the predictive modeling program 
used in support of this rulemaking; and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 
and amendments are available from the HMS website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species or by 
contacting Steve Durkee or Larry Redd, Jr., at the email addresses and 
telephone number below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Durkee ([email protected]), 
Larry Redd, Jr. ([email protected]), Randy Blankinship 
([email protected]), or Karyl Brewster-Geisz ([email protected]) at 301-427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). The 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations 
at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of Draft 
Amendment 15 and this proposed rule is provided below. Additional 
information regarding spatial management can be found in Draft 
Amendment 15 itself, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its

[[Page 29051]]

amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 
(SAFE) Reports, and online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.
    Closed areas are typically discrete geographic areas where certain 
types of fishing are restricted or prohibited (usually by restricting a 
particular type of gear) for limited periods of time or the entire 
year. Closed areas can be particularly effective in reducing or 
eliminating fishing interactions between particular species and gears. 
Since 1999, NMFS has implemented a number of time/area closures and 
gear restricted areas in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico to 
reduce discards and bycatch of a number of species. NMFS acknowledges 
that incidental catch is different than ``bycatch,'' which has a 
specific definition under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, see 16 U.S.C. 
1802(2). However, for ease of communication in this rule, unless 
otherwise noted, ``bycatch species'' generally refer to all non-target 
catch species, including incidentally-caught species that fishermen may 
or may not retain. Four spatial management areas are being addressed by 
Draft Amendment 15 and this proposed action: Charleston Bump, DeSoto 
Canyon, East Florida Coast, and Mid-Atlantic shark closed areas. In 
2000, NMFS published a final rule that, in addition to other things, 
closed the Charleston Bump, DeSoto Canyon, and East Florida Coast areas 
to pelagic longline gear effective in early 2001 (65 FR 47213, August 
1, 2000). The Charleston Bump closed area is a seasonal closure from 
February through April every year, whereas the DeSoto Canyon and East 
Florida Coast closed areas are closed year-round to pelagic longline 
gear. The closures were implemented to reduce bycatch and incidental 
catch of overfished and protected species by pelagic longline fishermen 
who target HMS. In 2005, NMFS published a final rule that, in addition 
to other things, implemented the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. HMS 
fishermen are prohibited from using bottom longline gear in the Mid-
Atlantic shark closed area from January through July. The intent of 
this closure was to reduce both the catch and mortality of dusky and 
juvenile sandbar sharks (68 FR 74746, December 24, 2003). Further 
information on the four spatial management areas is contained in the 
above-cited FR documents and Section 4.11 of Draft Amendment 15.
    Since implementation of these time/area closures, there has been 
little to no formal evaluation on whether the closures are still 
effective in achieving their objectives or whether the balance of 
associated costs and benefits over time is still appropriate. Given the 
static nature of the existing time/area management measures, the highly 
dynamic nature of HMS fisheries, and the highly dynamic nature of the 
ocean environment, the need to assess the effectiveness of time/area 
closures and other gear restricted management measures is heightened. 
However, while closed areas can be an effective management tool for 
achieving certain objectives, closed areas can also reduce or eliminate 
the ability to gather fishery-dependent data within the areas. Fishery-
dependent data are information collected during normal fishing 
operations (e.g., catch composition, bycatch rates, fishing effort), 
and provide a vital and cost-effective source of information for 
fisheries management. In general, such data are critical in determining 
stock status, assessing bycatch levels, and in meeting other fishery 
management needs. Relevant to this proposed rule, it is important to 
recognize that in addition to reducing fishery-dependent data, the 
closed areas have also reduced the ability to collect fishery-
independent data from these areas. Fishery-independent data are similar 
to fishery-dependent data, but the information is collected by 
scientists and the data collection methods may not be directly 
comparable to the methods used by fishermen, even if the data are 
collected on the same gears. The collection of fishery-independent data 
is more costly than fishery-dependent data and relies on scientists 
being able to collect the information and obtain the permits needed to 
fish in the closed areas. Of all four areas, because it is the only 
area that had research built into its design, only the Mid-Atlantic 
shark closed area has had consistent data collection and monitoring. In 
the mid-2000s, there was one research project that collected data in 
the East Florida Coast closed area from three vessels over three years 
(73 FR 450, January 3, 2008). In 2017, NMFS approved another research 
project for that area (82 FR 37566, August 11, 2017), but that research 
did not occur.
    To address the lack of catch information inside of closed areas and 
provide a means of evaluating the efficacy of the closed areas, NMFS 
developed a spatial modeling tool, HMS Predictive Spatial Modeling 
(PRiSM). HMS PRiSM combines observer-collected catch data with 
environmental variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, salinity, 
chlorophyll-A, bathymetry) to create a model that predicts catch of 
modeled species even in areas where limited or no data has been 
collected. HMS PRiSM fishery interaction predictions provide important 
information on where commercial bycatch is likely to occur and helps 
direct data collection efforts to avoid jeopardizing conservation 
goals. The model does not use other catch or location data (e.g., 
tagging data or fishery-independent location data) because the intent 
is to model when and where the commercial fishery is likely to interact 
with species, not to model when and where the species can be found 
generally. Further details on PRiSM and analyses conducted for this 
action are in Chapter 2 and Appendices 1-6 of Draft Amendment 15.
    On May 16, 2019, NMFS published a Notice of Intent in the Federal 
Register that provided formal notice to the public that NMFS intended 
to prepare an environmental impact analysis; announced the availability 
of the Issues and Options Paper and the start of the public scoping 
process (with a comment period of May 16 through July 31, 2019); and 
solicited public comments (84 FR 22112). On May 22, 2019, NMFS 
published a notice that provided the dates and locations of five 
scoping meetings, including a webinar, pertaining to spatial management 
research (84 FR 23519). Also on May 22, 2019, NMFS conducted scoping 
during the spring HMS Advisory Panel meeting.
    Draft Amendment 15 is a consolidated document that includes a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA), Draft Regulatory Impact Review, and Draft Social 
Impact Assessment. It contains a complete description and analysis of 
the range of alternatives analyzed. The preferred alternatives in Draft 
Amendment 15 are the measures proposed in this rule, described below. A 
description of the significant alternatives to the proposed measures is 
provided later in this preamble in the summary of the IRFA.

Proposed Measures

    This proposed rule is designed to: (1) use spatial management tools 
to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, to the extent practicable, 
while also optimizing fishing opportunities for U.S. fishing vessels; 
(2) develop methods of collecting target and non-target species 
occurrence and catch rate data from HMS spatial management areas for 
the purpose of assessing area performance; (3) broaden the 
considerations for the use of spatial management areas as a fishery 
management tool, including to provide flexibility to account for the 
highly

[[Page 29052]]

variable nature of HMS and their fisheries, manage user conflicts, 
facilitate collection of information, address the need for regular 
evaluation and performance review, plan for climate resilience, and 
address environmental justice; (4) evaluate the effectiveness of 
existing HMS spatial management areas, and if warranted, modify them to 
achieve an optimal balance of ecological and socioeconomic benefits and 
costs; and (5) modify the HMS electronic monitoring program as 
necessary to augment spatial management and address the requirements of 
relevant NMFS policies regarding electronic monitoring. In Draft 
Amendment 15, NMFS considered a reasonable range of different 
alternatives to meet these objectives and is proposing to implement the 
preferred alternatives in this proposed rule. NMFS' detailed analysis 
of the alternatives is provided in Draft Amendment 15 (see ADDRESSES 
for how to get a copy) and a summary is provided in the IRFA below. In 
developing this proposed rule, NMFS considered 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 (84 FR 22112, May 16, 2019), including comments provided at 
the May 2019 HMS Advisory Panel meeting. In response to public comment 
on this proposed rule and Draft Amendment 15, NMFS may make changes in 
the final rule by modifying the proposed measures or adopting different 
or additional measures in response to public comment.
    For each of the four spatial management areas, Draft Amendment 15/
DEIS analyzed a range of alternatives, including no action 
alternatives, on evaluation and modification of the areas, now referred 
to as ``spatial management areas'' (A alternatives); commercial data 
collection programs for the areas (B alternatives), and evaluation 
timing of the areas (C alternatives). The A alternatives include 
different temporal and/or spatial changes for each area and identify 
high- and low-bycatch-risk areas therein. The B alternatives consider 
data collection approaches for the high- and low-bycatch-risk areas: 
establishing a research fishery; cooperative research through exempted 
fishing permits; and monitoring areas (i.e., low-bycatch-risk areas 
inside the spatial management areas) with effort caps, bycatch caps, 
trip-level effort controls, observer coverage, electronic monitoring, 
and/or data sharing and communication protocols. The C alternatives 
consider three and five-year review cycles for spatial management 
areas; review of areas as warranted based on regulatory review factors; 
and a sunset provision for spatial management areas. On a related note, 
NMFS proposes in this action to reorganize, clarify and add regulatory 
provisions regarding modifying or establishing spatial management areas 
(preferred alternative E2). Separate from the spatial management areas, 
Draft Amendment 15 also analyzed a range of alternatives related to 
transfer of sampling costs of the HMS pelagic longline electronic 
monitoring program from the Agency to industry (F alternatives).
    As reflected below, NMFS has described its preferred packages of A, 
B, and C alternatives for each spatial management area that would allow 
for the bycatch risk-appropriate collection of data needed to evaluate 
the performance of spatial management measures in meeting conservation 
and management goals. The preferred packages are labeled D1, D2, D3, 
and D4 in Section 5.4 of Draft Amendment 15. While these proposed 
changes would directly impact bottom and pelagic longline fishermen who 
hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits, HMS commercial fishermen who use 
other gear types and HMS recreational fishermen have expressed concern 
about potential indirect impacts from changes to the current closed 
areas as a result of possible changes in fishing effort, strategy or 
location. Discussion of HMS recreational fisheries is in Section 5.4.6 
of Draft Amendment 15.

Spatial Management Area Preferred Packages

    For evaluation timing and review of all four spatial management 
areas, NMFS' preferred alternatives are C2, C4 and E2. NMFS would 
evaluate data collected from the spatial management areas once three 
years of catch and effort data is finalized and available (Alternative 
C2). In addition, NMFS may review spatial management areas if specific 
concerns arise, which may include but is not limited to unexpectedly 
high or low bycatch, high or low data collection efforts, fishing 
effort that is overly clustered temporally or spatially, changed 
conditions within the fishery as a whole, or changed status of relevant 
stocks (Alternative C4). NMFS also prefers Alternative E2, which 
provides for adding or revising regulations to provide considerations 
for review, evaluation, and adjustment of spatial management areas. See 
Spatial Management regulatory provisions discussion below.
    Proposed 50 CFR 635.34(d) and 635.35(e) contain regulatory text 
related to the preferred C and E alternatives. New text for the 
preferred A and B alternatives is mainly in proposed Sec. Sec.  635.35 
(spatial management area restrictions), 635.2 (definitions), and 
635.69(e)(2)(i) and (5) (additional VMS hailing out declarations and 
reporting within Monitoring Areas)). Additions of or revisions to 
terminology (i.e., using ``spatial management areas'' and ``monitoring 
areas'' instead of ``closed areas''), reorganization of provisions, and 
updates to citations and other consistency edits appear in Sec. Sec.  
635.21(c)-(d) (sea turtle measures and possession/landing limits), 
635.24 (commercial retention limits), 635.32 (exempted fishing permit 
(EFP)), and 635.34 (adjustment of management measures). However, 
substantive aspects of those provisions remain unchanged from current 
regulations.
    Currently, HMS closed areas, as well as regulations back-stopping 
NMFS regional closed areas, are in Sec.  635.21. This action would move 
regulatory text for those areas to proposed Sec.  635.35, update and 
streamline names and citations for NMFS regional closed areas in Sec.  
635.35(d), and delete an outdated provision at current Sec.  
635.21(c)(3) (2020-2022 pelagic longline monitoring areas). Text 
regarding transiting areas, gear stowage, rebuttable presumption, shark 
research fishery, and Northeast Distant gear restrict area (NED) is the 
same in proposed Sec.  635.35(a) as in current Sec.  635.21. Proposed 
Sec.  635.71 contains new prohibitions for spatial management areas as 
well as consistency edits.

[[Page 29053]]

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.000

    After considering four alternatives, including the No Action 
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative 
(Alternative A1d) to modify the ``Mid-Atlantic shark closed area.'' 
This area, as shown in Figure 1, has been closed to HMS permitted 
fishermen using bottom longline gear during the months of January 
through July since 2005. This preferred alternative package would 
modify the geographic boundary and timing of the current Mid-Atlantic 
shark closed area, where the use of bottom longline gear is prohibited, 
unless operating in the shark research fishery. The new Mid-Atlantic 
Shark spatial management area (see proposed Sec.  635.2 and 635.35(a), 
(b)) would be managed as follows:
     NMFS would extend the current eastern boundary to the 350-
meter shelf break. The area would be designated as a high-bycatch risk 
area, and no low-bycatch risk area would be defined. The high-bycatch 
risk area would be designated as the ``Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline 
Restricted Area.''
     The Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area would be 
closed to fishing with bottom longline gear from November 1 to May 31 
(proposed Sec.  635.35(b)).
     Data collection would remain the same (Alternative B1, no 
action) with continued access for fishery-independent surveys and 
observer data collected from participants in the shark research 
fishery, who can use bottom longline in the area to target sharks.
    Extending the eastern boundary of the current Mid-Atlantic shark 
closed area to the 350-meter shelf break would provide greater 
protections to bycatch species (e.g., sandbar, dusky, and scalloped 
hammerhead sharks) with greater fishery interaction risk along the 350-
meter shelf break. Shifting the timing of the closure from January 
through July to the proposed November through May time period would 
align with the time period that has the highest likelihood of fishery 
interactions. Since 2005, the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area has been 
closed to bottom longline fishing, however, some data are currently 
collected in the area as part of the shark research fishery. NMFS 
established the shark research fishery as part of Amendment 2 to the 
HMS FMP. Within the Restricted Area, NMFS would continue to allow shark 
research participants the opportunity to land sandbar, other large 
coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, smoothhound, and pelagic sharks 
in the closed area and provide NMFS with valuable data. Participants 
within the program are subject to 100-percent observer coverage and 
other terms and conditions as defined in the permit. Data collection

[[Page 29054]]

from this program has been vital in numerous shark stock assessments 
and new data collection programs may not be necessary. Furthermore, due 
to the low level of shark bottom longline effort in the region, 
creating new data collection programs may not be feasible. Thus, NMFS 
is not proposing a new data collection program within the revised 
coordinates of the Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area.
    NMFS would evaluate the area once three years of data is available 
but may evaluate the area earlier, if preliminary data indicate that 
there may be potential conservation and management issues, e.g., 
unexpectedly high or low bycatch, high or low data collection efforts, 
fishing effort that is overly clustered temporally or spatially, 
changed conditions within the fishery as a whole, changed status of 
relevant stocks, etc. See proposed Sec.  635.35(e) (considerations for 
review of spatial management areas). The use of an evaluative process 
provides NMFS a precautionary mechanism to collect and review data, and 
determine whether spatial or temporal modifications to the area, or 
other changes to area management measures, are needed. After reviewing 
an area, NMFS may make changes or modifications, as appropriate, 
through framework adjustments (see proposed Sec.  635.34).

Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.001

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    After considering five alternatives, including the No Action 
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative 
(Alternative A2c) to modify the current Charleston Bump closed area. 
This area, as shown in Figure 2, has been closed to HMS permitted 
fishermen using pelagic longline gear during the months of February 
through April since 2000. The Preferred alternative package would 
modify the geographic boundary and the duration of the current 
Charleston Bump closed area, includes two different data collection 
alternatives, and requires evaluation of the area according to a set 
schedule. The new Charleston Bump spatial management area (see proposed 
Sec.  635.2 and 635.35(a), (c)(1) and (3)) would be managed as follows:
     NMFS would shift the current eastern boundary to the west. 
The redefined area would create a boundary that nearly bisects the 
current Charleston Bump closed area, with a line that runs from the 
northeastern corner of the current closure, southwest to a point near 
the Charleston Bump bathymetric feature on the southern boundary. The 
area inshore of the boundary would be designated as a high-bycatch risk 
area and offshore of that boundary would be designated as a low-bycatch 
risk area. The high-bycatch risk area would be combined with the

[[Page 29055]]

preferred modification alternative for the East Florida Coast closed 
area to create the ``South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area.'' 
The low-bycatch risk area in the remaining offshore portion of the 
closure would be designated as the ``Charleston Bump Monitoring Area.''
     The South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area 
(proposed Sec. Sec.  635.35(c)(1) and 635.2) would be closed to 
fishermen with HMS permits who are fishing with pelagic longline gear 
year round unless otherwise allowed per cooperative research via an 
exempted fishing permit (EFP) (Alternative B4), as described below.
     The Charleston Bump Monitoring Area (proposed Sec. Sec.  
635.35(c)(3) and 635.2) would be open to fishermen with HMS permits who 
are fishing with pelagic longline gear from February 1 through April 30 
but would be subject to an effort cap (Sub-Alternative B3a) that could 
close the area to fishing through April 30. From May 1 through January 
31, the area would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing 
activities.
     There would be an annual effort cap of 69 pelagic longline 
sets within the Monitoring Area. The proposed 69 pelagic longline sets 
effort cap is based on the amount of fishing effort of the larger 
geographic area called the ``reference area'' in which the Monitoring 
Area is located (from 2011 through 2020). See Section 3.2.3.1 of Draft 
Amendment 15 for details on how the cap was calculated. The Atlantic 
region pelagic longline reference area occurred within the U.S. EEZ 
from 35[deg] N lat. to 22[deg] N lat. and east of 81[deg]47'24'' W 
long.
     Effort in the Monitoring Area would be closely monitored 
by NMFS. If the effort cap is reached, or is projected to be reached, 
NMFS would file a closure for the Monitoring Area with the Office of 
the Federal Register. From the effective date and time of the closure 
action, the Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic longline fishing 
until May 1. The Monitoring Area would become effective again on 
February 1. However, NMFS may file for publication with the Office of 
the Federal Register a closure of the monitoring area before the effort 
cap is reached and/or an action to not reopen the area on February 1, 
if warranted by conservation and management concerns raised by 
unexpectedly high bycatch, high fishing effort, fishing effort that is 
overly clustered temporally or spatially, or other relevant 
considerations.
     Within the Monitoring Area (from February through April), 
pelagic longline vessels fishing for all, or a part of a trip, would 
have 100 percent of the electronic monitoring data reviewed for that 
trip, paid for by the vessel owner.
     In order to fish in the Monitoring Area (from February 
through April), fishermen with HMS permits using pelagic longline gear 
would be required to comply with three reporting requirements using a 
vessel monitoring system (VMS). See proposed Sec.  635.69(e)(2)(i)-(ii) 
and (5). First, vessel owners and/or operators that intend to fish in a 
Monitoring Area would need to declare that intention via VMS during the 
pre-trip or in-trip hail-out. Second, the vessel owner and/or operator 
must report fishing effort (date and area of each set and number of 
hooks) through VMS within 12 hours of the completion of each pelagic 
longline haul-back. Third, within 12 hours of the completion of each 
pelagic longline haul-back, the vessel owner and/or operator must 
report through VMS (or an alternative method specified by NMFS) the 
length of the following species that are retained and approximate 
length of these species that are discarded dead or alive: blue marlin, 
white marlin, roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea turtles, 
loggerhead sea turtles, and shortfin mako sharks. These requirements 
are in addition to current bluefin tuna reporting requirements. Vessels 
would be allowed to fish inside and outside of a Monitoring Area on the 
same trip, but any fishing effort would be considered to have occurred 
from within the Monitoring Area.
     Researchers could apply for an EFP under Sec.  635.32 to 
collect data in the Monitoring Area or the Restricted Area, provided 
their research plan includes standardized conditions that would provide 
more timely accounting for effort and bycatch and caps at levels 
designed to prevent adverse ecological impacts. The standardized EFP 
conditions include additional safeguards such as reporting, observer, 
and EM requirements.
    Establishment of the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area would allow 
for bycatch risk-appropriate data collection inside the Charleston Bump 
spatial management area. Data collected during these activities would 
provide information to evaluate the effectiveness of the area in 
meeting conservation and management goals. The Monitoring Area also 
provides increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing 
distributions and concentrations of HMS and target catch by providing 
more locations to distribute fishing effort, however, the area would be 
a special access area, not open to normal commercial pelagic longline 
fishing, and heavily monitored. This measure also alleviates short-term 
uncertainty due to lack of data collection from within the boundaries 
of the Monitoring Area.
    NMFS would evaluate the area once three years of data is available 
but may evaluate the area earlier, if preliminary data indicate that 
there may be potential conservation and management issues, e.g., 
unexpectedly high bycatch, fishing effort that is overly clustered 
temporally or spatially, changed status of relevant stocks, etc. See 
proposed Sec.  635.35(e) (considerations for review of spatial 
management areas). The use of an evaluative process provides NMFS a 
precautionary mechanism to collect and review data, and determine 
whether spatial or temporal modifications to the area, or other changes 
to area management measures, are needed. After reviewing an area, NMFS 
may consider changes or modifications to the area or its management 
measures, as appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed 
Sec.  635.34). For example, if bycatch is lower than expected for a 
period of time, NMFS could consider increasing effort caps for the 
following year(s).

East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 29056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.002

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    After considering five alternatives, including the No Action 
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative 
(Alternative A3d) to modify the ``East Florida Coast Closed Area.'' 
This area, as shown in Figure 3, has been closed to fishermen using 
pelagic longline gear year-round since 2000. The preferred alternative 
package would modify the geographic boundary of the current East 
Florida Coast Closed Area, includes two different data collection 
alternatives, and requires evaluation of the area according to a set 
schedule. The new East Florida Coast spatial management area (see 
proposed Sec.  635.2 and 635.35(a), (c)(1) and (4)) would be managed as 
follows:
     NMFS would shift the current northeastern boundary to the 
west to 79[deg]32'46'' W long. The area inshore would be designated as 
a high-bycatch risk area and the offshore area would be designated as a 
low-bycatch risk area. As noted earlier, the Charleston Bump high-
bycatch risk area would be combined with the East Florida Coast high-
bycatch risk area to create the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline 
Restricted Area. The low-bycatch risk area in the offshore portion of 
the current closure footprint would be designated as the East Florida 
Coast Monitoring Area.
     As described above, the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline 
Restricted Area (proposed Sec. Sec.  635.35(c)(1) and 635.2)) would be 
closed year round to fishing with pelagic longline gear unless 
otherwise allowed per cooperative research via an EFP (Alternative B4).
     The East Florida Coast Monitoring Area would be open to 
fishermen with HMS permits who are fishing with pelagic longline gear 
year-round, subject to an effort cap (Sub-Alternative B3a) similar to 
the effort cap in the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area, as described 
above.
     There would be an annual effort cap of 124 pelagic 
longline sets within the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area. The 
proposed 124 pelagic longline sets effort cap is based on the amount of 
fishing effort of the larger geographic area called the ``reference 
area'' in which the Monitoring Area is located (from 2011 through 
2020). See Section 3.2.3.1 of Draft Amendment 15 for details on how the 
cap was calculated. The Atlantic region pelagic longline reference area 
occurred within the U.S. EEZ from 35[deg] N lat. to 22[deg] N lat. and 
east of 81[deg]47'24'' W long.
     Effort in the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area would be 
closely monitored by NMFS. If the effort cap is reached, or is 
projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure for the Monitoring 
Area with the Office of the Federal Register. From the effective date 
and time of the closure action, the Monitoring Area would be closed to 
pelagic longline fishing until January 1.

[[Page 29057]]

However, NMFS may file for publication with the Office of the Federal 
Register a closure of the monitoring area before the effort cap is 
reached and/or an action to not reopen the area on January 1, if 
warranted by conservation and management concerns raised by 
unexpectedly high bycatch, high data collection efforts, fishing effort 
that is overly clustered temporally or spatially, or other relevant 
considerations.
     Within the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area, pelagic 
longline vessels fishing for all, or a part of a trip, would have 100 
percent of the electronic monitoring data reviewed for that trip, paid 
for by the vessel owner.
     In order to fish in the East Florida Coast Monitoring 
Area, owners and/or operators of vessels using pelagic longline gear 
would be required to comply with the same three additional VMS 
reporting requirements described under Preferred Charleston Bump 
spatial management area package. See proposed Sec.  635.69(e)(2), (5).
     Researchers could apply for an EFP under Sec.  635.32 to 
collect data in the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area or the 
Restricted Area, provided their research plan includes standardized 
conditions that would provide more timely accounting for effort and 
bycatch and caps at levels designed to prevent adverse ecological 
impacts. The standardized EFP conditions include additional safeguards 
such as reporting, observer, and EM requirements.
    Establishment of the Monitoring Area would allow for bycatch risk-
appropriate data collection inside the East Florida Coast spatial 
management area. Data collected during these activities would provide 
information to evaluate the effectiveness of the area in meeting 
conservation and management goals. The Monitoring Area also would 
provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing 
distributions and concentrations of HMS and target catch by providing 
more locations to distribute fishing effort, however, the area would be 
a special access area, not open to normal commercial pelagic longline 
fishing, and heavily monitored. This measure also would alleviate 
short-term uncertainty due to lack of data collection from within the 
boundaries of the Monitoring Area.
    NMFS would evaluate the area once three years of data is available 
but may evaluate the area earlier, if preliminary data indicate that 
there may be potential conservation and management issues, e.g., 
unexpectedly high bycatch, fishing effort that is overly clustered 
temporally or spatially, changed status of relevant stocks, etc. See 
proposed Sec.  635.35(e) (considerations for review of spatial 
management areas). The use of an evaluative process provides NMFS a 
precautionary mechanism to collect and review data, and determine 
whether spatial or temporal modifications to the area, or other changes 
to area management measures, are needed. After reviewing an area, NMFS 
may consider changes or modifications to the area or its management 
measures, as appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed 
Sec.  635.34). For example, if bycatch is lower than expected for a 
period of time, NMFS could consider increasing effort caps for the 
following year(s).

DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 29058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.003

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    After considering four alternatives, including the No Action 
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative 
(Alternative A4d) to modify the ``DeSoto Canyon Closed Area.'' This 
area, as shown in Figure 4, has been closed to fishermen using pelagic 
longline gear year-round since 2000. The preferred alternative package 
would modify the geographic boundary of the current DeSoto Canyon 
Closed Area, include a method of data collection for the high-bycatch 
risk area, and require evaluation of the area according to a set 
schedule. The low-bycatch risk area (unshaded, cross-hatched area in 
Figure 4) would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing activities. 
The new DeSoto Canyon spatial management area (see proposed Sec.  635.2 
and 635.35(a), (c)(1)) would be managed as follows:
     NMFS would shift the spatial extent and shape, creating a 
parallelogram designated as a high-bycatch risk area. The high-bycatch 
risk area would be designated as the ``DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline 
Restricted Area.'' The parallelogram would connect the southern points; 
27[deg]00' N lat., 86[deg]30' W long. and 27[deg]00' N lat., 83[deg]48' 
W long., while the northern boundary would be defined by the state 
water boundary between 88[deg]24'58'' W long. and 85[deg]22'34'' W 
long.
     The DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted Area would 
be closed year round to fishing with pelagic longline gear unless 
otherwise approved via an EFP. Researchers could apply for an EFP under 
Sec.  635.32 to collect data in the DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline 
Restricted Area, provided their research plan includes standardized 
conditions that would provide more timely accounting for effort and 
bycatch and caps at levels designed to prevent adverse ecological 
impacts. The standardized EFP conditions include additional safeguards 
such as reporting, observer, and EM requirements.
    In the redesigned high-bycatch risk area, NMFS proposes collecting 
data through the issuance of exempted fishing permits to researchers 
with research plans that include the standardized conditions discussed 
above. NMFS is not proposing a new data collection program in the low-
bycatch risk areas because the modified shape of the spatial management 
area created multiple, non-contiguous areas and a data collection 
program in those areas would be overly complex to administer and 
enforce. As described under the other alternatives above, NMFS would 
evaluate the De Soto Canyon Restricted Area once three years of data is 
available (or earlier, if needed), and after a review, may consider 
changes or modifications to the area or its management measures, as 
appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed Sec.  635.34).

Spatial Management Regulatory Provisions

    After considering two alternatives, including the No Action 
alternative (Alternative E1), NMFS is proposing the

[[Page 29059]]

preferred alternative (Alternative E2) with regard to spatial 
management area regulatory provisions. See Section 5.6 of Draft 
Amendment 15. Under this alternative, NMFS would add to proposed Sec.  
635.35(c) considerations for review of spatial management areas, such 
as fishery metrics, social and economic data, biological information, 
and oceanographic data. This action is necessary to ensure that future 
and existing spatial management areas are designed to include the data 
collection requirements that will show whether the areas meet the 
intent for which they were created. The need to assess the 
effectiveness of spatial management measures is critical due to the 
static nature of the spatial management measures, the highly dynamic 
nature of HMS fisheries, and the highly dynamic nature of the ocean 
environment. As explained earlier, after reviewing an area, NMFS may 
consider changes or modifications to the area or its management 
measures, as appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed 
Sec.  635.34).

HMS Pelagic Longline Electronic Monitoring Cost Allocation

    After considering three alternatives, including the No Action 
alternative (F1) and removal of current EM regulations regarding 
bluefin tuna and shortfin mako sharks (F3), NMFS is proposing the 
preferred alternative (Alternative F2) with regard to electronic 
monitoring costs. Detailed information regarding the electronic 
monitoring alternatives and preferred Alternative F2 measures can be 
found in Section 5.6 of Draft Amendment 15. Under preferred Alternative 
F2, NMFS would transfer 100 percent of electronic monitoring sampling 
costs to the industry, over a 3-year period (phased-in). See proposed 
Sec.  635.9(b). NMFS would certify electronic monitoring vendors based 
on their ability to carry out responsibilities and duties under Sec.  
635.9(d) and through the application process in Sec.  635.9(c). Vessel 
owners could then contract directly with any NMFS-certified vendor for 
electronic monitoring services. Unless otherwise specified, owners and 
operators would be jointly and severally responsible for their vessel's 
compliance with EM requirements (see proposed Sec.  635.9(a)). To have 
a standardized electronic monitoring program that can be implemented by 
vendors, the program has four distinct components: (1) vendor 
requirements (Sec.  635.9(d) with application, approval and removal 
processes in paragraph (c)); (2) vessel owner and operator requirements 
(Sec.  635.9(a), (e)); (3) vessel monitoring plan (Sec.  635.9(d)(2)); 
and (4) modification of the current IBQ Program's electronic monitoring 
spatial/temporal requirements (Sec.  635.9(a) (EM Data Review Areas)).
    The proposed rule clarifies responsibilities of EM service 
providers and vessel owners and operators, but many requirements of the 
current electronic monitoring regulations are not substantively 
changed. Required content for vessel monitoring plans in proposed rule 
Sec.  635.9(d)(1) is from current Sec.  635.9(e). EM system components 
in proposed Sec.  635.9(f) are from current Sec.  635.9(c). Vessel 
owner and operator requirements in proposed Sec.  635.9(e) are from 
current Sec.  635.9(b)(2) and (e). Data maintenance, storage and 
viewing text in proposed Sec.  635.9(g) is from current Sec.  
635.9(d)). When drafting new regulatory text on cost responsibilities 
and EM vendors (Sec.  635.9(b)-(d)), NMFS took into consideration 
existing regulations at 50 CFR 648.11 (Northeast Fisheries Monitoring 
Coverage) and 50 CFR 660.603-660.604 (West Coast Groundfish EM 
Program).

