[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68784-68793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9436]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 061121306-6306-01; I.D. 110206A]
RIN 0648-AU86


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); U.S. Atlantic Swordfish 
Fishery Management Measures

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend regulations governing the U.S. Atlantic 
swordfish fishery to enable a more thorough utilization of the U.S. 
North Atlantic swordfish quota. The U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota 
is derived from the recommendations of the International Commission for 
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and is implemented under 
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention 
Act (ATCA). For the past several years, the U.S. Atlantic swordfish 
fishery has not fully harvested its available quota. The objective of 
this proposed action is to provide a reasonable opportunity for U.S. 
vessels to fully harvest the ICCAT-recommended U.S. North Atlantic 
swordfish quota, as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in 
recognition of the improved stock status of North Atlantic swordfish. 
This proposed rule would increase swordfish retention limits for 
Incidental swordfish permit holders, and modify recreational swordfish 
retention limits for HMS Charter/headboat and Angling category permit 
holders. The proposed rule would also modify HMS limited access vessel 
upgrading restrictions for pelagic longline (PLL) vessels. These 
actions are necessary to address persistent underharvests of the 
domestic swordfish quota, while continuing to minimize bycatch to the 
extent practicable, so that swordfish are harvested in a sustainable, 
yet economically viable manner.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m. 
on January 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule or the Draft 
Environmental Assessment(Draft EA) may be submitted to Sari Kiraly, 
Fisheries Management Specialist, Highly Migratory Species Management 
Division, using any of the following methods:
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
Please mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on Proposed 
Swordfish Rule''.
     Fax: 301-713-1917.
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Include in the subject line the following identifier: ``I.D. 110206A.''
    Copies of the Draft EA, the 2006 Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly 
Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP) and 
other relevant documents are also available from the Highly Migratory 
Species Management Division website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms 
or by contacting Sari Kiraly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sari Kiraly, by phone: 301-713-2347; 
by fax: 301-713-1917; or by e-mail: [email protected],or Richard A. 
Pearson, by phone: 727-824-5399; by fax: 727-824-5398; or by e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery

    The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the 
Consolidated HMS FMP. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are 
issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 
et seq.), and ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq). Under ATCA, the United 
States is obligated to implement the recommendations of ICCAT, 
including those for Atlantic swordfish quotas (ICCAT Recommendations 
02-02, 03-03, and 04-02). ICCAT is an inter-governmental fishery 
organization, currently consisting of 42 contracting parties, that is 
responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species, 
including swordfish, in the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas.
    In 2001, ICCAT established its ``Criteria for the Allocation of 
Fishing Possibilities'' (ICCAT Recommendation 01-25) that included 15 
separate criteria to be considered when allocating quota within the 
ICCAT framework. The first two criteria relate to the past and present 
fishing activity of qualifying participants. These criteria specify 
that ``historical catches'' and ``the interests, fishing patterns and 
fishing practices'' of qualifying participants are to be considered 
when making allocation recommendations. Other criteria, including 
conservation measures, economic importance of the fishery,

[[Page 68785]]

geographical occurrence of the stock, compliance with ICCAT management 
measures, and dependence on the stocks, must also be considered when 
allocating quota.
    At its 2002 meeting, ICCAT established an annual Total Allowable 
Catch (TAC) for North Atlantic swordfish of 14,000 mt (ww) for the 
years 2003, 2004, and 2005 (ICCAT Recommendation 02-02). A 14,000 mt 
(ww) TAC was later established for 2006 (ICCAT Recommendation 04-02) as 
well. 1,185 mt (ww) of the TAC were allocated to ``other contracting 
parties and others,'' with the remainder being distributed to the 
European Community (52.42 percent), United States (30.49 percent), 
Canada (10.52 percent), and Japan (6.57 percent), using the allocation 
criteria described above. This resulted in a baseline U.S. North 
Atlantic swordfish quota of 3,907 mt (ww) for the period 2004 [dash] 
2006.
    An examination of historical catches reveals that U.S. North 
Atlantic swordfish catches, as reported to ICCAT, have declined by 
approximately 40 percent from 4,026 mt (ww) in 1995 to 2,424 mt (ww) in 
2005, although they have stabilized since 2001. As a percent of the 
ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota, the decline in U.S. North Atlantic 
swordfish landings is even more apparent. Because landings below the 
baseline quota (an ``underage'') in one year may be added to the 
subsequent year's baseline quota, the ``adjusted'' U.S. North Atlantic 
swordfish quota has continued to increase. The United States has landed 
less than its ICCAT-recommended ``baseline'' and ``adjusted'' swordfish 
quota since 1997. Based on reported landings to ICCAT, the United 
States went from exceeding its ``baseline'' quota in 1996 to landing 
only 29 percent of its ``adjusted'' quota in 2005. As indicated above, 
reported catches in 2005 were 2,424 mt (ww) versus a 2005 ``adjusted'' 
quota of 8,319 mt (ww). This trend is likely to continue in 2006 
because the ``adjusted'' quota is again significantly higher (9,803 mt 
(ww)). U.S. North Atlantic swordfish landings have also been less than 
the unadjusted ``baseline'' ICCAT-recommended quota since 1997. The 
United States landed approximately 62 percent (2,424 mt (ww)) of its 
unadjusted North Atlantic swordfish ``baseline'' quota (3,907 mt (ww)) 
in 2005.
    The ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) just 
completed a stock assessment for North Atlantic swordfish in October 
2006. The 2006 assessment indicated that North Atlantic swordfish 
biomass had improved, possibly due to strong recruitment in the late 
1990's combined with reductions in reported catch since then. The SCRS 
estimated the biomass of North Atlantic swordfish at the beginning of 
2006 ( B2006) to be at 99 percent of the biomass necessary 
to produce maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). The 2005 
fishing mortality rate (F2005) was estimated to be 0.86 
times the fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable yield 
(FMSY). In other words, in 2006, the North Atlantic 
swordfish stock is almost fully rebuilt and fishing mortality is low.
    NMFS has implemented several important management measures in 
recent years, primarily to reduce the bycatch of undersized swordfish, 
non-target species, and protected species. These actions have been very 
effective at reducing bycatch, but they may also have had the 
unintended consequence of contributing to persistent underharvests of 
the U.S. swordfish quota, and a precipitous decline in the number of 
active PLL vessels (``active'' is defined as vessels that report 
landings in the HMS logbook). Some of these measures include: Year-
round closures in the DeSoto Canyon and East Florida Coast areas; 
seasonal closures in the Charleston Bump and Northeastern areas; 
limited access vessel permits; mandatory utilization of Vessel 
Monitoring Systems (VMS); mandatory circle hook and bait requirements; 
possession and utilization of release and disentanglement gear; 
utilization of non-stainless hooks; and a live bait prohibition in the 
Gulf of Mexico.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that NMFS shall provide a 
reasonable opportunity for domestic vessels to harvest quota 
allocations that are derived from international fishery agreements, 
such as ICCAT recommendations. In this action, NMFS prefers 
alternatives that would modify some management measures (swordfish 
retention limits and vessel upgrading provisions) to increase domestic 
swordfish landings and revenues, but that would also retain important 
bycatch reduction provisions. The preferred alternatives are intended 
to demonstrate that the United States is committed to revitalizing its 
historical swordfish fishery in recognition of the improved stock 
status of North Atlantic swordfish, and help to maintain or increase 
the historical U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota allocation. These 
actions are necessary to address persistent underharvests of the 
domestic swordfish quota, while continuing to minimize bycatch to the 
maximum extent practicable, so that swordfish are harvested in a 
sustainable, yet economically viable manner.
    This action would reduce swordfish dead discards by increasing 
swordfish retention limits for Incidental swordfish permit holders, and 
modify recreational swordfish retention limits for HMS Charter/headboat 
and Angling category permit holders. This proposed rule would also 
modify HMS limited access vessel upgrading and permit transfer 
upgrading restrictions for PLL vessels.
    The Agency conducted an Environmental Assessment to analyze 
alternatives for increasing incidental and recreational swordfish 
retention limits, and modifying HMS limited access vessel upgrading 
restrictions, while continuing to minimize the bycatch of target, non-
target and protected species to the maximum extent practicable.

