[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 71 (Friday, April 11, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19795-19801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7820]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 080130104-8105-01]
RIN 0648-AW46


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Renewal of Atlantic Tunas 
Longline Limited Access Permits; and, Atlantic Shark Dealer Workshop 
Attendance Requirements

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the regulations governing the 
renewal of Atlantic tunas longline limited access permits (LAPs) and 
amend the workshop attendance requirements for businesses issued 
Atlantic shark dealer permits. Specifically, the proposed regulatory 
changes would allow for the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs 
that have been expired for more than one year, if the most recent 
permit holder of record originally qualified for the Atlantic tunas 
LAP, or if the most recent permit holder of record subsequently 
obtained a permit by transfer, and has maintained the associated 
swordfish and shark LAPs through timely renewal. Also, this rule 
proposes to amend the Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop 
requirements by: specifying that a workshop certificate be submitted 
and displayed for each place of business listed on the dealer permit 
which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or 
trade, rather than from each location listed on their dealer permit; 
and requiring that a copy of a valid workshop certificate be possessed 
in a truck or other conveyance serving as an extension of a dealer's 
business.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 
12, 2008. Public hearings will be held in May of 2008. See the preamble 
of this notice for specific dates, times, and locations.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to 
Richard A. Pearson, Fishery Management Specialist, Highly Migratory 
Species Management Division. Please submit comments using any of the 
following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Include in the subject line the following identifier: ``RIN 0648-
AW46.''
     Mail: NMFS HMS Management Division, 263 13\th\ Avenue 
South, Saint Petersburg, FL, 33701. Please mark the outside of the 
envelope ``Comments on Proposed Tuna Permits/Workshops Rule.''
     Fax: (727)824-5398.
    All comments received are part of the public record and will 
generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All 
Personal Identifying Information (e.g., name, address, etc.) 
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do 
not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or 
protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments 
to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, 
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Related documents, including a 2007 Final Environmental Assessment 
(EA) and Final Rule (72 FR 31688, June 7, 2007) implementing revised 
vessel upgrading regulations for vessels concurrently issued Atlantic 
tunas longline, swordfish, and shark LAPs; and the 2006 Final 
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan 
(Consolidated HMS FMP) and its Final Rule (71 FR 58058, October 2, 
2006) implementing Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops are 
available from the HMS Management Division website at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms, or by contacting Richard A. Pearson (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    The public hearings will be held in Gloucester, MA; Saint 
Petersburg, FL; and Silver Spring, MD. See the preamble of this notice 
for specific dates, times, and locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Pearson, by phone: 727-824-
5399; by fax: 727-824-5398.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Atlantic tuna and swordfish fisheries are managed under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 
(ATCA). Atlantic sharks are managed under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

Renewal of Atlantic Tunas Longline LAPs

    LAPs were first implemented in HMS fisheries in 1999, primarily to

[[Page 19796]]