Vendor Requirements (Sec.  635.9(c)-(d))

    NMFS would solicit vendors to perform the operational tasks (e.g., 
install and maintain electronic monitoring equipment; review electronic 
monitoring video data, etc.), consistent with vendor technical 
performance standards (See proposed Sec.  635.9(d)). NMFS, or a NMFS-
designated entity, would certify vendors that meet certain 
requirements, including meeting the technical performance standards, 
and publish a list of certified vendors in the Federal Register, which 
would be made available to vessel owners. NMFS would reserve the right 
to remove vendors from the approved list if vendor technical 
performance standards are not being met or if the vendor is shown to 
have a conflict of interest. See proposed Sec.  635.9(c)(4).

Vessel Requirements (Sec.  635.9(e))

    The vessel owner and/or operator subject to the relevant electronic 
monitoring regulations would need to comply with the operational, cost 
responsibility, reporting, and communication protocols in the approved 
Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP) (see below for more detail on the VMP). 
Non-compliance with these requirements could result in enforcement 
action.

Vessel Monitoring Plans (Sec.  635.9(d))

    The vessel owner must develop a VMP with assistance from the EM 
vendor. Final approval of the VMP would be provided by NMFS or a NMFS-
designated entity. The VMP must be consistent with relevant VMP 
regulations. This proposed rule does not consider any changes to the 
required information in the VMP. However, if a vessel owner changes 
vendor, the owner would be required to update the VMP with the new 
vendor before leaving on a trip.

Modification of EM IBQ Spatial/Temporal Requirements (Sec.  635.9(a))

    This proposed rule would change the location and timing of HMS 
pelagic longline electronic monitoring requirements. Currently, vessels 
must comply with electronic monitoring requirements regardless of time 
or location of fishing. This proposed rule would limit the electronic 
monitoring requirements to certain areas and times. For all areas 
outside of the spatial management areas discussed earlier, NMFS has 
identified areas where electronic monitoring data would be most useful 
to meet bluefin tuna catch reporting compliance goals and designated 
these spatial/temporal areas as four large ``EM Data Review Areas.'' In 
addition to requirements for monitoring areas as described above, 
vessels would be required to activate EM and submit video only when 
fishing with pelagic longline in an EM Data Review Area during all or a 
portion of a trip. Trips that engage in fishing in multiple areas must 
abide by the more restrictive requirement (e.g., if any fishing occurs 
in an area that requires electronic monitoring, the entire trip must 
use electronic monitoring and all videos must be submitted even when 
fishing in areas that do not require electronic monitoring).
    The current EM regulations require vessels fishing with pelagic 
longline gear on board to have an operational EM system powered on 
during the full duration of all trips, to record video of all haul-
backs, and to send in the hard drive (with the recorded video and 
metadata) to a NMFS-contracted vendor. At the end of each sampling time 
period, the SEFSC selects sets for video review under a stratified 
sampling plan. The first step in selecting sets for review is to filter 
sets that occurred in a time and area where bluefin tuna interactions 
are likely. Sets that occur in areas of unlikely bluefin tuna 
interactions are not considered when selecting sets for review under 
the stratified sampling plan. From the narrowed list of sets that 
occurred in areas and times of likely bluefin tuna catch, the SEFSC 
selects sets for review and notifies the NMFS-contracted vendor to 
review the

[[Page 29060]]

associated videos. The stratified sampling plan cannot be carried out 
until after all the pelagic longline sets have been deployed and 
reported. Under Alternative F2, this process would not be operationally 
feasible, given that vessel owners would directly contract with EM 
vendors and there may be several approved vendors providing services. 
Neither the vendor nor the vessel owner would know which sets would 
ultimately require video review, thus, would be unable to negotiate a 
price for video review at the time of video submission. Furthermore, 
video review may be unequally distributed among the multiple vendors, 
with some vendors receiving more video review requests than expected 
and some less. This unpredictability could result in higher prices to 
cover the possibility of higher video costs or could disincentive 
vendors from entering the HMS EM pelagic longline market. Modification 
of the EM spatial and temporal requirements could address these 
problems by limiting video submission to times and areas of likely 
bluefin tuna catch, allowing vendors to simply review 10 percent of the 
submitted sets. This would reduce uncertainty for the vendor and 
simplify the process for selecting sets for video review. Modification 
of the EM spatial and temporal requirements are designed around the 
current SEFSC sampling program, would reduce complexity in the 
selection of pelagic longline sets for review, and should reduce the 
costs associated with the EM requirements and with the IBQ Program, 
while maintaining the effectiveness of the EM Program. The objectives 
of the EM Program in support of the IBQ Program would remain the same 
(i.e., to verify the accuracy of counts and identification of bluefin 
tuna reported by the vessel). NMFS also considered ease of 
communication, compliance, and enforcement when developing the EM Data 
Review Areas, and does not believe that the areas pose concerns in 
these regards. Because these EM Data Review Areas are largely designed 
around the current electronic monitoring video review sampling plan, no 
impact to monitoring compliance with the IBQ program is expected. For 
further details and explanation of EM Data Review Areas, see Section 
3.6.2.4 of Draft Amendment 15.

Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on the alternatives and analyses 
described in this proposed rule, Draft Amendment 15, and the IRFA. 
Written comments may be submitted via www.regulations.gov or at a 
public conference call/webinar. NMFS solicits comments on this action 
by September 15, 2023 (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
    During the comment period, NMFS will hold three public hearings and 
two public hearings via conference call and webinar for this proposed 
action. The hearing locations will be physically accessible to people 
with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Steve Durkee or Larry Redd, Jr. at 
301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. Information on the 
webinar will be posted at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-15-2006-consolidated-hms-fishery-management-plan-spatial-management-EM.

  Table 1--Dates, Times, and Locations of Upcoming Public Hearings and
                             Conference Call
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Street address/
             Venue                  Date/time       webinar information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference call/Webinar.......  June 15, 2023, 2   https://
                                 p.m. to 4 p.m.     www.fisheries.noaa.g
                                                    ov/action/amendment-
                                                    15-2006-
                                                    consolidated-hms-
                                                    fishery-management-
                                                    plan-spatial-
                                                    management-EM.
Public Hearing................  July 20, 2023, 5   River Center, 805 US
                                 p.m. to 8 p.m.     Highway 1, Jupiter,
                                                    FL 33477.
Public Hearing................  July 25, 2023, 5   Terrebonne Parish
                                 p.m. to 8 p.m.     Library (Main
                                                    Branch), 151 Library
                                                    Drive, Houma, LA
                                                    70360.
Conference call/Webinar.......  August 17, 2023,   https://
                                 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.   www.fisheries.noaa.g
                                                    ov/action/amendment-
                                                    15-2006-
                                                    consolidated-hms-
                                                    fishery-management-
                                                    plan-spatial-
                                                    management-EM.
Public Hearing................  August 22, 2023,   Dare County
                                 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.   Administration
                                                    Building,
                                                    Commissioners
                                                    Meeting Room, 954
                                                    Marshall Collins
                                                    Drive, Manteo, NC
                                                    27954.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public 
conference calls and webinars to conduct themselves appropriately. At 
the beginning of each public conference call and webinar, the moderator 
will explain how the public conference call and webinar will be 
conducted and how and when participants can provide comments. NMFS 
representative(s) will structure the public conference calls and 
webinars so that all members of the public will be able to comment, if 
they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the 
subject(s). Participants are expected to respect the ground rules, and 
those that do not may be asked to leave the public conference call and 
webinars.

Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that the proposed 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.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS 
prepared a DEIS for Draft Amendment 15 and this proposed rule that 
analyzes impacts on the environment from the preferred alternatives and 
other alternatives analyzed. The DEIS is consolidated in the same 
document as Draft Amendment 15. A copy of the Draft Amendment/DEIS is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A Notice of Availability of the 
DEIS is publishing in the Federal Register on the same day as this 
proposed rule. A summary of the impacts of the alternatives considered 
is described below.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy 
of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the 
action is being considered. NMFS is amending the 2006 Consolidated 
Atlantic HMS FMP to address the modification, data collection, and 
assessment of four commercial longline spatial management areas; and 
modification to

[[Page 29061]]

the administration and funding of the HMS pelagic longline EM program.
    Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the 
objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. This action is 
necessary to meet domestic management objectives of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act including preventing overfishing, achieving optimal yield, 
and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable, as well as the 
objectives of the ATCA and obligations pursuant to binding 
recommendations of ICCAT. The objectives of this Amendment are (1) 
Using spatial management tools, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, 
to the extent practicable, while also optimizing fishing opportunities 
for U.S. fishing vessels; (2) Develop methods of collecting target and 
non-target species occurrence and catch rate data from HMS spatial 
management areas for the purpose of assessing spatial management area 
performance; (3) Broaden the considerations for the use of spatial 
management areas as a fishery management tool, including to provide 
flexibility to account for the highly variable nature of HMS and their 
fisheries, manage user conflicts, facilitate collection of information, 
address the need for regular evaluation and performance review, plan 
for climate resilience, and address environmental justice; (4) Evaluate 
the effectiveness of existing HMS spatial management areas, and if 
warranted, modify them to achieve an optimal balance of ecological, 
social, and economic benefits and costs; and (5) Modify the HMS 
electronic monitoring program as necessary to augment spatial 
management and address the requirements of relevant NMFS policies 
regarding electronic monitoring, including the 2019 Cost Allocation 
Policy.
    NMFS developed the draft management objectives based upon comments 
received during the Amendment 15 scoping process and the detailed 
suggestions and concerns expressed by the HMS Advisory Panel, fishery 
participants, and the public regarding management of spatial management 
areas over the last several years. Additionally, the EM funding 
alternatives were developed to comply with the 2019 NMFS Policy 04-115-
02 ``Cost Allocation in Electronic Monitoring Programs for Federally 
Managed Fisheries.'' These specific objectives are within the context 
of the current 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, including 
the overarching objectives of ending overfishing, and meeting other 
legal obligations and conservation and management goals and 
requirements.
    Section 603(b)(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires 
Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to 
which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) 
authorizes an agency to develop its own industry-specific size 
standards after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy and an 
opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Pursuant to 
this process, NMFS issued a final rule that 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 (80 FR 81194; December 29, 2015; effective on July 
1, 2016). SBA has established size standards for all other major 
industry sectors in the U.S., including the scenic and sightseeing 
transportation (water) sector (North American Industry Classification 
System (NAICS) code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/party 
boat entities. SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one 
with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $14.0 million.
    NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because 
they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for 
commercial fishing. Regarding those entities that would be directly 
affected by the proposed measures, the average annual revenue per 
active pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $222,000, based on 
approximately 82 active vessels that produced an estimated $18.2 
million in revenue in 2020, well below the NMFS small business size 
standard for commercial fishing businesses of $11 million. No single 
pelagic longline vessel has exceeded $11 million in revenue in recent 
years. HMS bottom longline commercial fishing vessels typically earn 
less revenue than pelagic longline vessels and, thus, would also be 
considered small entities.
    NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives 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.
    Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new 
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. Some 
preferred alternatives in Draft Amendment 15 would result in reporting, 
record-keeping, and compliance requirements that require a new or 
modified Paperwork Reduction Act filing. Under Preferred Alternative 
Packages D2 and D3, NMFS would implement Alternative B3 to create two 
monitoring areas within the current footprints of the Charleston Bump 
and East Florida Coast closed areas. To control effort and ensure 
accurate reporting under Alternative B3, NMFS prefers implementation of 
Sub-Alternative B3a (effort caps) and Sub-Alternative B3e (expanded EM 
review). Sub-Alternative B3a includes two expanded reporting 
requirements for HMS pelagic longline fishermen operating in the 
monitoring areas. First, vessel operators that intend to fish in a 
monitoring area would need to declare that intention via VMS before 
embarking on a trip or during the in-trip hail-out. Second, vessel 
operators would be required to report the catch of the following 
species, in addition to current bluefin tuna reporting requirements, 
through VMS within 12 hours after the end of a longline set: blue 
marlin, white marlin, roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea 
turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and shortfin mako sharks. Neither 
requirement is wholly new since pelagic longline vessel operators 
currently need to hail-out via VMS before embarking on a trip and 
bluefin tuna catch must be reported with 12 hours after the end of a 
longline set. Rather, the proposed measures are expanded requirements 
with an additional hail-out declaration requirement and species 
reporting requirements. These requirements would impact a sub-set of 
the 82 active HMS pelagic longline vessels that choose to fish within 
the monitoring areas.
    Under Preferred Alternative F2, HMS pelagic longline vessel owners 
would be required to cover sampling costs associated with the EM 
program to support compliance with catch reporting requirements during 
pelagic longline fishing activity, including incidentally caught 
bluefin tuna. The alternative would also open up the HMS pelagic 
longline EM program to additional vendors, and establishes application 
and reporting standards for potential EM vendors. All pelagic longline 
vessel owners (82 active vessels) would need to coordinate with a NMFS-
approved vendor to provide support for EM requirements including 
equipment maintenance and replacement and review of video data. NMFS 
would solicit vendors to perform the tasks in support of the EM 
program, consistent with performance design standards. NMFS, or a NMFS-
designated entity, would certify vendors that meet certain 
requirements, including meeting the technical

[[Page 29062]]

performance standards and publish a list of certified vendors in the 
Federal Register, which would be made available to vessel operators. 
Certification of EM vendors would require submittal of information by 
vendors including demonstration of technical ability, a data integrity 
and storage plan, and conflict of interest information. NMFS 
anticipates receiving applications from up to four vendors and approval 
of three.
    The expanded requirements under both these alternatives are within 
the scope of an existing approved Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB Control 
No. 0648-0372 ``Electronic Monitoring Systems for Atlantic Highly 
Migratory Species''). However, due to the existence of concurrent 
actions for that collection, which will come up for renewal before the 
final rule for this action is anticipated to be published, the 
collection-of-information requirements in this proposed rule will be 
assigned a temporary Control Number that will later be merged into 
Control Number 0648-0372. A revised Paperwork Reduction Act submission 
and approval is pending.
    Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the 
extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in 
these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, 
domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, 
but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas 
Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental 
Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone 
Management Act. This proposed action has been determined not to 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
    One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. NMFS cannot 
establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small 
entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of 
it. All of the businesses impacted by this action are considered small 
entities, and thus the requirements are already designed for small 
entities. Moreover, the objectives for this action center around the 
modification, data collection, and assessment of spatial management 
areas and funding and administration of the HMS pelagic longline EM 
program. NMFS thus analyzed a broad range of alternatives to meet those 
objectives: Alternatives A-E consider modification, data collection, 
and assessment of spatial management areas and the F Alternatives 
consider funding and administration of the HMS pelagic longline EM 
program. Consistent application of management measures is important for 
effective management of spatial management areas and the EM program. 
Thus, no differing requirements or exemptions would be appropriate. 
NMFS designed alternatives that would simplify compliance or reporting 
requirements while still meeting the objectives of the amendment. 
Preferred A Alternatives to modify spatial management areas used design 
elements that would ease communication and enforcement including 
straight lines and points near ports or existing spatial management 
areas. Preferred B Alternatives to create data collection programs 
largely built upon current reporting and other requirements to avoid 
creating overly-complicated measures. Preferred Alternative F2 does 
introduce new complexities into the HMS pelagic longline EM program, 
including new requirements to independently contract with EM vendors. 
However, these complexities may be necessary in order to mitigate 
adverse economic impacts. Performance standards are built into the 
preferred B Alternatives to collect data through monitoring areas and 
cooperative EFP research. Each of these components include a total cap 
on effort to ensure conservation goals are met. Once effort caps are 
reached, the area is closed to data collection.