North Atlantic Swordfish Retention Limits

    Under current regulations, vessels issued valid Incidental 
swordfish limited access permits, other than those in the squid trawl 
fishery, are allowed to retain, possess or land no more than two 
swordfish per vessel per trip in or from the Atlantic Ocean north of 
5[deg] N. lat. Vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access 
permits and participating in the squid trawl fishery are allowed to 
retain, possess, or land no more than five swordfish per trip from the 
same area. HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat vessel permit holders are 
allowed to retain one North Atlantic swordfish per person, up to three 
per vessel per trip.
    In addressing swordfish retention limits, three preferred 
alternatives were identified. One preferred alternative would increase 
the North Atlantic swordfish retention limit for vessels issued valid 
Incidental swordfish limited access permits to 30 fish per vessel per 
trip; and, for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access 
permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery, would increase the 
limit to 15 fish per vessel per trip. This alternative would allow 
vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits to 
land incidentally caught swordfish that might otherwise be discarded 
under the current two-fish limit. Also, it provides a reasonable 
opportunity for swordfish Incidental permit holders to harvest the U.S. 
swordfish quota, but prevents a large increase in additional directed 
fishing effort on swordfish. This alternative is expected to have 
limited adverse ecological impacts because vessel operators are not 
expected to substantially alter their fishing practices for the 
opportunity to land 28 additional swordfish.

[[Page 68786]]

    A second preferred alternative would allow HMS Charter/headboat 
vessels to retain one fish per paying passenger (i.e., not including 
the captain or crew), up to six swordfish per trip for charter vessels, 
and 15 swordfish per trip for headboat vessels. This alternative would 
maintain the current recreational limit of one swordfish per person, 
but increase the allowable upper retention limit from three fish per 
vessel. A six-fish upper vessel retention limit for charter vessels was 
the only alternative analyzed for this sector, besides the no action 
alternative, because these vessels are licensed to carry a maximum of 
six passengers per trip. Although headboats can carry upwards of 50 
passengers, a 15-fish retention limit was analyzed because it would 
provide a better opportunity for anglers on headboats to land a 
swordfish while maintaining a recreational aspect to the charter/
headboat fishery. In addition, given the lack of data for swordfish 
retention by anglers, a 15 fish limit is in keeping with a 
precautionary approach in that this limit is five times the limit now 
allowed, but is still conservative enough so as to preclude potential 
negative effects on the swordfish stock. This alternative is preferred 
in recognition of the fact that charter and headboat vessels may carry 
many paying passengers, and because it could provide additional U.S. 
swordfish landings with limited adverse ecological impacts.
    A third preferred alternative would allow HMS Angling category 
vessels to retain one fish per person, up to four swordfish per vessel 
per trip. This alternative maintains the current recreational limit of 
one swordfish per person, but increases the upper retention limit from 
three fish to four fish per vessel per trip. A four-fish upper vessel 
retention limit for angling vessels was the only alternative analyzed 
for this sector, besides the no action alternative, because it would 
provide a modest increase in the opportunity to land a swordfish, while 
maintaining a recreational aspect to the fishery. Because there were 
25,238 vessels issued HMS Angling category permits, as of February 1, 
2006, an increase in the upper retention limit of more than one fish 
per angling vessel was considered, but rejected, due to concerns about 
potentially excessive recreational landings. HMS Angling category 
vessels do not carry paying passengers, so a higher limit based on the 
number of paying passengers onboard was considered, but rejected. This 
alternative is preferred because it could provide additional U.S. 
swordfish landings, with limited adverse ecological impacts.
    NMFS does not expect significant adverse ecological impacts to 
result from the proposed regulations to increase swordfish retention 
limits. The ecological impacts would vary based upon the resulting 
level of fishing effort. Currently, the U.S. swordfish fleet has been 
unable to catch the entire U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota, causing 
significant amounts to be carried over to the subsequent fishing years. 
Adjusting incidental and recreational swordfish retention limits would 
allow swordfish that otherwise may have been discarded to be landed, 
thereby providing economic benefits while contributing to domestic 
swordfish landings. The proposed measures are not expected to 
significantly increase fishing effort because other management measures 
to mitigate adverse ecological impacts would remain in place. These 
include PLL time/area closures, mandatory PLL circle hook and bait 
requirements, mandatory PLL possession and use of release and 
disentanglement gear, a PLL live bait prohibition in the Gulf of 
Mexico, PLL VMS requirements, species-specific quotas, retention 
limits, minimum size limits, authorized gears, dealer and vessel 
logbook reporting, observer requirements, and HMS limited access vessel 
permits.
    The social and economic impacts associated with the proposed 
regulations to increase swordfish retention limits would vary based 
upon the amount of swordfish kept minus any additional costs associated 
with catching the additional swordfish. The potential economic benefits 
associated with increased retention limits for Incidental swordfish 
permit holders are estimated by taking the difference between the value 
of two swordfish and the value of 30 swordfish, approximately $7,864 
per vessel per trip. For Charter/headboat vessels, the economic benefit 
would be derived from an increased perceived value of a for-hire or 
private trip for an angler, due to the ability to land more fish. 
Recreational anglers might take more trips, which could also lead to 
some multiplier benefits to tackle shops, boat dealers, hotels, fuel 
suppliers, and other related businesses.

