[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78404-78409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-32431]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 001113318-2297-02; I.D. 110200D]
RIN 0648-AO75


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Incidental Catch Requirements 
of Bluefin Tuna

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

[[Page 78405]]

SUMMARY:  NMFS proposes to amend regulations governing the Atlantic 
bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery as they affect landing of BFT in the 
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The intent of this action is to 
minimize dead discards of BFT and improve management of the Atlantic 
pelagic longline fishery, while complying with the National Standards 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and allowing harvest consistent with 
recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of 
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). NMFS will hold public hearings to receive 
comments from fishery participants and other interested members of the 
public regarding these issues. Public hearings on this proposed rule 
will be announced in a separate Federal Register document.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. 
on February 7, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to, and copies 
of the Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) may be obtained from Brad 
McHale, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, NMFS, Northeast 
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA, 01930. These 
documents are also available from the Highly Migratory Species Division 
website at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hmspg.html. Comments also may be sent 
via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if 
submitted via e-mail or on the Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad McHale or Dianne Stephan, 978-
281-9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Atlantic highly migratory species 
(HMS) fisheries are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for 
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). Implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the dual authority of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (codified at 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the 
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; codified at 16 U.S.C. 971 et 
seq.). Regulations issued under the authority of ATCA carry out the 
recommendations of ICCAT.

Management of Bluefin Tuna

    The first ICCAT management recommendations for Atlantic BFT were 
adopted in 1974, and established a minimum size and limited fishing 
mortality to then recent levels. With the passage of ATCA in 1975, the 
United States took action to comply with the ICCAT recommendations and 
limited U.S. harvest by imposing quotas and size limits. In spite of 
the ICCAT recommendations and U.S. compliance with these 
recommendations, western Atlantic BFT stock abundance continued to 
decline. In 1981, NMFS prohibited the use of longlines for a directed 
BFT fishery and implemented an incidental catch limit for two 
geographically distinct areas where different BFT catch limits would 
apply (46 FR 8012, January 26, 1981). After conducting a series of 
stock assessments, ICCAT's scientific body, the Standing Committee on 
Research and Statistics, recommended in 1981 that catches from the 
western Atlantic stock be severely reduced to as near zero as possible 
to stem the decline of the stock. Based on this recommendation, 
allowable landings of western Atlantic bluefin have been restricted 
since 1982. Also in 1982, an ICCAT consultation among officials 
representing the governments of Brazil, Canada, Japan, and the United 
States agreed, inter alia, that there be no directed fishery on the 
spawning stock of Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. Domestic 
regulations to carry out the ICCAT recommendations were implemented in 
1982 and 1983, which included designating authorized gears and quotas 
for the established fisheries.

The U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery

    The U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is a multi-species 
fishery that operates throughout the western Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf 
of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Pelagic longline gear is composed of 
several parts. The primary fishing line, or mainline of the longline 
system, can vary from five to 40 miles in length, with approximately 20 
to 30 hooks per mile. Each individual hook is connected by a leader to 
the mainline. Pelagic longline gear and fishing method can be modified 
to target certain species, most commonly swordfish and yellowfin and 
bigeye tunas. At least 30 different species have been recorded as 
caught in this gear throughout the range of the fishery. Many of the 
non-target species are landed and sold. However, some of those species 
are discarded as bycatch (dead or alive) for economic or regulatory 
reasons. Bluefin tuna are one such incidentally caught species that are 
marketable but may be discarded when required by regulations on 
landings restrictions.