Evaluation and Modification of Closed Areas

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area

    Sub-Alternative A1a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain 
the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area in effect with respect to 
its spatial and temporal extent. This sub-alternative would likely 
maintain the recent catch levels and revenues, because the spatial and 
the temporal extents would remain unchanged and social and economic 
impacts are expected to be neutral. Median earnings across the shark 
research fishery and non-shark research fishery per trip (taking into 
account operating costs) ranged between $609 and $1,192 from 2017 
through 2020 in nominal dollars ($614 in 2020). Estimated total ex-
vessel revenue from sharks in 2020 is $2,311,319 (2021 real dollars). 
Based on permit and target species, some fishermen direct effort on 
sharks while others only retain incidentally caught sharks. In 2020, 
there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips where 75 percent 
of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting sharks in the 
Atlantic.
    Sub-Alternative A1b would maintain the current Mid-Atlantic shark 
closed area in effect with respect to its spatial extent, and shift the 
temporal extent to November 1 through May 31 from January 1 through 
July 31 (i.e., same seven-month duration, but shifted two months 
earlier). The social and economic impacts of Sub-Alternative A1b are 
expected to be neutral. There is relatively little bottom longline 
fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic region during open time periods, 
including and adjacent to the area defined by this spatial management 
area. Effort is low enough that totals for the area, even during open 
time periods, that the data cannot be provided due to confidentiality 
concerns. This sub-alternative would maintain the recent catch levels 
and revenues, and there would likely be low levels of data collection 
from within the spatial management area. Overall revenues from shark 
research fishery trips are likely to continue in the range noted in 
Sub-Alternative A1a. Based on permit and target species, some fishermen 
direct effort on sharks while others only retain incidentally caught 
sharks. In 2020, there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips 
where 75 percent of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting 
sharks in the Atlantic.
    Sub-Alternative A1c would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. Specifically, 
this sub-alternative would extend the eastern boundary of the current 
Mid-Atlantic shark closed area eastward to the 350-m shelf break and 
shift the north boundary south to Cape Hatteras (35[deg]13'12'' N 
lat.). The temporal extent would shift to November 1 through May 31 
from January 1 through July 31. The social and economic impacts of Sub-
Alternative A1c are expected to be neutral. There is relatively little 
bottom longline fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic region during open 
time periods, including and adjacent to the area defined by this 
spatial management area. Effort is low enough that totals for the area, 
even during open time periods, that the data cannot be provided due to 
confidentiality concerns. This sub-alternative would maintain the 
recent catch levels and revenues, and there would likely be low levels 
of data collection from within the spatial

[[Page 29063]]

management area. Overall revenues from shark research fishery trips are 
likely to continue in the range noted in Sub-Alternative A1a. Based on 
permit and target species, some fishermen direct effort on sharks while 
others only retain incidentally caught sharks. In 2020, there were 13 
active vessels (vessels that had trips where 75 percent of the landings 
by weight were sharks) targeting sharks in the Atlantic.
    Sub-Alternative A1d would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. Specifically, 
this sub-alternative would extend the eastern boundary of the current 
Mid-Atlantic shark closed area eastward to the 350-m shelf break. The 
temporal extent would shift to November 1 through May 31 from January 1 
through July 31. The social and economic impacts of Sub-Alternative A1d 
are expected to be neutral. There is relatively little bottom longline 
fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic region during open time periods, 
including and adjacent to the area defined by this spatial management 
area. Effort is low enough that totals for the area, even during open 
time periods, that the data cannot be provided due to confidentiality 
concerns. This sub-alternative would maintain the recent catch levels 
and revenues, and there would likely be low levels of data collection 
from within the spatial management area. Overall revenues from shark 
research fishery trips are likely to continue in the range noted in 
Sub-Alternative A1a. Based on permit and target species, some fishermen 
direct effort on sharks while others only retain incidentally caught 
sharks. In 2020, there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips 
where 75 percent of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting 
sharks in the Atlantic.

Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area

    Sub-Alternative A2a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain 
the current Charleston Bump closed area in effect with respect to its 
spatial and temporal extent. NMFS used the target species catch 
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and 
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial 
pelagic longline revenue. The estimated combined target species revenue 
is $4,419,261 (2021 real dollars). This sub-alternative would maintain 
the recent fishing effort, catch levels, and revenues, resulting in 
direct neutral social and economic impacts on pelagic longline 
fishermen. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic 
longline vessels in the fishery.
    Sub-Alternative A2b would maintain the current Charleston Bump 
closed area in effect with respect to its spatial extent, and would 
shift the temporal scope from December 1 through March 31 from February 
1 through April 30 (i.e., starting two months earlier and ending one 
months earlier; change from a three-month closure to a four-month 
closure). NMFS used the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel 
prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the 
effect of the sub-alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue. 
This sub-alternative would generate less revenue from swordfish and 
bigeye tuna, but more from yellowfin tuna than the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this 
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is -$205,237. 
However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with lower catch 
rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. Sub-Alternative 
A2b would likely result in minor adverse social and economic impacts. 
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels 
in the fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so 
economic impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A2c would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current Charleston Bump closed area. This sub-alternative 
would move the eastern boundary of the current Charleston Bump closed 
area westward. Specifically, the eastern boundary of this sub-
alternative would be formed by the line connecting the northeast corner 
of the current Charleston Bump closed area (34[deg]00' N lat., 
76[deg]00' W long.) to a point on the current southern border of 
Charleston Bump closed area (31[deg]00' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W 
long.). The western boundary of this management area would remain the 
same as the current western boundary of Charleston Bump closed area. 
The temporal extent of the high-bycatch-risk area would increase from 
February 1 to April 30 to include the entire year. The remainder of the 
current closed area footprint would only be designated low-bycatch-risk 
area from February 1 through April 30. Outside those months, that area 
would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing. NMFS used the target 
species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin 
tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on 
commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would 
generate more revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin and 
bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined 
the total revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No 
Action sub-alternative is $235,863 resulting in moderate positive 
direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term, which would also 
lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there 
were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all 
vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally 
shared among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A2d would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current Charleston Bump closed area. Specifically, this 
sub-alternative would shift the eastern boundary westward 40 nm from 
the coastline; retain the current northern and southern boundaries of 
the current Charleston Bump closed area; and retain the current western 
boundary of Charleston Bump closed area. The temporal extent of the 
high-bycatch-risk area would be extended from February 1 through April 
30 to October 1 through May 31. The remainder of the current closed 
area footprint would only be designated low-bycatch-risk area from 
February 1 through April 30. Outside those months, that area would be 
open to normal pelagic longline fishing. NMFS used the target species 
catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and 
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial 
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate more 
revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin and bigeye tuna 
relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined, the total 
revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No Action sub-
alternative is $390,532 resulting in moderate positive direct economic 
impacts in the short- and long-term, which would also lead to positive 
direct social impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active 
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all vessels are 
active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally shared 
among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A2e would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current Charleston Bump closed area. Specifically, this 
sub-alternative would reduce the spatial extent by moving the northern 
boundary of the current Charleston Bump closed area southward to 
33[deg]12'39'' N lat. and the shifting the eastern boundary westward to 
78[deg]00' W long. The western boundary would be consistent with the 
current western boundary of Charleston Bump closed area. The temporal 
extent of the high-bycatch-risk area would be eight months (from 
October 1 through May

[[Page 29064]]

31) instead of three months (February 1 through April 30). The 
remainder of the current closed area footprint would only be designated 
low-bycatch-risk area from February 1 through April 30. Outside those 
months, that area would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing. 
NMFS used the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for 
swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of 
the sub-alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-
alternative would generate more revenue from swordfish and yellowfin 
tuna, but less from bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this 
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is $83,590 resulting 
in minor positive direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term, 
which would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018 
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the 
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic 
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.

East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area

    Sub-Alternative A3a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain 
the current East Florida Coast closed area in effect with respect to 
its spatial and temporal extent. NMFS used the target species catch 
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and 
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial 
pelagic longline revenue. The estimated annual revenue for each target 
species and the combined target species revenue is $4,196,431 (2021 
real dollars). This sub-alternative would maintain the recent fishing 
effort, catch levels, and revenues, resulting in direct neutral social 
and economic impacts on pelagic longline fishermen. From 2018 through 
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Sub-Alternative A3b would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically, 
this sub-alternative consists of two different spatial configurations 
associated with two temporal periods. From May 1 through November 30 
the spatial extent would be the same as the No Action alternative. From 
December 1 through April 30 the spatial extent would shift the eastern 
boundary to 40 nm from the coastline within the northern and southern 
boundaries of the current East Florida Coast closed area. The remainder 
of the current closed area footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-
risk area from May 1 through November 30. NMFS used the target species 
catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and 
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial 
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate slightly 
more revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin tuna and bigeye 
tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined the total 
revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No Action sub-
alternative is -$75,453 resulting in minor negative direct economic 
impacts in the short- and long-term, which could also lead to negative 
social impacts. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with 
lower catch rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. From 
2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the 
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic 
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A3c would modify only the spatial extent of the 
current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically, this sub-
alternative would reduce the spatial extent by shifting the eastern 
boundary of the current closed area to 40 nm from the coastline in 
areas north of the U.S.--Bahamas EEZ boundary at approximately 
28[deg]17'24'' N lat. All areas south of that boundary within the 
current closed area would remain the same relative to the No Action 
alternative. The temporal extent would remain unchanged relative to the 
No Action alternative. The remainder of the current closed area 
footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-risk area for the entire 
year. NMFS used the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices 
for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect 
of the sub-alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue. This 
sub-alternative would generate more revenue from swordfish, but less 
from yellowfin and bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this 
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is $15,145 resulting 
in minor positive direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term, 
which would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018 
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the 
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic 
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A3d would modify only the spatial extent of the 
current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically, this sub-
alternative would reduce the spatial extent by including areas east of 
the line connecting two points at 31[deg]00' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W 
long. and 27[deg]52'55'' N lat., 79[deg]28'34'' W long. at the northern 
and southern boundaries, respectively, of the current closed area. All 
areas south of 27[deg]52'55'' N lat. within the current closed area 
would remain the same relative to the No Action alternative. The 
temporal extent would remain unchanged relative to the No Action 
alternative. The remainder of the current closed area footprint would 
be designated a low-bycatch-risk area for the entire year. NMFS used 
the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, 
yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-
alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-
alternative would generate more revenue from swordfish, but less from 
yellowfin and bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. 
When combined, the total revenue difference between this sub-
alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is $37,845 resulting in 
minor positive direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term, 
which would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018 
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the 
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic 
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A3e would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically, 
this sub-alternative consists of two different spatial configurations 
associated with two temporal periods. From June 1 through September 30 
the spatial extent would consist of the area within 40 nm of the 
coastline within the northern and southern boundaries of the current 
East Florida Coast closed area. During this time period, the remainder 
of the current closed area footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-
risk area. From October 1 through May 31 and the spatial extent would 
include the area east of the Florida coast to a line connecting two 
points at 31[deg]00' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long. and 27[deg]52'55'' 
N lat., 79[deg]28'34'' W long. at the northern and southern boundaries, 
respectively, of the current closed area. As with the June to September 
area, from October to May, the remainder of the current closed area 
footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-risk area. NMFS used the 
target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, 
yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-
alternative on commercial

[[Page 29065]]

pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate slightly 
more revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin tuna and bigeye 
tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined the total 
revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No Action sub-
alternative is -$8,762 resulting in minor negative direct economic 
impacts in the short- and long-term, which could also lead to negative 
social impacts. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with 
lower catch rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. From 
2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the 
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic 
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.

DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area

    Sub-Alternative A4a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain 
the current DeSoto Canyon closed area in effect with respect to its 
spatial and temporal extent. NMFS used the target species catch 
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and 
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial 
pelagic longline revenue. The estimated annual revenue for each target 
species and the combined target species revenue is $4,618,912 (2021 
real dollars). This sub-alternative would maintain the recent fishing 
effort, catch levels, and revenues, resulting in direct neutral social 
and economic impacts on pelagic longline fishermen. From 2018 through 
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Sub-Alternative A4b would modify both the spatial and temporal 
extent of the current DeSoto Canyon closed area. Specifically, the sub-
alternative would maintain the current spatial extent of the DeSoto 
Canyon spatial management area while changing the timing of the closed 
areas. Both boxes would remain closed from April 1 to October 31 
instead of all year. Additionally, from November to March, the top 
northwest box would be closed while the bottom southeast box would be 
designated a low-bycatch-risk area. NMFS used the target species catch 
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and 
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial 
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate more 
revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin tuna and similar from 
bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined 
the total revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No 
Action sub-alternative is $38,188 resulting in minor positive direct 
economic impacts in the short- and long-term, which would also lead to 
positive direct social impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all vessels 
are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally shared 
among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A4c would only modify the spatial extent of the 
current DeSoto Canyon closed area. Specifically, this sub-alternative 
would reduce the spatial extent by including areas within the current 
spatial extent that occurs north of 27[deg]00' N lat. The temporal 
extent would remain unchanged relative to the No Action alternative. 
The remainder of the current closed area footprint would be designated 
a low-bycatch-risk area throughout the year. NMFS used the target 
species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin 
tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on 
commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would 
generate more revenue from swordfish and yellowfin tuna, but less from 
bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined, 
the total revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No 
Action sub-alternative is $278,627 resulting in moderate positive 
direct and indirect economic impacts in the short- and long-term, which 
would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018 through 
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, 
though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic impacts 
would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
    Sub-Alternative A4d would modify the spatial extent of the current 
DeSoto Canyon closed area; the temporal extent would remain unchanged 
(i.e., area would remain closed year-round). Specifically, this sub-
alternative would shift the spatial extent putting a parallelogram 
through the current area. The parallelogram connects southern points; 
27[deg]00' N lat., 86[deg]30' W long. and 27[deg]00' N lat., 83[deg]48' 
W long., while the northern boundary would be defined by the state 
water boundary between 88[deg]24'58'' W long. and 85[deg]22'34'' W 
long. The areas outside this parallelogram that are currently closed 
would reopen to normal fishing. NMFS used the target species catch 
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and 
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial 
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate less 
revenue from all three target species relative to the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this 
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is -$224,295 
resulting in moderate negative direct and indirect economic impacts in 
the short- and long-term, which could also lead to negative social 
impacts. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with lower 
catch rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. From 2018 
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the 
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic 
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.