HMS Limited Access Vessel Upgrading Restrictions

    Under current regulations, owners may upgrade vessels or transfer 
permits to another vessel only if the vessel upgrade or permit transfer 
does not result in an increase in horsepower (HP) of more than 20 
percent, or an increase of more than 10 percent in length overall 
(LOA), gross registered tonnage (GRT), or net tonnage (NT), relative to 
the respective specifications of the first vessel issued the initial 
limited access permit (the baseline vessel). If any of the three vessel 
size specifications is increased, any increase in the other two must be 
performed at the same time. The current regulations also specify that 
vessel horsepower and vessel size may be increased only once. However, 
vessel size may be increased separately from an increase in vessel 
horsepower.
    The proposed regulations establish new HMS limited access vessel 
upgrading and permit transfer upgrading restrictions only for HMS 
vessels that are authorized to fish with pelagic longline gear for 
swordfish and tunas, equivalent to 35 percent LOA, GRT, and NT, as 
measured relative to the baseline vessel specifications (i.e., the 
specifications of the vessel first issued an HMS limited access 
permit), and removes HP upgrading and HP permit transfer upgrading 
restrictions for these vessels. The proposed regulations also specify 
that vessel size may be increased only once subsequent to publication 
of the final regulations. This alternative is preferred because it 
could improve the ability of U.S. vessels to fully harvest the domestic 
ICCAT recommended North Atlantic swordfish quota, but imposes some 
limits on vessel upgrading by restricting the universe of potentially 
impacted entities only to PLL vessels, and limits the magnitude of 
allowable upgrades.
    Under the proposed measures, fishing effort could potentially 
increase. However, any potential adverse ecological impacts associated 
with an increase in effort are expected to be mitigated by existing PLL 
management measures that would remain in effect, and which have 
significantly reduced bycatch in recent years. These include PLL time/
area closures, PLL circle hook and bait restrictions, and all of the 
other measures that were described above. Because these existing 
management measures would remain in effect, and because of the limits 
on the magnitude and number of vessels affected by the upgrading 
modifications, NMFS does not expect significant adverse ecological 
impacts from the proposed regulations to modify PLL vessel upgrading 
restrictions.
    Under the proposed regulations, positive social and economic 
impacts are anticipated. Vessel owners would gain economic benefits by 
having increased flexibility to adjust their vessel configurations to 
better fit their business needs. In addition, they would have a better 
ability to safely carry observers. The ability to upgrade could

[[Page 68787]]

also enhance the quality of life for crew and captains by providing 
larger, more comfortable, and more modern vessels. Finally, the 
potential to lengthen vessels and upgrade engine horsepower might have 
important positive safety implications, especially for smaller vessels 
operating far offshore in areas prone to extreme weather. The preferred 
alternative is not expected to adversely affect recreational fishing, 
as larger PLL vessels may be more likely to fish further offshore, and 
away from ecologically sensitive nearshore areas.
    NMFS intends to hold public hearings to receive comments from 
fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the 
proposed swordfish regulations. The public hearing dates and locations 
will be announced in a forthcoming notice to be published in the 
Federal Register.

Classification

    This proposed rule is published under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. NMFS has preliminarily determined that 
this action is consistent with section 304(b)(1) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, including the national standards, and other applicable 
law.
    An EA has been prepared that describes the impact on the human 
environment that could result from the implementation of alternative 
management measures to provide a reasonable opportunity for U.S. 
fishing vessels to harvest the ICCAT recommended domestic swordfish 
quota allocation by increasing recreational and incidental swordfish 
retention limits, and modifying HMS limited access vessel upgrading 
restrictions. Based on the EA, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, and a review of the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) criteria for significance evaluated above (NAO 216-6 Section 
6.02), no significant effect on the quality of the human environment is 
anticipated from this action.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    In compliance with Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared for this rule. 
The IRFA analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of the preferred 
actions and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that 
could minimize economic impacts on small entities. A summary of the 
IRFA is below. The full IRFA and analysis of economic and ecological 
impacts are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    In compliance with Section 603(b)(1) and (2) of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, to modify North Atlantic 
swordfish incidental and recreational retention limits and HMS limited 
access vessel upgrading restrictions to provide a reasonable 
opportunity for U.S. vessels to fully harvest the ICCAT recommended 
domestic swordfish quota.
    Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The proposed 
actions to modify recreational swordfish retention limits could 
directly affect approximately 4,173 HMS Charter/headboat permit 
holders, and 25,238 HMS Angling category permit holders. The proposed 
action to increase incidental swordfish retention limits could directly 
affect 48 vessel owners possessing valid swordfish Incidental permits. 
The proposed action to modify PLL vessel upgrading restrictions could 
directly affect approximately 176 PLL vessel owners possessing valid 
swordfish permits. In total, the proposed actions could directly affect 
29,587 HMS permit holders. Of these, 4,349 permit holders (the combined 
number of HMS Charter/headboat permit holders and valid swordfish-
permitted PLL vessel owners) are considered small business entities 
according to the Small Business Administration's standard for defining 
a small entity. Other small entities involved in HMS fisheries such as 
processors, tackle shops, bait suppliers, marinas, and gear 
manufacturers might be indirectly affected by the proposed regulations.
    This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-
(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule does not conflict, duplicate, or 
overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5).
    One of the requirements of an IRFA, under Section 603 of the 
Regulatory flexibility Act, is to describe any alternatives to the 
proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives and that minimize 
any significant economic impacts (5 U.S.C. 603(c)). Additionally, the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c)(1)-(4)) lists four 
categories for alternatives that must be considered. These categories 
are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources 
available to small entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or 
simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule 
for such small entities; (3) use of performance rather than design 
standards; and (4) exemptions from coverage for small entities.
    In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA), NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting 
requirements only for small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives 
that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. In 
addition, none of the alternatives considered would result in 
additional reporting or compliance requirements (category two above). 
NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that would 
satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking while, 
concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS analyzed 
six different alternatives to increase swordfish retention limits, and 
five different alternatives to modify HMS limited access vessel 
upgrading restrictions. As described below, NMFS has provided 
justification for the selection of the preferred alternatives to 
achieve the desired objectives.
    Alternative 1a is considered the no action, or status quo, 
alternative for modifying recreational and incidental swordfish 
retention limits. Under current regulations, vessels issued valid 
Incidental swordfish limited access permits, other than those in the 
squid trawl fishery, are allowed to retain, possess or land no more 
than two swordfish per vessel per trip in or from the Atlantic Ocean 
north of 5[deg] N. lat. Vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish 
limited access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery are 
allowed to retain, possess, or land no more than five swordfish per 
trip from the same area. HMS Angling and Charter/headboat vessel permit 
holders are allowed to retain one North Atlantic swordfish per person, 
up to three per vessel per trip.
    Under alternative 1a, there would be no change in the current 
baseline economic and social impacts associated with previously 
implemented North Atlantic swordfish retention limits. This alternative 
is not preferred because it may be contributing to persistent 
underharvests of the domestic swordfish quota. Nineteen percent of 
trips reported by Incidental swordfish permit holders in the HMS 
logbook from 2002 - 2005 reported swordfish discards. If any of these 
swordfish discards were attributable to exceeding the current two fish 
limit, then these discards could potentially represent lost revenues 
associated with the status quo alternative. The current recreational