Incidental Catch Regulations

    Since 1977, NMFS has implemented a series of management measures 
designed to regulate the incidental catch of BFT in non-directed 
Atlantic fisheries. In 1981, NMFS prohibited the use of longlines for a 
directed BFT fishery, implemented incidental catch limits, and 
established northern and southern management areas where different 
catch limits applied (46 FR 8012, January 26, 1981). Longline fishermen 
were restricted to two BFT per vessel per trip in the southern region 
and two percent by weight of all other fish on board in the northern 
region. In 1982, ICCAT recommended a ban on directed fishing for BFT in 
the Gulf of Mexico. Over the following decade, the value of BFT 
increased dramatically and fishing practices evolved with respect to 
incidental catch of BFT. In response, NMFS established various 
strategies to discourage pelagic longline vessels from developing a 
target fishery for this valuable species while allowing for the 
retention of incidentally caught BFT.
     In 1992, as BFT continued to be released as bycatch in the 
longline fishery and most of those fish were reported as being 
discarded dead, NMFS determined that existing catch limits in the 
southern region (up to two BFT per trip, without any requirement that 
BFT be landed in conjunction with other species) were not effective at 
reducing the incentive to target BFT, and target catch requirements 
were implemented (57 FR 365, January 6, 1992). NMFS required longline 
vessels to land, offload, and sell at least 2,500 lbs. (1,136 kg) of 
other species as a condition for landing a maximum of one BFT. NMFS 
continued to evaluate bycatch in the longline fishery, and, consistent 
with objectives of preventing a target fishery while allowing for 
retention of incidental catch, moved the boundary line for the northern 
and southern areas from 36o N. Latitude to 34o N. Latitude and further 
altered the southern area target catch requirements in 1994 (59 FR 
2814, January 19, 1994).
    The current target catch requirements, unchanged since 1994, 
restrict longline vessels to one fish per vessel per trip in the 
southern region (south of 34o N. Latitude) with a minimum of 1,500 lbs. 
(680 kg) of other fish landings from January through April, and 3,500 
lbs. (1,588 kg) of other fish landings from May through December. North 
of 34o N. Latitude, BFT landings by longline vessels are restricted to 
two percent by weight of all other landed catch. Despite efforts to 
alter target catch requirements and adjust geographic management

[[Page 78406]]

areas, bycatch and discards of BFT by U.S. pelagic longline vessels 
have continued. Consequently, NMFS has continued to evaluate management 
alternatives to achieve a balance between allowing the retention of 
truly incidentally caught BFT while preventing a directed fishery and 
reducing discards.

Bycatch Reduction

    In 1999, NMFS published the HMS FMP and implementing regulations 
(64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999), which included a measure to close an area 
of ocean off the Mid-Atlantic Bight to longline fishing during the 
month of June in an attempt to minimize bycatch of BFT and ensure 
compliance with ICCAT recommendations. The HMS FMP also considered, but 
did not implement, further modifications to target catch requirements 
because of the difficulty in determining catch levels and landings 
allowances that would likely reduce dead discards. The lack of 
correlation between the level of target catch and bluefin tuna discards 
indicated that bluefin tuna catches were truly incidental. While an 
area closure was selected as the most expedient means of reducing dead 
discards, NMFS also concluded that future analyses of catch rates may 
provide guidance for a change in the target catch requirements.
    Since that time, NMFS has continued to evaluate alternatives to 
achieve a balance between minimizing bycatch (i.e., allowing retention 
of BFT) and discouraging directed longline fishing effort on BFT. 
Members of the pelagic longline industry have commented that the target 
catch requirements are overly restrictive, resulting in excessive dead 
discards of incidentally caught BFT. Consequently, the Longline 
category BFT quota is not being landed, which then results in 
additional mortality as unused Longline category quota is transferred 
to other BFT fishing categories.
    NMFS analyzed additional data on the landing patterns of longline 
vessels, and published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 
(65 FR 69492, November 17, 2000). Highly Migratory Species Advisory 
Panel (AP) members discussed the target catch requirements at their 
meetings in April 2001 and April 2002, and generally favored modifying 
the target catch requirements to minimize bycatch of BFT in the pelagic 
longline fishery. However, AP members cautioned against adjusting 
target catch requirements in such a way that would provide an incentive 
to target BFT with pelagic longline gear.