Commercial Data Collection

    Alternative B1, the no action alternative, would not implement any 
new closed area data collection approaches to support HMS spatial 
management. Because Alternative B1 would not implement any new data 
collection programs, direct social and economic impacts to fishermen 
would be neutral in the short-term. In the long-term, as described 
above, because there would not be any way to collect data from the 
spatial management areas and modify them accordingly, the impacts to 
the species, and therefore the impacts to the fishermen and the 
economy, would be unknown. If the spatial management areas are 
appropriate and the species and their habitat are protected, fishermen 
and related industries might experience an increase in revenue as 
species become more abundant. However, if the spatial management areas 
are inappropriate and do not protect the species and their habitat, 
fishermen and related industries might experience a decrease in revenue 
as the species abundance declines. From 2018 through 2020, there were 
82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Alternative B2 would create a new research fishery, similar to the 
existing bottom longline shark research fishery, where permitted 
commercial longline fishing vessels may apply, and a small number would 
be selected for participation in the spatial management area research 
fishery. The selected vessels would conduct fishing operations guided 
by a research plan developed by NMFS, and be subject to conditions. 
Alternative B2 would be a voluntary program and fishermen would 
continue to decide whether to fish based on market conditions, fish 
availability, and the restrictions and conditions of the research 
fishery. Because of the limited nature of the research fishery, large 
beneficial social or economic impacts to fishermen are not expected. 
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82

[[Page 29066]]

active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Alternative B3 would implement monitoring areas to allow fishermen 
into previously-closed areas to collect data while following strict 
effort restrictions and monitoring and reporting requirements. Under 
this alternative a specific geographic area would be designated a 
``monitoring area'' and commercial longline vessels would be permitted 
to fish inside the monitoring area subject to certain conditions and 
other applicable regulations. In conjunction with Alternative B3, two 
sub-alternatives are preferred as well: Sub-Alternative B3a (effort 
caps) and Sub-Alternative B3e (electronic monitoring). Under Sub-
Alternative B3a, NMFS would monitor the number of longline sets 
occurring in the monitoring area, and when the number of sets reaches 
the effort ``cap'', would prohibit fishing with the relevant gear type 
in the monitoring area as described above. Additionally, vessel 
operators that intend to fish in a monitoring area would need to (1) 
declare that intention via VMS before embarking on a trip and (2) would 
be required to report the catch of the following species, in addition 
to current bluefin tuna reporting requirements, through VMS within 12 
hours after the end of a longline set: blue marlin, white marlin, 
roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea 
turtles, and shortfin mako sharks. Sub-Alternative B3e would require 
that longline vessels fishing for all, or a part of a trip in a 
monitoring area have 100 percent of the EM data reviewed for that trip, 
and paid for by the owner/operator of the vessel.
    Fishing effort in the monitoring area(s) would rely on commercial 
fishermen's willingness to fish in the area based on market conditions, 
fish availability, and the restrictions of the monitoring area. 
Although it is difficult to predict the amount of fishing effort and 
fish availability that would occur in the monitoring areas, the socio-
economic impact is likely to be either neutral or minor and beneficial. 
Access to previously closed areas would provide the flexibility to fish 
in locations previously closed to fishing. If access to fishing in 
monitoring areas decreases the amount of steaming time required to 
reach the fishing locations, operating costs may be reduced, and a 
shorter trip duration would facilitate participation in the fishery. 
Shorter transit times would also result in reduced fuel consumption. 
Owners of fishing vessels can often have difficulty finding and hiring 
crew willing to work on vessels, in part due to the duration of fishing 
trips, and the impact of fishing trips on crew members' lives. The 
increased revenue and flexibility associated with monitoring areas 
would be limited by the restrictions and costs associated with the 
monitoring areas such as effort caps or the cost of electronic 
monitoring. Expanding the use of electronic monitoring to 100-percent 
video review of all sets that occur within the monitoring area would 
require owners or operators of fishing vessels to pay for the 
additional review. Each set would cost approximately $280 for a full 
video review, thus, a typical ten day trip consisting of six sets would 
cost $1,680. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic 
longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all vessels would choose 
to fish in monitoring areas so economic impacts would not be equally 
shared among all active vessels.
    Under Alternative B4, data would be collected from within a spatial 
management area, which would otherwise be closed, through the issuance 
of an EFP. This EFP would be issued to fishing vessels participating in 
specific research. The EFP would exempt participating vessels from 
certain regulatory requirements for specific research during a limited 
timeframe. Consideration of an application for gear-specific research 
in closed areas would require incorporation of elements to ensure 
research activities do not jeopardize conservation goals or result in 
excessive gear conflicts with other user groups. Fishermen 
participating in research under an EFP are likely to be compensated 
through some combination of commercial target catch sales and research 
funds. Since the fishermen are likely to operate in areas of unknown 
target catch rates, researchers may partially or fully fund fishing 
activities to ensure trips do not have negative profits. As such, 
fishermen operating under the EFP are unlikely to experience adverse 
economic impacts nor are they expected to realize larger profits than 
regular commercial fishing. Thus, Alternative B4 would have neutral 
social and economic impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.

Evaluation Timing of Spatial Management Areas

    Under Alternative C1, the no action alternative, NMFS would not 
commit to a schedule to evaluate the spatial management modifications 
using data collected under the data programs (``B'' Alternatives) 
analyzed by this DEIS. Evaluations of spatial management areas are 
administrative in nature and would not have any short-term social and 
economic impacts on fishermen or indirect impacts on supporting 
businesses. In the long-term, evaluation of spatial management areas 
could result in minor beneficial social and economic impacts due to the 
achievement of a better balance between the ecological and 
socioeconomic impacts of spatial management areas. This No Action 
Alternative has no time period for reviews or factors to consider when 
reviewing areas, and thus has less clarity process-wise than 
Alternatives C2, C3 and C4. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Under Alternative C2 NMFS would evaluate the four spatial 
management areas once three years of catch and effort data is finalized 
and available. Subsequent reviews would occur after three full years of 
data are available after the conclusion of the previous evaluation. 
Evaluations of spatial management areas are administrative in nature 
and would not have any short-term social or economic impacts on 
fishermen or indirect impacts on supporting businesses. In the long-
term, evaluation of spatial management areas could result in minor 
beneficial social and economic impacts due to the achievement of a 
better balance among the ecological, social, and economic impacts of 
spatial management areas. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active 
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Under Alternative C3 NMFS would evaluate the four spatial 
management areas once five years of catch and effort data is finalized 
and available. Subsequent reviews would occur after five full years of 
data are available after the conclusion of the previous evaluation. 
Evaluations of spatial management areas are administrative in nature 
and would not have any short-term social or economic impacts on 
fishermen or indirect impacts on supporting businesses. In the long-
term, evaluation of spatial management areas could result in minor 
beneficial social and economic impacts due to the achievement of a 
better balance among the ecological, social, and economic impacts of 
spatial management areas. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active 
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Under Alternative C4, NMFS would monitor data collection activities 
and begin an evaluation if conditions warrant it instead of, or in 
addition to, scheduled regular evaluation. Evaluations of spatial 
management areas are administrative in nature and would

[[Page 29067]]

not have any short-term social or economic impacts on fishermen or 
indirect impacts on supporting businesses. In the long-term, evaluation 
of spatial management areas could result in minor beneficial social 
economic impacts due to the achievement of a better balance among the 
ecological, social, and economic impacts of spatial management areas. 
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels 
in the fishery.
    Under Alternative C5, NMFS would set a default end date for a 
spatial management area and the area and associated restrictions would 
be removed unless action is taken to maintain or modify the area. 
Eliminating spatial management areas after a set number of years would 
provide additional flexibility for fishermen to fish in areas that were 
previously closed to fishing, and therefore increase the total amount 
of area to pursue target species. Further, the newly open area may 
include locations with potential advantages such as higher catch rates 
or lower trips costs. Thus, Alternative C5 would likely result in minor 
beneficial social and economic impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there 
were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.

Preferred Alternative Packages

    The D1 Mid-Atlantic Spatial Management Area Preferred Alternative 
Package would include implementation of four alternatives and sub-
alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' alternatives. 
Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from implementation 
of the D1 Preferred Alternative Package would be the combination of the 
impacts of the following alternatives and sub-alternatives described 
above: Sub-Alternative A1d (spatial and temporal modification to the 
area), Alternative B1 (no action data collection), Alternative C2 
(three year evaluation), and Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation). 
Impacts of each of the alternatives are not repeated here. In 2020, 
there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips where 75 percent 
of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting sharks in the 
Atlantic.
    The D2 Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area Preferred 
Alternative Package would include implementation of four alternatives 
and sub-alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' 
alternatives. Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from 
implementation of the D2 Preferred Alternative Package would be the 
combination of the impacts of the following alternatives and sub-
alternatives described above: Sub-Alternative A2c (spatial and temporal 
modification to the area), Alternative B3 (monitoring area), 
Alternative B4 (cooperative research EFP), Alternative C2 (three year 
evaluation), and Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation). Impacts of each 
of the alternatives are not repeated here. From 2018 through 2020, 
there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, 
not all vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be 
equally shared among all active vessels.
    The D3 East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area Preferred 
Alternative Package would include implementation of four alternatives 
and sub-alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' 
alternatives. Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from 
implementation of the D3 Preferred Alternative Package would be the 
combination of the impacts of the following alternatives and sub-
alternatives described above: Sub-Alternative A3d (spatial modification 
to the area), Alternative B3 (monitoring area), Alternative B4 
(cooperative research EFP), Alternative C2 (three year evaluation), and 
Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation). Impacts of each of the 
alternatives are not repeated here. From 2018 through 2020, there were 
82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all 
vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally 
shared among all active vessels.
    The D4 Preferred DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area Preferred 
Alternative Package would include implementation of four alternatives 
and sub-alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' 
alternatives. Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from 
implementation of the D3 Preferred Alternative Package would be the 
combination of the impacts of the following alternatives and sub-
alternatives described above: Sub-Alternative A4d (spatial modification 
to the area), Alternative B1 (no action data collection), Alternative 
B4 (cooperative research EFP), Alternative C2 (three year evaluation), 
and Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation). Impacts of each of the 
alternatives are not repeated here. From 2018 through 2020, there were 
82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all 
vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally 
shared among all active vessels.

Spatial Management Area Regulatory Provisions

    Alternative E1, the no action alternative, would make no changes to 
the current high-level aspects of design and evaluation regulations at 
50 CFR 635.34(d). Consideration of high-level spatial management design 
elements or factors are administrative in nature and would not have any 
short-term or long-term social or economic impacts on fishermen. Thus, 
all social and economic impacts would be neutral. From 2018 through 
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Alternative E2 would revise the HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635 
to add elements to address the high-level design of specific 
objectives, timing of evaluation, data collection and access within 
spatial management areas. Consideration of high-level spatial 
management design elements or factors are administrative in nature and 
would not have any short-term or long-term social or economic impacts 
on fishermen. Thus, all social and economic impacts would be neutral. 
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels 
in the fishery.

Electronic Monitoring

    Under Alternative F1, NMFS would not transfer sampling costs to the 
industry and would continue to fund the EM Program (both administrative 
and sampling costs) and utilize contracts with one or more vendors to 
conduct EM system installation, maintenance, and repair, as well as 
data storage, video review, and analyses. Since this alternative would 
not implement any changes, direct social and economic impacts on 
pelagic longline fishermen are expected to be neutral. From 2018 
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the 
fishery.
    Alternative F2 would transfer 100 percent of HMS pelagic longline 
EM sampling costs to the industry, over a three-year period (phased-in) 
and would include components designed to create a standardized EM 
program that may be implemented by NOAA certified vendors. In 
conjunction with the phase-in of sampling costs, this alternative would 
include four distinct components: (1) vendor requirements; (2) vessel 
requirements; (3) vessel monitoring plan requirements; and (4) 
modification of current IBQ Program's EM spatial/temporal requirements. 
The transfer of EM sampling costs from the Agency to industry would 
likely lead to a substantial increase in economic costs

[[Page 29068]]

for vessel owners. The cost to industry is estimated to be 
approximately $280 per set before mitigation measures (e.g., multiple 
vendors, changes to EM spatiotemporal requirements) are factored in. On 
a median length trip of 10 days with 6 sets, the cost would be $1,680/
trip or $168/sea-day. This cost estimate equates to approximately 19% 
of net revenue on a median trip. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
    Alternative F3 would remove all of the current EM program 
requirements applicable to pelagic longline vessels. Bluefin tuna 
interactions with pelagic longline gear would be monitored using a 
combination of VMS data, logbook data, observer reports, and landings 
data from dealers. Since the Agency funds nearly 100% of the EM 
program, removing EM requirements would not have a large economic 
impact on the fishery. However, the fishery would no longer incur costs 
associated with activities such as shipping hard drives and 
coordinating equipment repair and replacement. Thus, small economic 
benefits would be likely. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active 
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) 
(PRA). The collection of information requirements in this proposed rule 
relate to the collection under Control Number 0648-0372, ``Electronic 
Monitoring Systems for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.'' However, 
due to the existence of concurrent actions for that collection, which 
will come up for renewal before the final rule for this action is 
anticipated to be published, the collection-of-information requirements 
in this proposed rule will be assigned a temporary Control Number that 
will later be merged into Control Number 0648-0372.
    This rule proposes to establish two pelagic longline monitoring 
areas, in which pelagic longline vessel owners and/or operators that 
are approved to fish will be required to report interactions with 
select bycatch species by set via their vessel monitoring system (VMS) 
units. We estimate no more than 9 pelagic longline vessel operators 
would be required to submit a total of 198 bycatch reports each year 
with no additional recordkeeping and reporting costs, excluding labor 
costs. These reports would take an estimated 15 minutes to complete for 
50 hours of burden per year across the fleet.
    Amendment 15 would also bring the HMS Electronic Monitoring (EM) 
Program in line with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Procedure 
04-1150-02 ``Cost Allocation in Electronic Monitoring Programs for 
Federally Managed Fisheries'' which outlines guidance and directives 
for EM cost allocation framework between fishery participants and the 
Agency. Primarily, the cost allocation policy requires fishery 
participants to take on responsibility for EM sampling costs, which 
have previously been covered by the Agency, and Amendment 15 would 
implement this requirement in the HMS EM Program. To facilitate this, 
NMFS is proposing a process under which EM vendors could apply to be 
approved by NMFS based on requirements set forth in the regulations. 
This process is expected to mitigate economic impacts by encouraging 
additional EM vendors to enter the market. Vessel owners would contract 
with NMFS-approved EM vendors for services. The proposed rule would 
result in new reporting requirements for EM vendors: vendors would be 
required to assist vessel owners in the development of vessel 
monitoring plans, and provide quarterly EM video review reports, non-
compliance reports, and debriefs to NMFS staff as needed.
    As explained above in the ``HMS Pelagic Longline Electronic 
Monitoring Cost Allocation'' section, while EM vendor provisions of 
this proposed rule are new, many requirements of the current EM 
regulations are not substantively changed by this proposed rule. We 
estimate 91 pelagic longline vessel operators would be subject to 
existing and new EM elements of the information collection with 547 
total annual burden hours, and an estimated maximum total annual cost 
to the public of $932,560 in recordkeeping and reporting costs. 
Proposed measures to limit the months and regions in which EM reporting 
is required may substantially reduce reporting costs for vessel owners 
depending on how they redistribute their fishing effort. Under the 
proposed measures, vessel owners would be responsible for the full cost 
of EM video processing. Currently, pelagic longline vessel operators 
are required to mail in their EM hard drives after every other trip, 
which is currently estimated to be 6 times per year, and take 1 hour. 
We estimate vessel owners would have $1,692 in recordkeeping and 
reporting costs each time they submit video data, likely through 
removable hard drives in the near term.
    We also anticipate up to 4 EM vendors will apply to be approved as 
EM service providers to the pelagic longline fleet, and that no more 
than 3 vendors will receive approval. EM vendor estimated total annual 
burden hours would be 718, with $27,481 estimated total annual 
recordkeeping and reporting costs. These estimates include the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. The estimated time per response varies by 
item within the suite of information collected, as follows: EM service 
provider applications, 45 hours; copies of contracts and other 
documents, 30 minutes; appeals, 4 hours; application revisions, 2 
hours; EM certificate of installation, 30 minutes; vessel monitoring 
plans, 4 hours; quarterly EM review reports, 40 hours; technical 
assistance, 20 minutes; non-compliance reports, 20 minutes; data 
storage, 15 minutes; and debriefs of EM staff, 2 hours.
    Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on 
these or any other aspects of the collection of information at 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics, 
Treaties.