[[Page 68788]]

swordfish retention limit of one fish per person, up to three per trip, 
may be lowering the demand for charter and headboat trips, especially 
when several people are on board, since each person may not be able to 
retain a swordfish.
    Under alternative 1b, the North Atlantic swordfish retention limit 
for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits 
would be removed, except that, for vessels issued valid Incidental 
swordfish permits which participate in the squid trawl fishery, the 
limit would be increased to ten, until 70 percent of the adjusted 
domestic semi-annual North Atlantic swordfish quota is projected to be 
landed. After 70 percent of the directed semi-annual is projected to be 
landed, the Incidental swordfish retention limit would revert back to 
two swordfish per trip, and five swordfish per trip for squid trawl 
vessels, for the remainder of the semi-annual period.
    Alternative 1b is not preferred because it could potentially have 
the most significant adverse ecological impacts if vessel owners with 
Incidental swordfish permits alter their strategies and choose to 
deploy additional sets to target swordfish. The potential economic gain 
from this alternative would be associated with increased landings from 
two swordfish per trip up to as many as 605 swordfish per trip (the 
highest number of swordfish reported landed by a directed vessel) minus 
what vessels could make tuna fishing during the same time if they 
switch entirely to swordfish fishing. Using the mean weight of 
swordfish landed in 2005 of 75.7 lb and the mean ex-vessel price of 
$3.71 per lb in 2005, the estimated value of potentially retaining up 
to an additional 603 swordfish could be as high as $169,351 per trip. 
However, this should only be considered an upper bound, especially 
because it does not take into account reductions in the retention of 
other species that might occur in order to make room to hold swordfish 
on the vessel. More typically, vessels issued Swordfish Directed 
permits during the period from 2002 to 2005 averaged 60 to 77 swordfish 
kept per trip. That would equate to potentially $16,289 to $21,064 in 
additional revenue per trip for Incidental swordfish permit holders 
that engage in directed fishing for swordfish, assuming they share a 
similar capability to harvest swordfish as the Directed swordfish 
permit holders.
    Alternative 1b would also increase the swordfish retention limit 
from 5 to 10 swordfish for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish 
limited access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery. 
This effectively doubles the current retention limit for these vessels. 
From 1998 [dash] 2004, all squid trawl vessels landed a combined 
average of 6.3 mt (ww) of swordfish per year. Increasing the limit for 
squid trawl vessels by an additional five swordfish per trip could 
potentially increase annual landings of swordfish by all squid trawl 
vessels to 12.6 mt (ww) in total per year. This increase of 6.3 mt (ww) 
of swordfish would be worth a total of $38,743 per year among all squid 
trawl vessels, based on the 2005 average ex-vessel price of swordfish 
of $3.71 per lb and a ratio of whole weight to dressed weight of 1.33.
    Alternative 1c, a preferred alternative, would increase the North 
Atlantic swordfish retention limit for vessels issued valid Incidental 
swordfish limited access permits to 30 fish per vessel per trip; and, 
for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits 
that participate in the squid trawl fishery, would increase the limit 
to 15 fish per vessel per trip. This alternative is preferred because 
it would provide an opportunity for Incidental swordfish permit holders 
to land swordfish that might otherwise be discarded, but prevent a 
large increase in additional directed fishing effort on swordfish. As 
many as 52 swordfish have been reported discarded on a single trip by 
Incidental swordfish permit holders, although most trips report few 
discards. A 30 fish limit is just below the median number of swordfish 
that have been landed by Directed swordfish permit holders from 2002 - 
2005 (36 fish). Thus, this alternative is expected to have limited 
adverse ecological impacts, because fishing effort is not expected to 
greatly exceed current levels.
    The economic benefits associated with this alternative are 
estimated by taking the difference between the value of two swordfish 
and the value of 30 swordfish. Using the mean weight of swordfish 
landed in 2005 of 75.7 lb and the mean ex-vessel price of $3.71 per lb 
in 2005, the estimated value of potentially retaining an additional 28 
swordfish under this alternative is $7,864 per vessel per trip. Using 
logbook records from 2005, it is projected that total annual landings 
of swordfish could increase from 10,787 lb to 34,879 lb, if all 
reported discards were converted to landings, up to 30 fish. Using the 
average ex-vessel price of $3.71 per lb for 2005, the estimated total 
value of these additional landings would be $89,381 amongst all active 
Incidental swordfish vessels per year.
    Alternative 1c would also increase the swordfish retention limit 
from 5 to 15 swordfish for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish 
limited access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery. 
This would triple the current retention limit for these vessels. From 
1998 [dash] 2004, all squid trawl vessels landed an average of 6.3 mt 
(ww) of swordfish in total per year. Increasing the limit for squid 
trawl vessels by an additional ten swordfish per trip could potentially 
increase annual landings by all squid trawl vessels to 18.9 mt (ww) in 
total per year. This increase of 12.6 mt (ww) of swordfish would be 
worth a total of $77,487 per year among all squid trawl vessels, based 
on the same prices and ratios discussed above in alternative 1b.
    Alternative 1d would increase the North Atlantic swordfish 
retention limit for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited 
access permits to 15 fish per vessel per trip; and, for vessels issued 
valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits that participate in 
the squid trawl fishery, would increase the limit to 10 fish per vessel 
per trip.
    Alternative 1d would provide an opportunity for Incidental 
swordfish permit holders to land swordfish that otherwise might be 
discarded, and would prevent a large increase in additional directed 
fishing effort on the swordfish. Therefore, this alternative would have 
only limited adverse ecological impacts because effort would be 
expected to remain at current levels. However, alternative 1d is not 
preferred because a 15 fish limit is significantly below the mean 
number of swordfish landed by Directed swordfish permit holders (36 
fish), although it is much higher than the current limit of two fish.
    The economic benefits of alternative 1d are estimated by taking the 
difference between the value of two swordfish and the value of 15 
swordfish. Using the mean weight and ex-vessel price of swordfish 
landed in 2005, as described in alternative 1c above, the estimated 
value of potentially retaining an additional 13 swordfish under this 
alternative is $3,651 per vessel per trip. Using logbook records from 
2005, it is projected that total annual landings of swordfish could 
increase from 10,787 lb to 30,350 lb, if all reported discards were 
converted to landings, up to 15 fish. Using the average ex-vessel price 
of $3.71 per lb for 2005, the estimated total value of these additional 
landings would be $72,579 amongst all active Incidental swordfish 
vessels per year.
    Alternative 1d would increase the swordfish retention limit from 5 
to 10 swordfish for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited 
access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery. This 
doubles the current