Evaluation of Existing Regulations

    In the 2001 and 2002 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) 
Reports, NMFS evaluated the effectiveness of the June closed area in 
minimizing discards of BFT. The available data, based on logbooks 
submitted by fishermen, indicate a substantial decline in BFT bycatch 
throughout the year, indicating the closed area may be effective at 
reducing dead discards.
    The BFT Longline category is allocated 8.1 percent of the total 
U.S. BFT landings quota. The Longline category quota is split between 
northern and southern areas, with 78.9 percent allocated to the 
southern area and 21.1 percent allocated to the northern area.
    Estimates of dead discards for 2000 fishing year totaled 30 metric 
tons (mt). In 1997 and 1998, discards were higher proportionally (dead 
discards to BFT landed) in the northern area compared to the southern 
area (mostly Gulf of Mexico), but this relationship changed in 1999 and 
2000, where a higher proportion of the dead discards being reported 
through the pelagic logbook occurred in the southern area.
    NMFS evaluated observer data for 1998-2000, which indicate that two 
or less BFT were caught on 88 percent of all longline trips. In 
addition, over this same time period, median values for landed catch 
(not including BFT) by pelagic longline vessels were approximately 
3,000 lbs. (1,361 kg) in the southern region in the winter and early 
spring (January through April) and 3,500 lbs. (1,588 kg) in that area 
in May through December. Median landings in the northern area 
throughout the year were 3,800 lbs. (1,724 kg). Target catch and dead 
discards information was used in developing potential alternatives to 
the current target catch requirements.

Alternatives Considered

    In addition to taking no action at this time, NMFS considered 
various combinations of catch limits for the northern and southern 
areas including: (1) requiring 3,500 lbs. (1,588 kg) of catch for one 
BFT to be landed in the northern area but no change to the southern 
area requirements; (2) requiring 3,500 lbs. (1,588 kg) of catch for one 
BFT to be landed, and 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) of other catch to land two 
BFT in the northern area, but no change to the southern area 
requirements; (3) the same as (2) for the northern area, but also 
allowing two BFT to be landed on a trip with 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) of 
other catch in the southern area; (4) lowering minimum target catch 
requirements in all areas, at all times, to 2,000 lbs. (907 kg) to 
retain one BFT and 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) to retain two BFT (the 
preferred alternative); and (5) lowering minimum target catch 
requirements in all areas, at all times, to 1,500 lbs. (680 kg) to 
retain one BFT and 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) to retain two BFT.
    NMFS prefers to alter the target catch requirements for both 
geographic management areas to reduce dead discards of BFT in all 
areas. NMFS therefore does not prefer alternatives which take no action 
or do not affect the southern area limit. In addition, landings per 
trip do not differ between the southern and northern areas as much as 
they have in the past, and similar retention limits for the different 
areas now seem warranted. The alternative that would lower the target 
catch requirements to 1,500 lbs. (680 kg) in all areas at all times may 
result in the longline incidental catch quota of BFT being filled 
quickly, which could lead to subsequent discarding of BFT, and is 
therefore is not preferred. The preferred alternative would require 
2,000 lbs. (907 kg) of other fish landings to retain one BFT, and 6,000 
lbs. (2,722 kg) of other fish landings to retain two BFT, in all areas.
    The preferred alternative would maintain a boundary line between 
the northern and southern areas to account for seasonal differences in 
the fisheries and prevent one area from consuming all the incidental 
longline quota, but would move the boundary line to an area with little 
longline fishing activity nearby and adjust the longline quota 
subdivision to reflect the change in areas. Seasonal differences in 
bluefin tuna migration patterns between northern feeding migrations and 
southern spawning migrations affect fishing interaction rates and the 
condition of the fish in terms of fat content and ability to survive 
the capture experience. Any division line should account for such 
seasonal differences in the fisheries and correspond with interaction 
rates to ensure that catches are incidental and do not result in excess 
discards. In addition, any division line should not be near an area 
where fish are usually landed, i.e., it should be clear that fish 
caught in a particular area will be landed in that area. The North/
South boundary line is proposed to be moved to 31&00' N. Latitude, near 
Jekyll Island, Georgia, and the North/South quota subdivision within 
the Longline category would be adjusted to allocate 30 percent to the 
northern area and 70 percent to the southern area.