    Dated: April 20, 2023.
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 
proposed to be amended as follows:

[[Page 29069]]

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

0
1. This 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 by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``Charleston Bump closed area'';
0
b. Adding the definition of ``Charleston Bump Monitoring Area'';
0
c. Removing the definition of ``DeSoto Canyon closed area'';
0
d. Adding the definition of ``DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted 
Area'';
0
e. Removing the definition of ``East Florida Coast closed area'';
0
f. Adding the definition of ``East Florida Coast Monitoring Area'';
0
g. Removing the definitions of ``Edges 40 Fathom Contour closed area'' 
and ``Madison-Swanson closed area'';
0
h. Adding the definition of ``Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted 
Area'';
0
i. Removing the definitions of ``Mid-Atlantic shark closed area'' and 
``Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area'';
0
j. Adding the definition of ``South Atlantic Pelagic Longline 
Restricted Area'';
0
k. Removing the definitions of ``Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline 
Monitoring Area'' and ``Steamboat Lumps closed area''; and
0
l. Adding the definition of ``Straight line''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Charleston Bump Monitoring Area means the area within the Atlantic 
Ocean bounded by straight lines from 34[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
76[deg]00'00'' W long.; proceeding due south to 31[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
76[deg]00'00'' W long.; then proceeding due west to 31[deg]00'00'' N 
lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long.; then proceeding northeast to 
34[deg]00'00'' N lat., 76[deg]00'00'' W long.
* * * * *
    DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted Area means the area 
within the Gulf of Mexico seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ 
bounded by straight lines from a point intersecting the inner boundary 
of the U.S. EEZ at 29[deg]30'27'' N lat., 85[deg]22'34'' W long. near 
Cape San Blas, Florida; proceeding southeast to 27[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
83[deg]48'00'' W long.; then proceeding due west to 27[deg]00'00'' N 
lat., 86[deg]30'00'' W long.; then proceeding northwest to 
30[deg]02'53'' N lat., 88[deg]24'57'' W long.; then proceeding east to 
a point intersecting the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at 
30[deg]07'30'' N lat., 87[deg]31'07'' W long. near Orange Beach, 
Florida.
* * * * *
    East Florida Coast Monitoring Area means the area within the 
Atlantic Ocean bounded by straight lines from 31[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
79[deg]32'46'' W long.; proceeding due east to 31[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
78[deg]00'00'' W long.; then proceeding southwest until the outer 
boundary of the EEZ is reached at 28[deg]17'10'' N lat., 79[deg]11'24'' 
W long.; then following the outer boundary of the EEZ southwest to 
27[deg]52'55'' N lat., 79[deg]28'35'' W long.; then proceeding due 
north to 31[deg]00'00'' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long.
* * * * *
    Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area means the area within 
the Atlantic Ocean seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ 
bounded by straight lines from a point intersecting the inner boundary 
of the U.S. EEZ at 35[deg]41'00'' N lat., 75[deg]25'00'' W long. just 
south of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina; proceeding due east to 
35[deg]41'00'' N lat., 74[deg]48'50'' W long.; then proceeding 
southeast to 35[deg]29'55'' N lat., 74[deg]46'04'' W long.; then 
proceeding southwest, roughly following the 191 fathom (350 meter) 
mark, to 33[deg]50'46'' N lat, 76[deg]16'15'' W long.; then proceeding 
due west to intersect the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at 
33[deg]50'46'' N lat., 77[deg]53'17'' W long near Cape Fear, North 
Carolina.
* * * * *
    South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area means the area 
within the Atlantic Ocean seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ 
bounded by straight lines from a point intersecting the inner boundary 
of the U.S. EEZ at 34[deg]00'00'' N lat., 77[deg]50'26'' W long. near 
Wilmington Beach, North Carolina; proceeding due east to 34[deg]00'00'' 
N lat., 76[deg]00'00'' W long.; then proceeding southwest to 
31[deg]00'00'' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long; then proceeding south 
until reaching the outer boundary of the EEZ at 27[deg]52'55'' N lat., 
79[deg]28'35'' W long.; then proceeding along the outer boundary of the 
EEZ to the intersection of the EEZ with 24[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
81[deg]11'15'' W long.; then proceeding due west to 24[deg]00'00'' N 
lat., 81[deg]47'00'' W long.; and then proceeding due north to 
intersect the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at 24[deg]29'28'' N lat., 
81[deg]47'00'' W long. near Key West, Florida. long.; and then 
proceeding due north to intersect the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at 
81[deg]47'00'' W long. near Key West, FL.
* * * * *
    Straight line means in this part:
    (1) For regulated areas, a straight line means a geodesic line with 
the shortest length connecting two or more points. Straight lines will 
be displayed as a rhumb line on a map with a Mercator-based projection.
    (2) For measuring fish, a straight-line measurement means a 
measurement between two points of the fish that is not made along the 
curve of the body.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec.  635.9 to read as follows:


Sec.  635.9  Electronic Monitoring.

    (a) Applicability. A vessel permitted or required to be permitted 
in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category under Sec.  635.4 and that has 
pelagic longline gear on board is required to have an EM system 
installed and fully operational before departing on a trip where a 
vessel will fish with pelagic longline within the boundaries of the 
relevant EM Data Review Areas and/or Monitoring Areas while they are 
effective, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section. If during a trip pelagic longline sets are deployed both 
inside and outside of an effective EM Data Review Area and/or 
Monitoring Area, the EM requirements of this section are in effect for 
the entire trip and all videos must be submitted to an EM vendor as 
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. This section sets 
forth EM cost responsibilities; NMFS' application, approval and removal 
process for EM vendors; requirements for NMFS-approved EM vendors 
providing services pursuant to contracts to vessels owners; 
requirements for vessel owners and/or operators; required EM system 
components; and other related provisions. Unless otherwise specified, 
owners and operators of vessels permitted or required to be permitted 
in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category under 635.4 must comply with 
this section and are jointly and severally responsible for their 
vessel's compliance with this section.
    (1) The North Atlantic EM Data Review Area. The North Atlantic EM 
Data Review Area includes all waters north of 35[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
excluding the Mid-Atlantic Bight EM Data Review Area defined in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This area is effective from June 
through December of each calendar year.
    (2) The Mid-Atlantic Bight EM Data Review Area. The Mid-Atlantic 
Bight EM Data Review Area is the area seaward of the coastline bounded 
by straight lines from a point intersecting the coastline at 
41[deg]30'00'' N lat. 71[deg]01'37'' W long.; proceeding due east to 
41[deg]30'00'' N lat., 69[deg]30'00'' W long.; then proceeding due 
south to 35[deg]00'00'' N lat., 69[deg]30'00'' W long.; then proceeding 
due west to the point

[[Page 29070]]

intersecting the coastline at 35[deg]00'00'' N lat., 76[deg]07'34'' W 
long. This area is effective from January through December of each 
calendar year.
    (3) The South Atlantic EM Data Review Area. The South Atlantic EM 
Data Review Area includes all waters south of 35[deg]00'00'' N lat., 
north of 22[deg]00'00'' N lat., and east of 83[deg]00'00'' W long. This 
area is effective from January through June of each calendar year.
    (4) The Gulf of Mexico EM Data Review Area. The Gulf of Mexico EM 
Data Review Area includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of 
the boundary stipulated at Sec.  600.105(c) of this chapter. This area 
is effective from January through June of each calendar year.
    (5) The Monitoring Areas. The Monitoring Areas are defined in Sec.  
635.2 and are effective during the months specified for each area as 
provided in Sec.  635.35(c)(3) and (4). Vessels fishing with pelagic 
longline within the boundaries of the Monitoring Areas during the 
months specified for each area are required to comply with all EM 
requirements and at all times during the trip.
    (b) Cost responsibilities. NMFS is responsible for all 
administrative costs set forth in paragraph (1) of this section. As of 
January 1, 2028, the owner of a vessel fishing with pelagic longline 
gear within the boundaries of the relevant EM Data Review Areas 
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section and/or a 
Monitoring Area as described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section is 
responsible for the EM sampling costs set forth in paragraph (2) of 
this section. During the three-year period leading up to January 1, 
2028, NMFS will transition the responsibility of the sampling costs to 
the vessel owner as follows. In year one, the vessel owner is 
responsible for 25 percent of the sampling costs and NMFS is 
responsible for 75 percent of the sampling costs (and 100 percent of 
the administrative costs). In year 2, the vessel owner is responsible 
for 50 percent of the sampling costs and NMFS is responsible for 50 
percent of the sampling costs (and 100 percent of the administrative 
costs). In year 3, the vessel owner is responsible for 75 percent of 
the sampling costs and NMFS is responsible for 25 percent of the 
sampling costs (and 100 percent of the administrative costs).
    (1) Administrative costs. Administrative costs may include, but are 
not limited to, program administration support; certification of EM 
service providers; EM program sample design and performance monitoring; 
compliance monitoring; data analysis for management and enforcement 
purposes; and storage of Federal records.
    (2) Sampling costs. Sampling costs may include, but are not limited 
to, equipment purchases, leases, and installation; equipment 
maintenance and upkeep; training for captain and crew; development and 
implementation of vessel monitoring plans (VMPs) (see paragraph (d)(2) 
of this section); data transmittal; video processing, review, and 
storage; and payment to a NMFS-certified vendor as appropriate for 
services rendered.
    (c) EM vendor approval and evaluation. An entity seeking to provide 
EM services described in paragraph (d) of this section must submit a 
complete application to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS. Once 
received, NMFS will review the application for completeness and 
possible approval.
    (1) Contents of application. Application forms and instructions for 
their completion are available from NMFS. An application is complete 
when all requested forms, information, and documentation have been 
received, including the information described in this paragraph. NMFS 
will notify the applicant of any deficiency in the application, 
including failure to provide information required to be submitted under 
this part. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency within 30 
days following the date of notification, the application will be 
considered abandoned. An application to become an approved EM vendor 
shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
    (i) Identification of the management, organizational structure, and 
ownership structure of the applicant's business, including 
identification by name and general function of all controlling 
management interests in the company, including but not limited to 
owners, board members, officers, authorized agents, and staff. If the 
applicant is a corporation, the articles of incorporation must be 
provided. If the applicant is a partnership, the partnership agreement 
must be provided.
    (ii) A list of all physical and electronic mailing addresses and 
any relevant phone or fax numbers where the owner(s) can be contacted 
for official correspondence, and the current physical location for each 
office.
    (iii) A description of the applicant's ability to carry out the 
responsibilities and duties of EM vendors under paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (iii) A statement signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized 
agent of the applicant EM vendor that each owner, board member, 
officer, and employee of the EM vendor has no conflict of interest as 
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (iv) Procedures for hiring and training of competent program staff 
to carry out EM field services and data services, including procedures 
to maintain the skills of EM data processing staff in:
    (A) Use of data processing software;
    (B) Species identification;
    (C) Metadata reporting requirements;
    (D) Data processing procedures;
    (E) Data tracking; and,
    (F) Reporting and data upload procedures.
    (2) Application evaluation. NMFS shall review and evaluate each 
complete application submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 
A decision to approve or deny an application shall be made by NMFS 
within 90 business days of receipt of the complete application by NMFS.
    (i) Issuance of approval as an EM vendor shall be based on a 
determination by NMFS of the applicant's ability to perform the 
responsibilities and duties under paragraph (d) of this section, as 
demonstrated in the application information, and the absence of 
conflict of interest with the fishing industry (see paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section).
    (ii) If NMFS approves the application, the EM vendor's name will be 
added to the list of approved EM vendors found on the NMFS website and 
in any outreach information to the industry. An approved vendor shall 
be notified in writing and provided with any information pertinent to 
its participation in the EM program.
    (iii) If NMFS determines that the applicant is unable to perform 
the responsibilities and duties under paragraph (d) of this section or 
has conflicts of interest pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section, 
NMFS shall deny the application. NMFS shall notify the applicant in 
writing of the reason for the denial. Within 30 days of the applicant's 
receipt of the denial notification, an applicant may request 
reconsideration by submitting additional information to rectify any 
deficiencies specified in the written denial. If the applicant does not 
submit additional information within that 30-day period, they would 
need to resubmit a new application containing all of the information 
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section in order to be 
reconsidered for being added to the list of approved EM vendors.
    (3) Limitations on conflict of interest for EM vendors. Other than 
providing EM services to vessel owners in the fishery, an approved EM 
vendor and its employees must not:

[[Page 29071]]