[[Page 68789]]

retention limit for these vessels. From 1998 [dash] 2004, all squid 
trawl vessels landed an average of 6.3 mt (ww) in total per year. 
Increasing the limit for squid trawl vessels by an additional five 
swordfish per trip could potentially increase annual landings by squid 
trawl vessels to 12.6 mt (ww) per year. This increase of 6.3 mt (ww) of 
swordfish would be worth a total of $38,743 among all squid trawl 
vessels per year, based on the same prices and ratios discussed above 
in alternative 1b.
    Alternative 1e, a preferred alternative, would implement a North 
Atlantic swordfish retention limit for HMS Charter/headboat vessels of 
one fish per paying passenger, up to six swordfish per trip for charter 
vessels and 15 swordfish per trip for headboat vessels. This 
alternative would maintain the current recreational limit of one 
swordfish per person, but increase the allowable upper retention limit 
from three to six fish for charter vessels, or from three fish to 
fifteen fish for headboat vessels. This alternative is preferred 
because for-hire vessels often carry multiple paying passengers. A six-
fish upper vessel retention limit for charter vessels was the only 
alternative analyzed for this sector, besides the no action 
alternative, because these vessels are licensed to carry a maximum of 
six passengers per trip. Although headboats can carry upwards of 50 
passengers, a 15-fish retention limit was analyzed because it would 
provide a better opportunity for anglers on headboats to land a 
swordfish while maintaining a recreational aspect to the charter/
headboat fishery. In addition, given the lack of data for swordfish 
retention by anglers, a 15 fish limit is in keeping with a 
precautionary approach in that this limit is five times the limit now 
allowed, but is still conservative enough so as to preclude potential 
negative effects on the swordfish stock. Thus, alternative 1e provides 
a reasonable opportunity for paying passengers to land swordfish, and 
may increase U.S. swordfish landings. Few adverse ecological impacts 
are anticipated under this alternative as swordfish are nearly rebuilt, 
and the recreational rod and reel fishery has been determined to have 
only minor impacts on protected species.
    In 2005, approximately 25 percent of the swordfish reported landed 
by Charter/headboat vessels in the HMS non-tournament recreational 
reporting database were in groups of three fish on the same date. Even 
though a quarter of the trips may have been limited in the amount of 
swordfish retained under the existing vessel trip limit, the benefits 
of raising the limit could extend beyond those trips. The economic 
benefits would result from additional bookings of charter trips, 
because the perceived value of a trip for an angler may be increased by 
the ability to land more fish. The 2004 average daily HMS charterboat 
rate for day trips was $1,053. The willingness-to-pay for swordfish 
charterboat trips is likely to be much higher than this value. 
Increased charter and headboat bookings could lead to positive economic 
multiplier impacts to tackle shops, boat dealers, hotels, fuel 
suppliers, and other associated local and regional businesses.
    Alternative 1f, a preferred alternative, would implement a North 
Atlantic swordfish recreational retention limit for HMS Angling 
category vessels of one fish per person per trip, up to four swordfish 
per vessel per trip. This alternative would maintain the current 
recreational limit of one swordfish per person, but increase the upper 
retention limit from three fish to four fish per vessel per trip. A 
four-fish upper vessel retention limit for angling vessels was the only 
alternative analyzed for this sector, besides the no action 
alternative, because it would provide a modest increase in the 
opportunity to land a swordfish, while maintaining a recreational 
aspect to the fishery. Because there were 25,238 vessels issued HMS 
Angling category permits, as of February 1, 2006, an increase in the 
upper retention limit of more than one fish per angling vessel was 
considered, but rejected, due to concerns about potentially excessive 
recreational landings. HMS Angling category vessels do not carry paying 
passengers, so a higher limit based on the number of paying passengers 
onboard was considered, but rejected. Thus, alternative 1f provides a 
reasonable opportunity for recreational anglers to land swordfish, and 
may increase U.S. swordfish landings. Few adverse ecological impacts 
are anticipated under this alternative as swordfish are nearly rebuilt, 
and the recreational rod and reel fishery has been determined to have 
only minor impacts on protected species.
    Approximately seven percent of the swordfish reported landed by 
Angling category vessels in the HMS non-tournament recreational 
reporting database were in groups of three fish on the same day. 
Therefore, the increase from three to four swordfish per vessel per 
trip under this alternative would likely affect a similar percentage of 
trips. The economic benefit of this alternative would derive from an 
increased perceived value of a trip for an angler due to the ability to 
land more fish. Recreational anglers might take more trips, which could 
lead to some multiplier benefits to tackle shops, boat dealers, hotels, 
fuel suppliers, and other related businesses. The average expenditure 
on HMS related trips is estimated to be $122 per person per day based 
on the recreational fishing expenditure survey add-on to the NMFS' 
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS). The 
expenditure data include the costs of tackle, food, lodging, bait, ice, 
boat, fuel, processing, transportation, party/charter fees, access/boat 
launching, and equipment rental.
    Alternative 2a is the no action, or status quo, alternative for 
modifying HMS limited access vessel upgrading restrictions, because it 
would retain the existing regulations. Under current regulations, 
owners may upgrade vessels or transfer permits to another vessel only 
if the vessel upgrade or permit transfer does not result in an increase 
in horsepower (HP) of more than 20 percent, or an increase of more than 
10 percent in length overall (LOA), gross registered tonnage (GRT), or 
net tonnage (NT), relative to the respective specifications of the 
first vessel issued the initial limited access permit (the baseline 
vessel). If any of the three vessel size specifications is increased, 
any increase in the other two must be performed at the same time. The 
current regulations also specify that vessel horsepower and vessel size 
may be increased only once. However, vessel size may be increased 
separately from an increase in vessel horsepower. These regulations 
have been in effect since 1999.
    Alternative 2a is not preferred because it may be contributing to 
persistent underharvests of the domestic ICCAT recommended swordfish 
quota. It may also be contributing to a decline in the number of active 
PLL vessels (i.e., vessels reporting landings) by limiting vessel 
owners' ability to optimally configure their vessels to maximize 
profits given changing ecological, regulatory, and market conditions.
    Under alternative 2a, there would be no change in the current 
baseline economic and social impacts associated with previously 
implemented North Atlantic swordfish vessel upgrade restrictions. By 
itself, the status quo alternative does not create any new economic 
burdens on HMS limited access permit holders. However, it would likely 
continue several negative economic impacts associated with upgrade 
restrictions. First, as previously mentioned, vessels may not be 
optimally configured for current market conditions, and therefore 
profits may be