[[Page 78407]]

Impacts of the Preferred Alternative

    The preferred alternative would likely result in a reduction in BFT 
discards in all areas, and would allow longline fishermen fishing in 
the northern area to retain a BFT on more trips. It would also allow 
more BFT to be landed by fishermen in the southern area, but only if 
they retain 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) of other fish species on a trip. The 
preferred alternative is estimated to reduce discards of BFT by 
longline vessels by 23.5 percent on a coastwide basis. In addition, it 
is estimated that the preferred alternative would allow longline 
vessels to retain an additional 38 mt of BFT coastwide, an increase of 
approximately 60 percent from 2000 levels but still within the quota 
allocated for incidental catch.
    The positive economic impacts of this alternative are likely to be 
felt by pelagic longline fishermen in all areas. Gross revenues and net 
revenues to pelagic longline vessels would increase as a result of the 
increased landings of BFT. While revenues from BFT would increase by an 
amount similar to the increase in landings, the overall increase in 
revenues to the longline fishery would be relatively small (about 1.1 
percent), as BFT make up only a small percentage of longline catch and 
landings. However, overall, no net increase in BFT revenues is expected 
because total BFT landings for all fishing categories will not 
increase. In past years, the BFT quota not actually landed by pelagic 
longline vessels has been transferred to and landed by vessels in other 
fishing categories but total BFT landings are limited by the overall 
total allowable catch (TAC) system through which the United States is 
issued annual quotas.
    This alternative may have some positive impacts on the western 
Atlantic BFT stock because total mortality should decrease. The 
preferred alternative would maintain BFT landings by pelagic longline 
vessels within the previously established Longline category BFT quota. 
However, because discards would likely decrease, the United States 
would use less of its dead discard allowance, which would have positive 
impacts on the stock as, per the ICCAT recommendation, half the unused 
portion of the dead discard allowance cannot be carried over to future 
years and is, in that sense, invested in stock rebuilding. The 
preferred alternative would also likely reduce the extent of 
reallocating unused longline BFT quota to other categories, as the 
longline fishery will likely land more of its quota. Such reallocation 
is consistent with legislative requirements to allow U.S. fishermen the 
opportunity to land the U.S. quota, but has led to increased overall 
mortality, as BFT that could not be landed (and a proportion were 
discarded dead) by pelagic longline vessels were transferred to and 
landed by other fishing categories.
    Because pelagic longline fishermen routinely catch BFT incidental 
to other fishing operations, this alternative would not likely result 
in increased pelagic longline effort and therefore would not affect 
catches or discards of other managed finfish species or increased 
interaction with protected species.

Inseason Adjustments

    Currently, regulations provide the authority for NMFS to adjust the 
BFT retention limits in the Angling and General categories during the 
fishing season by publishing a notice in the Federal Register and 
providing three days advanced notice. The preferred alternative would 
provide NMFS with similar authority for BFT retention limits in the 
Longline category. Specifically, NMFS could adjust the BFT retention 
limits for pelagic longline vessels by number over a range from zero to 
three fish per trip and/or by weight within 25 percent of the target 
catch requirements (e.g., 2,000 lbs. to 2,500 lbs.).
    The purpose of providing NMFS inseason adjustment authority for BFT 
retention by longline vessels would be to increase the likelihood of 
meeting the management objectives for the BFT fishery on an inseason 
basis. This authority would provide NMFS with the additional ability to 
achieve a balance between allowing the retention of truly incidentally 
caught BFT while preventing a directed fishery, reducing discards, and 
keeping all BFT fisheries within their allocated quotas. This balance 
can be affected by variation in BFT abundance and migration patterns. 
Thus, inseason adjustment authority would enhance NMFS' ability to 
reduce discards while ensuring that landings are maintained within the 
quota.