    (i) Have a direct or indirect interest in a fishery managed under 
Federal regulations, including, but not limited to, a fishing vessel, 
fish dealer, and/or fishery advocacy group;
    (ii) Solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, 
favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone 
who conducts fishing or fishing related activities that are regulated 
by NMFS, or who has interests that may be substantially affected by the 
performance or non-performance of the responsibilities and duties of an 
EM vendor.
    (4) Removal from the list of approved vendors. An EM vendor that 
fails to meet the responsibilities and duties under paragraph (d) of 
this section or that is shown to have a conflict of interest as 
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, shall be notified by 
NMFS, in writing, that it is subject to removal from the list of 
approved EM vendors. Such notification shall specify the reasons for 
the pending removal. Within 30 days of receiving such notification, an 
EM vendor may submit written evidence to rebut the reasons for removal 
from the list. Within 30 days of receiving any rebuttal, NMFS shall 
notify the EM vendor of its decision. If no rebuttal is received by 
NMFS within the first 30-day period, the EM vendor shall be 
automatically removed from the list of approved EM vendors. The 
decision to remove an EM vendor from the list, either after reviewing a 
rebuttal or if no rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final decision of 
NMFS and the Department of Commerce. Removal from the list of approved 
EM vendors does not necessarily prevent an EM vendor from obtaining an 
approval in the future if a new application is submitted that 
demonstrates that the reasons for removal are remedied.
    (d) Responsibilities and duties of EM vendors. To maintain an 
approved EM vendor status, an EM vendor must demonstrate an ability to 
provide or support pelagic longline vessel owners and/or operators with 
the following services:
    (1) Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP). An approved EM vendor must, in 
consultation with the vessel owner with whom the vendor has a contract, 
develop required operational plans, also known as VMPs, for EM systems 
that meet the components and capabilities requirements under paragraph 
(f) of this section. The VMP is not valid until the EM vendor and the 
vessel owner have signed and dated the VMP indicating their agreement 
and NMFS or a NMFS-designated entity has approved the VMP as meeting 
the management requirements of the EM program by signing and dating the 
VMP. At a minimum, the VMP must include: information on the locations 
of EM system components (including any customized camera mounting 
structure); contact information for technical support; instructions on 
how to conduct a pre-trip system test; instructions on how to verify 
proper system functions; location(s) on deck where fish retrieval 
should occur to remain in view of the cameras; specifications and other 
relevant information regarding the dimensions and grid line intervals 
for the standardized reference grid; procedures for how to manage EM 
system data transmission; catch handling procedures; procedures for 
periodic checks of the monitor during the retrieval of gear to verify 
proper functioning; and reporting procedures; and a date(s) specified 
upon which the requirements, specifications and protocols outlined in 
the VMP will be fully implemented and functional. The VMP may be 
updated, supplemented, or revised periodically if such a change 
determined necessary by either NMFS, the EM vendor, or the vessel 
owner. The VMP must be updated if changes to the regulations in this 
part necessitate changes. Any change, update, supplement, or revision 
to the VMP must be agreed to by the EM vendor and the vessel owner, and 
approved by NMFS or a NMFS-designated entity. The VMP should minimize 
to the extent practicable any impact of the EM systems on the current 
operating procedures of the vessel, and should help ensure the safety 
of the crew. The VMP is only valid when there is an existing, signed 
contract between an approved EM vendor and the vessel owner.
    (2) EM installation and maintenance. An approved EM vendor is 
responsible for ensuring the appropriate EM system, as specified in the 
VMP, is installed and tested. The EM vendor is also responsible for 
providing training to vessel owners and operators on how to use the EM 
system. After confirming that the EM system is properly installed and 
tested and that the appropriate persons have been trained, the EM 
vendor will provide a Certificate of Installation to the vessel owner. 
If the EM system stops working properly, the EM vendor will assist in 
repairing or replacing the equipment and returning the system to 
working order. If the EM vendor is notified by the vessel owner or 
operator that the EM system has stopped functioning properly while the 
vessel is at sea, the EM vendor will notify NMFS and provide 
instructions to the vessel owner and/or operator consistent with NMFS' 
guidance.
    (3) Data integrity and storage requirements. An approved EM vendor 
must receive, access, and store video data consistent with the VMP, and 
the regulations in this section. Video and metadata must be stored for 
a minimum of two years after the date received.
    (4) Video review requirements. An approved EM vendor must:
    (i) Ensure that all video review staff has been trained in species 
identification consistent with requirements at paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of 
this section;
    (ii) At NMFS' request, conduct additional video review to verify 
catch reports, and provide information for regulatory, enforcement, or 
for other management purposes; and,
    (iii) On a calendar year quarterly basis, review 10 percent of the 
sets submitted (randomly selected); at least one set from each pelagic 
longline vessel that fished in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic Bight, 
South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico EM Data Review Areas, as defined in 
paragraph (a)(1) through (4) of this section; and 100 percent of the 
sets submitted from the vessels that fished in the Monitoring Areas, as 
defined in paragraph (a)(5) of this section. NMFS may evaluate and 
modify video review rates on a regular basis.
    (5) Reporting requirements. Each calendar year, an approved EM 
vendor must submit quarterly reports to NMFS for vessels for which the 
EM vendor has existing, signed contracts. Quarter 1 (January through 
March) report is due on or before June 30. Quarter 2 (April through 
June) report is due on or before September 30. Quarter 3 report (July 
through September) is due on or before December 31. Quarter 4 report 
(October through December) is due on or before March 31. The reports 
must include a list of vessels that submitted trips or sets for review; 
a list of vessels that did not submit any trips or sets for review; the 
location, date, and time of all sets submitted for review; 
identification of the sets reviewed (vessel name, location, date, and 
time of sets) for the quarterly report; species caught and amounts 
(retained and discarded) from the sets reviewed and disposition (dead 
or alive) of catch that is discarded; information on any technical 
difficulties (including poor video, no video, unreviewable video, 
misaligned camera angles, and any other issues that prevent effective 
video review of catch); information on how technical difficulties were 
addressed on the vessel and during the video review process; and/or any 
questions video reviewers may have about whether the vessel's fishing

[[Page 29072]]

practices are compliant with applicable regulations. The metadata from 
all submitted trips and sets must accompany these quarterly reports. As 
appropriate, NMFS may respond to the questions about fishing practices 
or possible regulatory violations in order to assist video reviewers 
and EM vendors in understanding the regulations and the EM program.
    (e) Vessel owner and operator requirements. The owner of a vessel 
with pelagic longline gear on board and fishing with pelagic longline 
gear in an effective EM Data Review Area and/or Monitoring Area, as 
described in paragraph (a) of this section, must obtain EM services as 
described in paragraph (d) of this section from a NMFS-approved EM 
vendor (see paragraph (c)). For such a trip, the vessel owner and/or 
operator must:
    (1) Declare intent to fish with pelagic longline in an EM Data 
Review Area or Monitoring Area through hail-out via VMS unit prior to 
departing on the trip as described in 635.69;
    (2) Have EM system components on board as required under paragraph 
(f) of this section;
    (3) Activate the EM system prior to departing on the trip;
    (4) Collect video data during hauling activities and sensor data 
during the duration of the trip via an installed and working EM system;
    (5) Have on board and available for inspection an approved VMP 
pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
    (6) Ensure that all of the requirements, specifications and 
protocols outlined in the VMP have been implemented by the date 
specified in the VMP;
    (7) Have on board and available for inspection a Certificate of 
Installation in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section;
    (8) Prior to departing on the trip, ensure the installed EM system 
has the capacity needed to enable data collection and video recording 
for the entire trip;
    (9) Prior to departing on the trip, test the functionality of the 
system and contact an approved EM vendor if the system is not 
functioning properly. If the system is not functioning properly, the 
vessel is prohibited from deploying pelagic longline sets in any 
effective EM Data Review Area and/or Monitoring Area as defined in 
paragraph (a) of this section. The vessel owner and operator must work 
with the EM vendor pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section to 
correct this issue;
    (10) During the trip, ensure the proper continuous functioning of 
all aspects of the EM system as required under paragraph (f) of this 
section, including that: the EM system must remain powered on for the 
duration of each fishing trip consistent with paragraph (a) of this 
section; cameras must be functioning and cleaned routinely; the 
hydraulic and gear sensors must be operational; the global positioning 
system (GPS) signal must be functioning; and the EM system components 
must not be tampered with;
    (11) If the EM system stops functioning properly at sea, contact 
the EM vendor and follow the instructions given. Such instructions may 
include but are not limited to returning to port until the EM system is 
repaired. Once in port, an EM system must be functioning properly 
(e.g., repaired, reinstalled, or replaced) before the vessel may fish 
with pelagic longline within an effective EM Data Review area;
    (12) Ensure that all fish that are caught, even those that are 
released, are handled in a manner that enables the video system to 
record such fish, and ensure that interactions occur in accordance with 
relevant regulations and the operational procedures outlined in the 
VMP;
    (13) Ensure that each retained fish is placed on the standardized 
reference grid (see paragraph (f)(7) of this section) in view of 
cameras in accordance with the operational procedures outlined in the 
VMP;
    (14) At the completion of a trip, submit all electronic data, 
including video, sensor, and metadata, to a prearranged, approved EM 
vendor, consistent with the agreed upon requirements in the VMP; and,
    (15) Monitor and maintain the EM system in working condition and 
ensure the proper continuous functioning of the EM system as required 
under paragraph (f) of this section. The vessel owner and operator must 
work with the EM vendor to ensure the EM system is maintained and 
working properly (see paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
    (f) EM System Components. The EM system installed must be comprised 
of video camera(s), recording equipment, and other related equipment, 
and must have the following components and capabilities:
    (1) Video camera(s).
    (i) Video cameras must be mounted and placed to provide clear, 
unobstructed views of the area(s) where the pelagic longline gear is 
retrieved and of catch being removed from hooks prior to being placed 
in the hold or discarded. There must be lighting sufficient to clearly 
illuminate individual fish.
    (ii) Video camera(s) must be in sufficient numbers (a minimum of 
two), with sufficient resolution (no less than 720p (1280 x 720)) for 
the NMFS-approved vendor, NMFS, the USCG, and their authorized officers 
and designees to determine the number and species of fish harvested. To 
obtain the views required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, at 
least one camera must be mounted to record close-up images of fish 
being retained on the deck at the haulback station, and at least one 
camera must be mounted to provide views of the area from the rail to 
the water surface, where the gear and fish are hauled out of the water. 
The NMFS-approved vendor will determine the number and placement of 
cameras needed to achieve the required views, based on the operation 
and physical layout of the vessel.
    (iii) The EM system must be capable of initiating video recording 
at the time gear retrieval starts. It must record all periods of time 
from when the gear is being retrieved and catch is removed from the 
hooks until it is placed in the hold or discarded.
    (2) GPS receiver. A GPS receiver is required to produce output, 
which includes location coordinates, velocity, and heading data, and is 
directly logged continuously by the control box. The GPS receiver must 
be installed and remain in a location where it receives a strong signal 
continuously.
    (3) Hydraulic and drum rotation sensors. Hydraulic sensors are 
required to continuously monitor the hydraulic pressure and a drum 
rotation sensor must continuously monitor drum rotations.
    (4) EM control box. The system must include a control box that 
receives and stores the raw data provided by the sensors and cameras 
and must be adequate for the entire length of the trip.
    (5) EM systems monitor. A wheelhouse monitor must provide a 
graphical user interface for the harvester to monitor the state and 
performance of the control box and provide information on the current 
date and time synchronized via GPS, GPS coordinates, current hydraulic 
pressure reading, presence of a data disk, percentage used of the data 
disk, and video recording status.
    (6) EM software. The EM system must have software that enables the 
system to be tested for functionality and that records the outcome of 
the tests.
    (7) Standardized reference grid. The vessel must have a 
standardized grid on deck in view of the haulback station camera(s) in 
such a way that the video recording includes an image of each fish on 
the grid in order to provide a size reference. The standardized grid 
may be on a removable mat or carpet that is placed on the deck before 
the fish are brought on board, or may be painted

[[Page 29073]]

directly on the deck. The standardized reference grid must have 
accurate dimensions and grid line intervals as instructed and specified 
in the vessel's VMP by the NMFS-approved EM vendor. The vessel owner 
and operator are responsible for ensuring compliance with the provided 
instructions and specifications and for ensuring accurate, straight, 
clear and complete grid lines with no missing, incomplete, blurry or 
smudged lines.
    (g) Data maintenance, storage, and viewing. The EM system must have 
the capacity to allow the vessel owner and operator, the approved EM 
vendor, NMFS and their authorized officers and designees, and 
consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(1) (confidentiality of information), 
the USCG and their authorized officers and designees and state law 
enforcement officers, to observe the live video on the EM systems 
monitor (see paragraph (f)(5) of this section). The vessel owner and 
operator must provide access to the system, including the data, upon 
request. The EM vendor must provide access to stored data upon request 
by NMFS, its agents, or authorized officers.
    (h) Handling NMFS-owned EM systems and components. Vessel owner and 
operators may continue to use NMFS equipment currently installed as 
long as it functions properly as required under these regulations. Any 
replacement or repair of equipment or system components is the 
financial responsibility of the vessel owner pursuant to the contract 
with an EM vendor. Equipment or components that are no longer 
operational or useful must be surrendered or disposed of consistent 
with Federal property laws and requirements.
0
4. Amend Sec.  635.21 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(3);
0
c. Removing paragraph (b)(2);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) and (3);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2);
0
f. Removing paragraph (c)(3);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) through (6) as paragraphs (c)(3) 
through (5);
0
h. Removing paragraph (d)(1);
0
i. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(2) through (5) as (d)(1) through (4); 
and
0
j. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Has bottom longline gear on board and is in a Restricted Area 
or gear restricted area designated under Sec.  635.35(c)(1) and (2) or 
is in a monitoring area designated under Sec.  635.35(c)(3) and (4) 
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 in the NED at any time 
unless, the vessel complies with paragraphs (i) through (iii) and also 
paragraph (5) of this section:
    (i) The vessel is limited to possessing on board and/or using only 
18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees. 
The outer diameter of the circle hook at its widest point must be no 
smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm) when measured with the eye on the hook 
on the vertical axis (y-axis) and perpendicular to the horizontal axis 
(x-axis), and the distance between the circle hook point and the shank 
(i.e., the gap) must be no larger than 1.13 inches (28.8 mm). The 
allowable offset is measured from the barbed end of the hook and is 
relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook 
when laid on its side. The only allowable offset circle hooks are those 
that are offset by the hook manufacturer. If green-stick gear, as 
defined at Sec.  635.2, is on board, a vessel may possess up to 20 J-
hooks. J-hooks may be used only with green-stick gear, and no more than 
10 hooks may be used at one time with each green-stick gear. J-hooks 
used with green-stick gear may be no smaller than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) 
when measured in a straight line over the longest distance from the eye 
to any other part of the hook; and,
    (ii) The vessel is limited, at all times, to possessing on board 
and/or using only whole Atlantic mackerel and/or squid bait, except 
that artificial bait may be possessed and used only with green-stick 
gear, as defined at Sec.  635.2, if green-stick gear is on board; and,
    (iii) Vessels must possess, inside the wheelhouse, a document 
provided by NMFS entitled, ``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle 
Release with Minimal Injury,'' and must post, inside the wheelhouse, 
sea turtle handling and release guidelines provided by NMFS.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) If a vessel issued or required to be issued a permit under this 
part is in a Restricted Area or closed area designated under Sec.  
635.35(d)(1) and has pelagic longline gear on board, the vessel may 
not, at any time, possess or land any demersal species listed in Table 
3 of Appendix A to this part in excess of 5 percent, by weight, of the 
total weight of pelagic and demersal species possessed or landed, that 
are listed in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  635.24, revise the introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  635.24  Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and 
BAYS tunas.