[[Page 68790]]

less than optimal. Second, current upgrade restrictions may make it 
burdensome for some vessels to comply with observer accomodation 
requirements, due to inadequate bunk or berthing space. Third, some 
fishing vessels may wish to enhance their crew quarters in order to 
better attract labor. Finally, limitations on vessel upgrading may be 
affecting safety at sea. In general, a larger vessel is oftentimes more 
seaworthy than a smaller vessel, especially in rough seas. Current 
restraints on vessel size may also affect the ability to modernize or 
purchase new vessels. Without changes to upgrading restrictions, the 
number of active vessels in the swordfish PLL fleet may continue to 
decline, and persistent underharvests of the annual swordfish quota may 
continue to accrue. The following alternatives may allow for greater 
flexibility and provide for a more efficient deployment of the 
swordfish fleet.
    It is not possible to precisely quantify the economic impacts 
associated with the alternatives to modify HMS limited access permit 
vessel upgrading restrictions. This is because the decision to upgrade 
is a business decision, and depends largely upon whether the returns 
expected from an upgrade outweigh the costs of planning the upgrade, 
construction, financing, time to complete the necessary work, age of 
the current vessel, and the forgone revenues associated with being out 
of the fishery while vessel work is being completed. The potential 
economic benefits of vessel upgrades largely depend upon future 
harvests, ex-vessel prices, fuel prices, and labor costs. These factors 
fluctuate, often dramatically, with market forces from year to year 
making any estimated benefits difficult to assess. Independent of those 
factors, however, vessel owners will gain the economic benefits 
associated with having the increased flexibility to adjust vessel 
configurations in terms of length and horsepower to best fit their 
business. In addition, vessel owners under the following alternatives 
would be better able to more easily comply with observer accommodation 
requirements, and thus avoid lost fishing time. The potential to expand 
bunk and berthing areas could enhance the quality of life for crew and 
captains, providing intangible benefits and also potentially reducing 
the actual costs of retaining labor. Finally, the potential to upgrade 
vessels might have important positive safety implications, especially 
for smaller vessels operating far offshore in areas prone to extreme 
weather.
    Under each of the following alternatives, vessel owners will have 
to weigh the costs of potentially upgrading the length or horsepower of 
their vessels by the potential economic benefits associated with an 
upgrade. Many vessel owners may choose not to upgrade, even with 
relaxed upgrade restrictions, because of the capital costs associated 
with upgrading. The main economic benefit associated with the following 
alternatives will likely be from not having to acquire a permit from a 
larger vessel, including the associated transaction costs, when an 
owner wishes to increase vessel size or horsepower.
    The capital costs associated with potential upgrades are difficult 
to estimate. Large vessel length upgrades are not likely to occur by 
modifying existing vessels, according to several marine engineers and 
shipyards that NMFS contacted. They are more likely to result from the 
purchase of another vessel and the subsequent transfer of permits to 
that vessel. Horsepower upgrades are more likely to occur on existing 
vessels in conjunction with an engine replacement due to capital 
depreciation.
    NMFS contacted several shipyards regarding the potential costs of 
new vessels and upgrades to existing vessels. The shipyards agreed that 
it is probably more economical to perform large increases in vessel 
length by acquiring another larger vessel, than by modifying existing 
vessels. However, the estimated cost of building a new vessel is 
uncertain because few new vessels have been built since the upgrade 
restrictions were implemented in 1999, according to the shipyards 
contacted. The overall cost of upgrading would likely depend on the 
current size of the vessel, the age of the vessel, where the work will 
be done, financing costs, and whether an existing used vessel is 
available with the desired specifications, versus constructing a new 
vessel. For example, a 68 foot PLL vessel over 20 years old recently 
had a sales price of $245,000, according to a vessel broker list. To 
better quantify the associated costs and potential scope of vessel 
upgrades, NMFS seeks comments from the public on the current market 
costs of upgrading PLL and swordfish Handgear vessels.
    Alternative 2b would waive HMS limited access vessel upgrading and 
permit transfer upgrading restrictions for all vessels that are 
authorized to fish with pelagic longline gear for swordfish and tunas 
for 10 years, after which a new vessel baseline would be established 
and the current 10 percent LOA, GRT, NT; and 20 percent HP restrictions 
would go back into effect. A ten-year sunset provision was selected for 
this alternative because it provides a reasonable amount of time for 
owners to purchase or upgrade vessels, but establishes a deadline to 
account for any unanticipated future changes in the fishery or status 
of stocks.
    This alternative would likely have positive economic benefits for 
PLL vessel owners because it could provide increased operational 
flexibility for business owners to modify their vessels. However, it is 
not possible to predict how many vessels would be upgraded under this 
alternative, as any estimate is predicated upon the decisions of many 
different owners. Waiving vessel upgrade restrictions for PLL vessels 
could produce secondary and regional economic impacts. Shoreside 
support businesses such as shipyards, marine architects, and other 
commercial vessel suppliers could receive increased business from 
owners wanting to upgrade their vessels. Fish dealers may need to 
expand their operations to handle any greater supplies of swordfish 
that could result from increased fleet capacity. It is also possible 
that there could be reductions in the value of limited access permits 
from waiving the upgrade restrictions. The supply of usable permits for 
vessel owners that want to upgrade under the current limited access 
regulations is restricted, because permits have to meet certain 
characteristics in order to be transferred to a different vessel. 
Removing the upgrading restrictions would give a potential new entrant 
into the fishery a larger selection of permits to choose from, since 
they would be able to select from a larger pool of potential permits 
for sale. This increased supply could reduce the value of limited 
access permits. However, any improvements in the profitability of the 
fishery might increase demand for permits and could potentially offset 
any decrease in permit value.
    Alternative 2b is not preferred because there would be no limit on 
the size that PLL vessels could be upgraded to. Therefore, 
unquantifiable ecological impacts could occur, especially over the long 
term. However, it is also possible that larger PLL vessels might 
operate further offshore, thereby reducing adverse impacts in nearshore 
areas.
    Alternative 2c would waive HMS limited access swordfish handgear 
vessel upgrading and permit transfer upgrading restrictions for 10 
years, after which a new baseline would be established and the current 
restrictions would go back into effect. A ten-year sunset provision was 
selected for this alternative because it provides a reasonable amount 
of time for owners to