Classification

    This proposed rule is published under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has preliminarily determined that the regulations 
contained in this rule are necessary to implement the recommendations 
of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic highly migratory species 
fisheries.
    NMFS has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 
for this proposed rule and has requested comments from the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A summary of 
the IRFA follows:
    The annual gross revenues from the Atlantic pelagic longline 
fishery are approximately $29 million. There are approximately 171 
pelagic longline vessels that are permitted to retain Atlantic tunas 
and swordfish, all of which are considered small entities, and 
average annual gross revenues per vessel are approximately $168,000. 
The analyses for the IRFA assume that all pelagic longline vessels 
have similar levels of catch and gross revenues. While this may not 
be true, the analyses are sufficient to show the relative impact of 
the various alternatives on vessels. NMFS considered five 
alternatives regarding changing the target catch requirements for 
bluefin tuna retention by pelagic longline vessels: (1) no action/
status quo; (2) adjusting the target catch requirements to allow 
pelagic longline vessels landing north of 34o N. latitude to land 
one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land 3,500 lbs. of 
other catch from the same trip; (3) adjusting the target catch 
requirements to allow pelagic longline vessels landing north of 34o 
N. latitude to land one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also 
land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two bluefin 
tuna per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch 
from the same trip; (4) adjusting the target catch requirements to 
allow pelagic longline vessels in all areas to land one bluefin tuna 
per trip, provided they also land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the 
same trip, or two bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land 
6,000 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, with pelagic longline 
vessels landing south of 34o N. latitude allowed to land their one 
bluefin tuna per trip with only 1,500 lbs. of other fish from the 
same trip from January through April; (5) adjusting the target catch 
requirements to allow pelagic longline vessels in all areas and 
times to land one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land 
2,000 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two bluefin tuna 
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the 
same trip (preferred alternative); and (6) adjusting the target 
catch requirements to allow pelagic longline vessels in all areas 
and times to land one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land 
1,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two bluefin tuna 
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the 
same trip.
    NMFS separated out pelagic longline vessels into three groups: 
vessels homeported in the northern area that landed more than one 
bluefin tuna on an individual trip during 1998-2000; vessels 
homeported in the northern area that landed one or less bluefin tuna 
on individual trips during 1998-2000; and vessels homeported in the 
southern area. Northern area vessels were separated into two groups 
because Alternative 2 would have a negative impact on the vessels 
that landed more than one bluefin tuna on a particular trip, as it 
would only allow retention of one bluefin tuna per trip in the 
northern area, whereas the status quo does not limit the number of 
bluefin tuna so long as the percentage of bluefin tuna did not 
exceed

[[Page 78408]]

two percent of the weight of the other landings. During 1998-2000, 
six vessels landed more than one bluefin tuna on individual trips, 
and two vessels landed two bluefin tuna twice (total of eight 
trips). For these analyses, NMFS assumed that these six vessels 
would each have a trip in which they would have been able to land 
two bluefin tuna under the status quo.
    The change in annual gross revenues for pelagic longline vessel 
as a result of the various alternatives to adjust the target catch 
requirements was estimated by calculating the difference in the 
number of bluefin tuna that could be retained by the particular 
group of vessels, multiplying that number of fish by the average 
weight and price per pound for that area during 2000. In the 
northern area, the average weight of bluefin tuna landed by longline 
vessels in 2000 was 456 lbs., and the average per pound was $5.56, 
for an estimate of $2,535 per fish. In the southern area, the 
average weight of bluefin tuna landed by longline vessels in 2000 
was 537 lbs., and the average price per pound was $5.31, for an 
estimate of $2,851 per fish.
    For Alternative 2, vessels in the northern area would land 72 
bluefin tuna, 16 more than were landed in 2000. Using the average 
weight and price information for the northern area, the revenues 
from the additional 16 fish were divided among the 102 vessels in 
the northern area, for an average increase in gross revenues of 
$398. For the six vessels that could have landed two bluefin tuna on 
a trip however, these vessels would lose the revenues from the 
second bluefin tuna, $2,535. Thus, the change in gross revenues for 
each of these six vessels would be -$2,137 ($398 - $2,535), 
approximately a -1.2% change. Vessels in the southern area would not 
experience any change in revenues under this alternative, as the 
target catch requirements would not change. The impacts on revenues 
for the other alternatives were estimated in a similar manner. Other 
than Alternative 2, no alternative would have a negative impact on 
any vessel in the pelagic longline fishery, but even Alternative 2 
would have a positive impact on all but a few vessels. Alternatives 
4, 5 (preferred alternative), and 6 would have a positive impact on 
revenues for vessels in all areas. Thus, only one non-preferred 
alternative considered would have negative economic impacts; all 
preferred alternatives would minimize current negative impacts such 
that consideration of significant alternatives to minimize impacts 
to small entities is unnecessary.
    NMFS considered three alternatives regarding moving the North/
South division line and reallocating Longline category bluefin tuna 
quota including (1) no action/status quo; (2) moving the Longline 
category North/South division line to 31[deg]00' N. latitude near 
Jekyll Island, Georgia, and adjusting the Longline category 
subquotas to allocate 70 percent to the southern area and 30 percent 
to the northern area (preferred alternative); and (3) eliminating 
the Longline category North/South division line and establish one 
quota for the Longline category for all areas. Alternatives 1 and 2 
should not have any direct impact on small entities, although 
Alternative 2 should address current confusion regarding 
applicability of regulations and could help prevent negative impacts 
on small entities due to closures. Alternative 3 could have negative 
impacts if a fishery closure occurred.
    NMFS considered three alternatives regarding providing NMFS with 
inseason authority to modify bluefin tuna retention limits by 
pelagic longline vessels including (1) no action/status quo; (2) 
providing NMFS with authority to adjust the bluefin tuna retention 
limits for pelagic longline vessels from a range of zero to three 
fish per trip; and (3) providing NMFS with authority to adjust the 
bluefin tuna retention limits for pelagic longline vessels by number 
from a range of zero to three fish per trip and by weight within 25 
percent of the target catch requirements (preferred alternative). 
None of these three alternatives should have any direct impact on 
small entities because the total bluefin tuna quota is not changed. 
The preferred alternative, however, which would provide NMFS with 
inseason authority, could help prevent negative impacts on small 
entities due to closures.
    NMFS prepared a draft EA for this proposed rule, and the AA has 
preliminarily concluded that there would be no significant impact on 
the human environment if this proposed rule were implemented. The EA 
presents analyses of the anticipated impacts of these proposed 
regulations and the alternatives considered. A copy of the EA and other 
analytical documents prepared for this proposed rule, are available 
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    On September 7, 2000, NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all 
HMS commercial fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 
A Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued June 14, 2001, concluded that 
continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened sea 
turtle species under NMFS jurisdiction. On July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45393), 
NMFS implemented the reasonable and prudent alternative required by the 
BiOp. None of the actions in this proposed rule are expected to have 
any additional impact on sea turtles as these actions are not likely to 
increase or decrease pelagic longline effort, nor are they expected to 
shift effort into other fishing areas.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