    The retention limits in this section are subject to the quotas and 
closure provisions in Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28, and the gear 
operation and deployment restrictions in Sec. Sec.  635.21 and 635.35.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  635.32, revise paragraph (c)(1) and adding paragraphs 
(c)(2) and (h)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.32  Specifically authorized activities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) For activities consistent with the purposes of this section and 
Sec.  600.745(b)(1) of this chapter, other than scientific research 
conducted from a scientific research vessel, NMFS may issue EFPs.
    (2) NMFS may issue EFPs to conduct research and collect information 
specifically regarding the spatial management areas described in Sec.  
635.35. In addition to all of the information required under Sec.  
600.745(b)(2) of this chapter, an application for an EFP to conduct 
research and collect information regarding the spatial management areas 
should include the objective of the research; a description of the how 
the researchers intend to verify that the catch and all of the terms 
and conditions of the EFP are being met (e.g., via a working EM system, 
authorized researchers, NMFS-approved observers); and a description of 
how the research is being conducted. As with other EFPs, any EFP 
provides authorization only for the time and area, retention limits, 
and gear specified in the permit, and based upon the terms and 
conditions set forth in the permit and as acknowledged and agreed to by 
the permit holder under Sec.  600.745(b)(4) of this chapter. The terms 
and

[[Page 29074]]

conditions for a spatial management area EFP may require reporting more 
frequently than is described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (6) EFPs, scientific research permits, display permits, chartering 
permits, and shark research permits may be revoked, suspended, or 
modified at any time, do not confer any right to engage in activities 
beyond those authorized by the permit, and do not confer any right of 
compensation to the holder.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  635.34, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.34  Adjustment of management measures.

    (a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for 
bluefin tuna, as specified in Sec.  635.15; catch limits for bluefin 
tuna, as specified in Sec.  635.23; the overall, regional, and/or sub-
regional quotas for bluefin tuna, sharks, swordfish, and northern 
albacore tuna as specified in Sec.  635.27; the retention limits for 
sharks, as specified at Sec.  635.24; the regional retention limits for 
Swordfish General Commercial permit holders, as specified at Sec.  
635.24; the marlin landing limit, as specified in Sec.  635.27(d); the 
minimum sizes for Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and roundscale 
spearfish as specified in Sec.  635.20, the EM Data Review Area 
definitions as specified in Sec.  635.9(a); and the annual effort cap 
thresholds in the monitoring areas as specified in Sec.  635.35(c)(3) 
and (4).
    (b) In accordance with the framework procedures in the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or modify for species or 
species groups of Atlantic HMS the following management measures: 
Maximum sustainable yield or optimum yield based on the latest stock 
assessment or updates in the SAFE report; domestic quotas; recreational 
and commercial retention limits, including target catch requirements; 
size limits; fishing years or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions, 
or regional and/or sub-regional quotas; species in the management unit 
and the specification of the species groups to which they belong; 
species in the prohibited shark species group; classification system 
within shark species groups; permitting and reporting requirements; 
workshop requirements; the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for 
bluefin tuna; administration of the IBQ program (including but not 
limited to requirements pertaining to leasing of IBQ allocations, 
regional or minimum IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps (individual 
or by category), permanent sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); de 
minimis bluefin tuna quota set-aside for new entrants and associated 
requirements, process and conditions; spatial management restrictions; 
allocations among user groups; gear prohibitions, modifications, or use 
restriction; effort restrictions; observer coverage requirements; EM 
requirements and administration of the EM program; essential fish 
habitat; and actions to implement ICCAT recommendations, as 
appropriate.
* * * * *
    (d) Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other 
applicable law, when considering a framework adjustment to add, change, 
or modify the spatial management restrictions, NMFS will consider, but 
is not limited to, the following: any Endangered Species Act related 
issues, concerns, or requirements, including applicable BiOps; bycatch 
rates of protected species, prohibited HMS, or non-target species both 
within the specified or potential closure area(s) and throughout the 
fishery; bycatch rates and post-release mortality rates of bycatch 
species associated with different gear types; new or updated landings, 
bycatch, and fishing effort data; evidence or research indicating that 
changes to fishing gear and/or fishing practices can significantly 
reduce bycatch; social and economic impacts; and the practicability of 
implementing new or modified closures compared to other bycatch 
reduction options. If the species is an ICCAT managed species, NMFS 
will also consider the overall effect of the U.S.' catch on that 
species. Additionally, NMFS may also consider the factors listed at 
Sec.  635.35(e).
0
8. Add Sec.  635.35 to Subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  635.35  Spatial management area restrictions.

    (a) General Restrictions. If a vessel issued or required to be 
issued a LAP under this part has pelagic or bottom longline gear on 
board and is in a closed area (see paragraph (d) of this section), gear 
restricted area (see paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section), or a 
monitoring area (see paragraphs (b) and (c) 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). Coordinates for gear restricted areas and 
monitoring areas are set forth in the definitions under Sec.  635.2.
    (b) Bottom Longline restrictions. If bottom longline gear is on 
board a vessel issued or required to be issued a permit under this 
part, persons aboard that vessel may not fish or deploy any type of 
fishing gear in the Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area from 
November 1 through May 31 each calendar year, unless persons on board 
the vessel are authorized to conduct research under a shark research 
fishery permit as specified at Sec.  635.32.
    (c) Pelagic longline restrictions. If pelagic longline gear is on 
board a vessel issued or required to be issued a permit under this 
part:
    (1) In the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area and the 
DeSoto Canyon Restricted Area, persons aboard that vessel may not fish 
or deploy any type of fishing gear at any time, unless persons aboard 
the vessel are authorized to conduct research under an EFP as specified 
at Sec.  635.32.
    (2) In the NED, persons aboard that vessel may not fish or deploy 
any type of fishing gear at any time unless they comply with the 
requirements under Sec.  635.21(c)(2) and (5).
    (3) In the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area from February 1 through 
April 30, persons aboard that vessel may deploy fishing gear until the 
annual effort cap of 69 pelagic longline sets has been reached or is 
projected to be reached. When the effort cap is reached, or is 
projected to be reached, NMFS will file for publication with the Office 
of the Federal Register a closure for the Monitoring Area, which will 
be effective no fewer than five days from date of filing. From the 
effective date and time of the closure until May 1, 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 Charleston Bump Monitoring Area. 
Vessels fishing within the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area from 
February 1 through April 30 are required to comply with all EM 
requirements in Sec.  635.9 and VMS requirements in Sec.  635.69. From 
May 1 through January 31, vessels issued or required to be issued a LAP 
under this part and that have pelagic longline gear on board are 
authorized to deploy pelagic longline gear within the boundaries of the 
Charleston Bump Monitoring Area. NMFS may file for publication with the 
Office of the Federal Register a closure of the

[[Page 29075]]

monitoring area before the effort cap is reached and/or an action to 
not reopen the monitoring area on February 1, if warranted by 
conservation and management concerns raised by unexpectedly high 
bycatch, high fishing effort, fishing effort that is overly clustered 
temporally or spatially, or other relevant considerations.
    (4) In the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area, year-round, persons 
aboard that vessel may deploy fishing gear until the annual effort cap 
of 124 pelagic longline sets has been reached or is projected to be 
reached. When the effort cap is reached, or is projected to be reached, 
NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register 
a closure for the 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 East Florida Coast Monitoring Area until January 1 of the 
following year. Vessels fishing within the East Florida Coast 
Monitoring Area at any time are required to comply with all EM 
requirements in Sec.  635.9 and VMS requirements in Sec.  635.69. NMFS 
may file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a 
closure of the monitoring area before the effort cap is reached and/or 
an action to not reopen the monitoring area on January 1, if warranted 
by conservation and management concerns raised by unexpectedly high 
bycatch, high fishing effort, fishing effort that is overly clustered 
temporally or spatially, or other relevant considerations.
    (d) Other area restrictions applicable to HMS permitted vessels.
    (1) In addition to the area restrictions listed above, vessels that 
have been issued or are required to be issued a permit under this part, 
may not fish for, catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic HMS in the 
following spatial management times and areas:
    (i) As specified at Sec.  622.34(a)(1)(iii) and (3) of this 
chapter, within the Edges from January through April of each year.
    (ii) As specified at Sec.  622.34(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 
chapter, within the Madison and Swanson and the Steamboat Lumps sites:
    (A) From November through April of each year, no vessel issued or 
required to be issued a permit under this part may fish or deploy any 
type of fishing gear.
    (B) From May through October of each year, no vessel issued or 
required to be issued a permit under this part may fish or deploy any 
type of fishing gear except for surface trolling. For the purposes of 
this section, surface trolling is defined as fishing with lines 
trailing behind a vessel that is in constant motion at speeds in excess 
of four knots with a visible wake. Such trolling may not involve the 
use of down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices.
    (iii) Within the areas of the Gulf coral Habitat Areas of 
Particular Concern (HAPCs), as specified in Sec.  622.74 of this 
chapter, no person may bottom anchor a fishing vessel or deploy 
unauthorized fishing gear. For purposes of this provision, fishing gear 
is deployed if any part of the gear is in contact with the water.
    (2) If bottom longline gear is on board a vessel issued or required 
to be issued a permit under this part, persons aboard that vessel may 
not fish or deploy any type of fishing gear in the following areas:
    (i) In the Caribbean, the areas designated at Sec. Sec.  
622.439(a)(1) through (2), 622.479(a)(1) through (2), and 622.514(a)(1) 
of this chapter, year-round; and
    (ii) In the South Atlantic, the areas designated at Sec.  
622.183(a)(1)(i)(A) through (H) of this chapter, year-round.
    (e) Review of spatial management measures. NMFS will regularly 
review HMS spatial management areas (not NMFS regional areas under 
paragraph (d) of this section) to determine if adjustments are needed 
to add, change, or modify an area or any applicable requirements for an 
area. After reviewing an area, NMFS may consider changes or 
modifications to the area or its management measures, as appropriate, 
through framework adjustments as specified at Sec.  635.34. When 
reviewing a spatial management area, NMFS may consider, but is not 
limited to consideration of, the following relevant factors:
    (i) Fishery metrics such as landings, discards, catch rates, and 
effort.
    (ii) The usefulness of information from catches for biological 
sampling and monitoring status of target and non-target species.
    (iii) Fishery social and economic data regarding fishing vessels 
and shoreside business, including revenue, costs, and profitability.
    (iv) Effects of catch rates on target and non-target species in 
other regions or on fishing opportunities in other regions or 
fisheries.
    (vii) Fishing practices, including tactics, strategy, and gear.
    (viii) Biological, ecological, and life history data and research 
on primary bycatch and target species.
    (ix) Variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration 
patterns of the relevant species.
    (x) Resilience to climate change impacts, including changes in 
species distribution, fishing effort location, and vulnerable fishing 
communities.
    (xi) Oceanographic data and research including sea surface 
temperature, chlorophyll a concentrations and bathymetry.
    (xii) Variations in oceanographic features such as currents, 
fronts, and sea surface temperature.
    (xiii) Other design and technical considerations such as ecosystem 
modeling parameters (e.g., ocean currents, bottom topography), safety, 
enforceability (e.g., regular shapes), gear conflicts, timing of 
evaluation, access to the area for data collection, conservation and 
management objectives, environmental justice, state or other 
jurisdictional boundaries, efficiency in the size of area (given the 
highly variable and mobile nature of the HMS fisheries), and non-
fishery activity (e.g., transportation, energy production).
    (xiv) Other considerations as may be applicable to the specific 
management goals of any particular spatial management area.
0
9. Amend Sec.  635.69 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (e)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (e)(5) as paragraph (e)(6); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (e)(5).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  635.69  Vessel monitoring systems.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Whenever a vessel issued a directed shark LAP has bottom 
longline gear on board, is located between 33[deg]00' N lat. and 
36[deg]30' N lat., and the Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area 
is closed as specified in Sec.  635.35(b); or
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Hailing out. Prior to departure for each trip, a vessel owner 
and/or operator must submit a pre-trip hail out to NMFS declaring any 
highly migratory species the vessel will target on that trip and the 
specific type(s) of fishing gear that will be on board the vessel, 
using NMFS-defined gear codes. If the vessel owner and/or operator 
participates in multiple HMS fisheries, or possesses multiple fishing 
gears on board the vessel, the vessel owner and/or operator must submit 
multiple electronic reports to NMFS. If, during the trip, the vessel 
switches to a gear type or species group not reported on the initial 
declaration, another in-trip hail out declaration must

[[Page 29076]]

be submitted before fishing begins. This information must be reported 
to NMFS using an attached VMS terminal or using another method as 
instructed by NMFS. Additional hailing out declarations for EM Data 
Review Areas and Monitoring Areas are as follows:
    (i) If a vessel owner or operator intends to deploy pelagic 
longline sets in the Charleston Bump or East Florida Coast Monitoring 
Areas (Sec. Sec.  635.35(c)(3), (4) and 635.2), such intent must be 
declared in the pre-trip or in-trip hail-out. Vessel owners and 
operators shall not deploy pelagic longline sets in these Monitoring 
Areas until such declaration is submitted in the pre-trip or in-trip 
hail-out.
    (ii) If a vessel owner or operator intends to deploy pelagic 
longline sets in an EM Data Review Area (Sec.  635.9(a)(1) through 
(4)), such intent must be declared in the pre-trip or in-trip hail-out. 
Vessel owners and operators shall not deploy pelagic longline sets in 
an EM Data Review Area until such declaration is submitted in the pre-
trip or in-trip hail-out.
* * * * *
    (5) The vessel owner and/or operator of a vessel fishing with 
pelagic longline gear within the boundaries of the Monitoring Areas 
(Sec. Sec.  635.35(c)(3) and (4) and 635.2) must report to NMFS using 
the attached VMS terminal, or using an alternative method specified by 
NMFS as follows: For each set, as instructed by NMFS, the date and area 
of the set, the number of hooks and the actual length of the following 
species that are retained and approximate length of these species that 
are discarded dead or alive must be reported within 12 hours of the 
completion of each pelagic longline haul-back: bluefin tuna, blue 
marlin, white marlin, roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea 
turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and shortfin mako sharks.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  635.71 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(30), (31), (39), (57), and (58);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(63) through (67);
0
c. Removing paragraph (b)(46); and
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(47) through (59) as (b)(46) through 
(58).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (30) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel, or anchor 
a fishing vessel, permitted or required to be permitted under this 
part, in any spatial management area contrary to the requirements 
specified and defined at Sec.  635.35.
    (31) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a 
pelagic longline on board in any spatial management areas during the 
time periods specified at Sec.  635.35(c).
* * * * *
    (39) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a 
bottom longline on board, in any spatial management area during the 
time periods specified at Sec.  635.35(d).
* * * * *
    (57) Fail to appropriately stow longline gear when transiting a 
spatial management area that has been closed, as specified in Sec.  
635.35(a).
    (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 in Sec.  635.35(c)(3) through (5).
    (63) Fail to comply with the EM vendor responsibilities as 
specified in Sec.  635.9.
    (64) Fail to comply with the vessel owner and/or operator 
operational requirements as specified in Sec.  635.9.
    (65) Fail to comply with the EM requirements when fishing with 
pelagic longline gear within the EM Data Review Areas as specified at 
Sec.  635.9(a)(1) through (4) and the spatial management areas as 
specified at Sec.  635.34(c)(3) and (4).
    (66) Fail to report the catch of species through VMS as required 
when fishing with pelagic longline gear within spatial management areas 
as specified at Sec.  635.69(e)(5).
    (67) Fish with pelagic longline gear in the EM Data Review Areas as 
specified at Sec.  635.9(a)(1) through (4) and the spatial management 
areas as specified at Sec.  635.34(c)(3) and (4) without submitting a 
hail out declaration through VMS as specified at Sec.  635.69(e)(2).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-08782 Filed 5-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P