[[Page 68791]]

purchase or upgrade vessels, but establishes a deadline to account for 
any unanticipated future changes in the fishery or status of stocks.
    This alternative would likely have positive economic benefits for 
swordfish Handgear permit holders because it could increase operational 
flexibility for business owners to modify their vessels according to 
their business needs. However, for the same reasons discussed above, it 
is not possible to predict how many vessels would be upgraded under 
this alternative, or the anticipated economic impacts, because the 
estimate is predicated upon the decisions of many different vessel 
owners. In general, similar direct and indirect economic benefits to 
vessel owners, dealers, shipyards, processors, and shoreside support 
businesses that were discussed under alternative 2b could result.
    Alternative 2c is not preferred because it could result in 
unquantifiable ecological impacts, as there would be no limit on the 
size that swordfish Handgear vessels could be upgraded to. Therefore, 
unquantifiable ecological impacts could occur, especially over the long 
term. In addition, because the swordfish handgear fleet is currently 
most active in the East Florida Coast PLL closed area, ecological 
benefits associated with the area, including reductions in the bycatch 
of undersized swordfish, and non-target and protected species, could be 
compromised with a large expansion of the swordfish handgear fishery.
    Alternative 2d would waive all HMS limited access vessel upgrading 
and permit transfer upgrading restrictions for 10 years, after which a 
new baseline would be established and the current restrictions would go 
back into effect. This alternative would likely have the largest 
potential economic benefits as well as the largest potential adverse 
ecological costs, particularly on sharks, because the universe of 
impacted entities is the largest among all of the alternatives, and 
there would be no limit on the size that vessels could be upgraded to. 
For this reason, it is not the preferred alternative.
    Alternatives 2b and 2c would be limited to vessels that are 
eligible to fish for swordfish and tunas with PLL gear, and swordfish 
Handgear vessels, respectively. Alternative 2d includes those vessels, 
as well as all other HMS limited access vessels, including those 
eligible to fish for sharks with bottom longline gear. Therefore, 
approximately 376 additional vessels would be eligible for unlimited 
upgrades under this alternative. While all of these additional shark 
vessels could be upgraded under this alternative, few are anticipated 
to take immediate advantage of the opportunity because of current 
regulatory conditions in the domestic shark fishery. NMFS intends to 
amend the current shark regulations, so vessel owners may choose to 
wait for the amendment to be published before making major capital 
outlays. Also, Incidental shark permit holders are governed by 
retention limits for large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks 
(SCS), and pelagic sharks. Directed shark permit holders are governed 
by retention limits for LCS. Because of these retention limits, vessel 
size may not be a limiting factor in the shark fishery. Nevertheless, 
because many shark fisheries are overexploited, the potential for 
adverse ecological impacts from increased effort on these species 
exists under alternative 2d. Other economic benefits and costs are 
similar to Alternatives 2b and 2c, including any secondary economic 
impacts to shoreside industries.
    Alternative 2e, the preferred alternative, would establish new HMS 
limited access vessel upgrading and permit transfer upgrading 
restrictions only for HMS vessels that are authorized to fish with 
pelagic longline gear for swordfish and tunas (i.e., vessels that 
possess directed or incidental shark and swordfish permits, and a Tuna 
longline permit), equivalent to 35 percent LOA, GRT, and NT, as 
measured relative to the baseline vessel specifications (i.e., the 
specifications of the vessel first issued an HMS limited access 
permit), and remove horsepower upgrading and permit transfer upgrading 
restrictions for these vessels. This alternative is preferred because 
it would improve the ability of U.S. vessels to fully harvest the 
domestic ICCAT recommended swordfish quota, but would impose some 
limits on vessel upgrading by restricting the universe of potentially 
impacted entities to PLL vessels only, and by limiting the magnitude of 
allowable upgrades.
    Alternative 2e is anticipated to have slightly lower economic 
benefits to permit holders than alternative 2d, and would likely have a 
very similar outcome to alternative 2b, except that a few dramatic 
upgrades would not qualify and there would be no reversion back to the 
current regulations after 10 years. For the same reasons discussed 
above under alternative 2a, however, it is not possible to accurately 
predict how many vessels will be upgraded, or the anticipated future 
capacity of the fishery, because the prediction is dependent upon the 
business decisions of many individual boat owners.
    For an ``average'' 55-foot swordfish vessel, this alternative could 
result in a 69 [dash] 74 foot vessel, depending upon whether the vessel 
has already been upgraded. At the opposite ends of the spectrum, it is 
also possible that all PLL vessels could increase by 25 [dash] 35 
percent or, conversely, none of the PLL vessels would be upgraded. PLL 
vessel owners would gain the economic benefits associated with having 
increased operational flexibility to adjust vessel configurations in 
terms of length and horsepower to best fit their business needs. 
However, that flexibility would be capped by imposing a 35 percent 
limit on increases in vessel length, gross tonnage, and net tonnage, 
unlike alternatives 2b, 2c, and 2d which have no limits on the size of 
upgrades.
    Other economic benefits and costs are similar to alternatives 2b, 
2c, and 2d, including any secondary economic impacts to shoreside 
industries.
    These proposed regulations are not expected to substantially 
increase endangered species or marine mammal interaction rates, or 
impacts on critical habitat beyond those that have already been 
considered in the June 2001 Biological Opinion (BiOp) on Atlantic HMS 
Fisheries, and the June 2004 BiOp for the HMS PLL fisheries. In the 
June 2001 BiOp, it was determined that the continued operation of the 
Atlantic HMS rod and reel fishery is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the right whale, humpback, fin, or sperm whales, 
or Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, hawksbill, or leatherback sea 
turtles. The June 2004 BiOp determined that the continued operation of 
the PLL fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, or olive ridley sea 
turtles, but is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
leatherback sea turtles.
    NMFS has since promulgated regulations on the PLL fishery required 
by the 2004 BiOp to avoid jeopardy of leatherback sea turtles, 
including sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality mitigation measures 
for all Atlantic vessels with PLL gear onboard. These regulations 
require PLL vessels to use only 18/0 (or larger) circle hooks with 
whole mackerel and/or squid bait when fishing in the Northeast Distant 
(NED) Statistical Reporting Area, and to use only 16/0 and/or 18/0 
circle hooks with whole finfish or squid bait when fishing everywhere 
outside of the NED. In addition, PLL vessels must possess and use sea 
turtle release equipment according to specified sea turtle handling and 
release protocols. Handling and release guidelines are also required to 
be posted in the