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

    Dated: December 17, 2002.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

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

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

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

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

    2. In Sec.  635.23, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.23  Retention limits for BFT.

* * * * *
    (f) Longline category. Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category may retain, possess, land, and sell 
large medium and giant BFT taken incidentally in fishing for other 
species. For vessels fishing North or South of 31[deg]00' N. lat., 
limits on retention, possession, landing and sale are as follows:
    (1) One large medium or giant BFT per vessel per trip may be 
landed, provided that at least 2,000 lb (907 kg) of species other than 
BFT are legally caught, retained, and offloaded from the same trip and 
are recorded on the dealer weighout slip as sold. Two large medium or 
giant BFT per vessel per trip may be landed, provided that at least 
6,000 lb (2,727 kg) of species other than BFT are legally caught, 
retained, and offloaded from the same trip and are recorded on the 
dealer weighout slip as sold.
    (2) NMFS may increase or decrease the Longline category retention 
limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range from zero to a maximum 
of three per trip, or, for a given BFT retention limit, increase or 
decrease the target catch requirement by 25 percent from the level 
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Such increase or 
decrease in the BFT retention limit or target catch requirement will be 
based on a review of dealer reports, observer reports, vessel logbooks, 
landing trends, availability of the species on the fishing grounds, and 
any other relevant factors, and will consider the likelihood of 
increasing dead discards of BFT and/or exceeding the incidental 
landings quota established for the pelagic longline fishery. Such 
adjustments may be made separately for vessels fishing North or South 
of 31[deg]00' N. lat. NMFS will adjust the retention limits and target 
catch requirements specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section by 
filing with the Office of the Federal Register for

[[Page 78409]]

publication notification of the adjustment. Such adjustment will not be 
effective until at least 30 calendar days after notification is filed 
with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec.  635.27, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.27  Quotas.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Longline category quota. The total amount of large medium and 
giant BFT that may be caught incidentally and retained, possessed, or 
landed by vessels for which Longline category Atlantic tunas permits 
have been issued is 8.1 percent of the overall U.S. BFT quota. No more 
than 70.0 percent of the Longline category quota may be caught, 
retained, possessed, or landed in the area south of 31[deg]00' N. lat.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-32431 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S