[[Page 68792]]

wheelhouse. NMFS also implemented several time/area closures between 
1999 and 2002, which, in combination with other management measures 
including quotas, minimum fish sizes, observer requirements, VMS 
requirements, a PLL live bait prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico, 
retention limits, authorized gears, billfish possession prohibition, 
and dealer and vessel logbook reporting, have contributed to a 
significant reduction in the bycatch of target, non-target, and 
protected species. These management measures would remain in effect, 
and are expected to mitigate any potential increase in fishing effort 
that could result from the proposed regulations. Thus, NMFS believes 
that the proposed regulations do not change the conclusion of, nor 
would they result in effects that have not been considered in, the June 
2001 and June 2004 BiOps. Accordingly, no irreversible or irretrievable 
commitment of resources is expected from the proposed action.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

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

    Dated: November 22, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For 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.  635.4, paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iv), 
the first sentence in paragraph (l)(2)(v), and the first sentence in 
paragraph(l)(2)(vi) are revised; and paragraph (l)(2)(x) is added to 
read as follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits and fees.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Subject to the restrictions on upgrading the harvesting 
capacity of permitted vessels in paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and (x) of this 
section and to the limitations on ownership of permitted vessels in 
paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, an owner may transfer a shark or 
swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit to another 
vessel that he or she owns to another person. Directed handgear LAPs 
for swordfish may be transferred to another vessel but only for use 
with handgear and subject to the upgrading restrictions in paragraph 
(l)(2)(ii) of this section and the limitations on ownership of 
permitted vessels in paragraph (iii) of this section. Incidental catch 
LAPs are not subject to the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(l)(2)(ii) and (l)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (ii) Except as specified in paragraph (l)(2)(x) of this section, an 
owner may upgrade a vessel with a shark, swordfish, or tuna longline 
limited access permit, or transfer the limited access permit to another 
vessel, and be eligible to retain or renew a limited access permit only 
if the upgrade or transfer does not result in an increase in horsepower 
of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent in 
length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the 
vessel baseline specifications.
* * * * *
    (iv) In order to transfer a swordfish, shark or tuna longline 
limited access permit to a replacement vessel, the owner of the vessel 
issued the limited access permit must submit a request to NMFS, at an 
address designated by NMFS, to transfer the limited access permit to 
another vessel, subject to requirements specified in paragraph 
(l)(2)(ii) or (l)(2)(x), of this section, as applicable. The owner must 
return the current valid limited access permit to NMFS with a complete 
application for a limited access permit, as specified in paragraph (h) 
of this section, for the replacement vessel. Copies of both vessels' 
U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration must accompany the 
application.
    (v) For swordfish, shark, and tuna longline limited access permit 
transfers to a different person, the transferee must submit a request 
to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, to transfer the original 
limited access permit(s), subject to the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), and (l)(2)(x) of this section, as 
applicable. * * *
    (vi) For limited access permit transfers in conjunction with the 
sale of the permitted vessel, the transferee of the vessel and limited 
access permit(s) issued to that vessel must submit a request to NMFS, 
at an address designated by NMFS, to transfer the limited access 
permit(s), subject to the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), and (l)(2)(x) of this section, as applicable. 
* * *
* * * * *
    (x) An owner may upgrade a vessel that has been issued valid 
swordfish, shark and Atlantic tunas longline category permits, 
inclusive, or transfer the limited access permits to another vessel, 
and be eligible to retain or renew the limited access permits only if 
the upgrade or transfer does not result in an increase of more than 35 
percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage 
from the vessel baseline specifications. Horsepower for vessels that 
have been issued these three permits is not limited.
    (A) The vessel baseline specifications are the respective 
specifications (length overall, gross registered tonnage, net tonnage) 
of the first vessel that was issued an initial limited access permit 
or, if applicable, of that vessel's replacement owned as of May 28, 
1999.
    (B) Subsequent to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the vessel's 
length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage may be 
increased only once, relative to the baseline specifications of the 
vessel initially issued the LAP, whether through refitting, 
replacement, or transfer. An increase in any of these three 
specifications of vessel size may not exceed 35 percent of the baseline 
specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP. If any of these 
three specifications is increased, any increase in the other two must 
be performed at the same time. The one allowable increase in these 
three specifications may be performed even if an increase in these 
three specifications has already been performed prior to [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], provided that the increase in any of these 
three specifications of vessel size does not exceed 35 percent of the 
baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP.
    3. In Sec.  635.22, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.22  Recreational retention limits.

* * * * *
    (f) North Atlantic swordfish. The recreational retention limits for 
North Atlantic swordfish apply to persons who fish in any manner, 
except to persons aboard a vessel that has been issued a limited access 
North Atlantic swordfish permit under Sec.  635.4(f).
    (1) Vessels issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit under Sec.  
635.4(b), that are charter boats as defined under Sec.  600.10 of this 
chapter, may retain, possess, or land no more than one North Atlantic 
swordfish per paying passenger up to six per vessel per trip.
    (2) Vessels issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit under Sec.  
635.4(b), that are headboats as defined under Sec.  600.10 of this 
chapter, may retain, possess, or land no more than one North Atlantic

[[Page 68793]]

swordfish per paying passenger up to fifteen per vessel per trip.
    (3) Vessels issued an HMS Angling category permit under Sec.  
635.4(c), may retain, possess, or land no more than one North Atlantic 
swordfish per person up to four per vessel per trip.
    4. In Sec.  635.24, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  635.24  Commercial retention limits for sharks and swordfish.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Persons aboard a vessel that has been issued an incidental LAP 
for swordfish may retain, possess, land, or sell no more than 30 
swordfish per trip in or from the Atlantic Ocean north of 5[deg] N. 
lat.
    (2) Persons aboard a vessel in the squid trawl fishery that has 
been issued an incidental LAP for swordfish may retain, possess, land, 
or sell no more than 15 swordfish per trip in or from the Atlantic 
Ocean north of 5[deg] N. lat. A vessel is considered to be in the squid 
trawl fishery when it has no commercial fishing gear other than trawls 
on board and when squid constitute not less than 75 percent by weight 
of the total fish on board or offloaded from the vessel.
[FR Doc. 06-9436 Filed 11-22-06; 2:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S