rationalize fleet harvesting capacity in Atlantic swordfish and shark 
fisheries with the available quota allocation for these species, and to 
facilitate other fishery management measures implemented at the time. 
The Atlantic tunas longline LAP was established because of the 
likelihood of encountering swordfish and sharks when fishing with 
pelagic longline (PLL) gear for Atlantic tunas, and vice-versa. In 
recognition of the interrelationship between these longline fisheries, 
the Atlantic tunas longline LAP complemented management measures in the 
swordfish and shark fisheries.
    Since 1999, vessel owners have been required to simultaneously 
possess three permits (Atlantic tunas longline; swordfish directed or 
incidental; and, shark directed or incidental) in order to retain 
Atlantic tunas caught with longline gear, or to retain swordfish caught 
with any gear other than handgear. An Atlantic tunas longline LAP is 
only considered valid, or useable, if the vessel has also been issued 
both a shark LAP and a swordfish LAP (other than handgear). Similarly, 
a swordfish LAP (other than handgear) is only considered valid, or 
useable, when a vessel has also been issued both a shark LAP and an 
Atlantic tunas longline LAP. The current regulations for each of these 
permits specify that only persons holding non-expired LAPs in the 
preceding year are eligible to renew those permits.
    During the recent implementation of revised vessel upgrading 
restrictions for PLL vessels (72 FR 31688, June 7, 2007), NMFS found 
that a number of vessel owners had inadvertently allowed their Atlantic 
tunas longline LAPs to lapse for more than one year, although their 
accompanying swordfish and shark LAPs had been maintained through 
timely renewal. This may have been because of differences in the 
operational aspects and renewal procedures between swordfish and shark 
LAPs, and Atlantic tunas longline LAPs. The Atlantic tunas longline 
permit renewal system was originally developed as a self-service, web-
based electronic system that was administered by an off-site contractor 
for the primary purpose of issuing other open access permits. It was 
modified for the issuance of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs by requiring 
the applicant to either call a contracted customer service office (if 
there are no changes to the permit), or to call NMFS' Northeast 
Regional HMS office (if there are changes to the permit). The 
information is then entered online by the contractor or by NMFS, and 
the permit is issued using the on-line website. In contrast, swordfish 
and shark LAPs are administered and renewed by submitting paper 
applications to NMFS' Southeast Regional permit office. A significant 
difference between the two systems is that the Atlantic tunas longline 
LAP cannot be held in ``no vessel'' status. ``No vessel'' status allows 
a permit holder to retain a permit even if they no longer own a vessel. 
This is not the case with Atlantic tunas longline LAPs which cannot be 
renewed without specifying a vessel. An Atlantic tunas longline permit 
holder must either move the Atlantic tunas longline LAP to a 
replacement vessel or forfeit the permit. Many vessel owners were not 
aware of these options, or were confused by them, and let their 
Atlantic tunas longline LAP permit expire because they no longer owned 
a vessel even though they thought they remained eligible to renew the 
Atlantic tunas longline LAP.
    Another difference between the Atlantic tunas longline LAP and 
swordfish and shark LAPs is that the tunas longline LAP does not have a 
unique permit number associated with it that stays unchanged through 
time, whereas swordfish and shark LAPs do. Atlantic tunas permit 
numbers remain directly associated with a vessel's Coast Guard 
documentation or state registration number. Because of this, 
``ownership'' of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP has been more 
difficult to track over time because the permit number changes with 
each transfer of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP to another vessel.
    The operational constraints, or differences, associated with the 
Atlantic tunas longline LAP permit system described above were not 
fully recognized until revised vessel upgrading regulations were 
implemented through a recent rulemaking. Specifically, the historical 
practices that had been used to adapt the electronic web-based Atlantic 
tunas permit system to the HMS limited access permit regulations were 
found to be deficient when NMFS was determining, in September 2007, 
which permit holders were issued, or were eligible to renew, an 
Atlantic tunas longline LAP. Due to these systematic operational 
constraints, the regulations governing the renewal of Atlantic tunas 
longline LAPs were administered differently than for swordfish and 
shark LAPs prior to September 2007. Furthermore, based upon public 
comment and statements received at HMS Advisory Panel (AP) meetings and 
other hearings, NMFS became aware of continuing uncertainty in the 
fishing industry regarding the renewal, issuance, and eligibility for 
the Atlantic tunas longline LAP and the applicability of the one-year 
renewal requirement. This proposed rule would amend the current 
regulations to better reflect the operational capabilities of the 
Atlantic tunas longline LAP permit renewal system and reduce the 
potential for future confusion.
    NMFS has identified approximately 40 vessels/permit holders that 
originally qualified for the Atlantic tunas longline LAP, or were 
subsequently transferred the permit, but are no longer eligible to 
renew the permit because it has been expired for more than one year. 
Most of these vessel/permit holders have concurrently been issued, or 
are eligible to renew, both their Atlantic swordfish LAP (other than 
handgear) and their shark LAP. However, because these permit holders 
are not eligible to renew their Atlantic tunas longline LAP, they are 
not allowed to retain any Atlantic swordfish, or any Atlantic tunas 
captured on longline gear. This exacerbates a situation where the 
number of available Atlantic tunas longline LAPs is insufficient to 
match the number of available swordfish and shark incidental or 
directed permits, thus rendering many swordfish permits essentially 
unusable because all three permits are required to retain swordfish 
(with any gear other than handgear).
    This proposed rule would amend the HMS regulations to remove the 
one-year renewal timeframe for Atlantic tunas longline LAPs. It would 
allow NMFS to issue Atlantic tunas longline LAPs to the most recent 
permit holder of record, even if they have failed to renew it within 
one year of expiration, provided that their associated swordfish and 
shark LAPs have been maintained through timely renewal and all other 
current requirements for permit renewal are met. The proposed rule 
would continue to specify that only persons holding non-expired 
swordfish and shark LAPs in the preceding year would be eligible to 
renew those permits. Also, the requirement to possess swordfish and 
shark LAPs in order to obtain an Atlantic tunas longline LAP would 
remain in effect. Finally, the current requirement to possess all three 
valid permits (incidental or directed swordfish and shark permits, and 
Atlantic tunas longline permit) to fish for tunas with PLL gear and to 
retain commercially-caught swordfish (other than with a commercial 
swordfish handgear permit) would remain unchanged. The proposed 
measures would not increase the number of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs 
beyond the number of permit holders that currently

[[Page 19797]]

possess, or are eligible to renew, both their swordfish and shark LAPs.
    This proposed action is necessary to help ensure that an adequate 
number of complementary Atlantic tunas longline LAPs are available for 
swordfish and shark commercial permit holders to fish legally for 
Atlantic swordfish and tunas with PLL gear. The proposed measures would 
reinforce recent efforts by NMFS to ``revitalize'' the swordfish and 
tunas PLL fishery. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, 
this proposed rule would also help to provide a reasonable opportunity 
for U.S. vessels to more fully harvest the domestic swordfish quota, 
which is derived from the recommendations of the International 
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), in 
recognition that the North Atlantic swordfish stock is almost fully 
rebuilt (B = 0.99Bmsy). In doing so, the proposed action could help the 
United States retain its historic swordfish quota allocation at ICCAT, 
as domestic landings have been well below that quota in recent years.

Atlantic Shark Dealer Workshop Requirements

    Current HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.8 require that permitted 
Atlantic shark dealers attend an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop 
and receive workshop certification. The purpose of this requirement is 
to improve the identification and reporting of shark species by dealers 
for accurate quota monitoring and stock assessments. If a dealer 
attends and successfully completes a workshop, the dealer will receive 
workshop certificates for each location listed on their Atlantic shark 
dealer permit. If the dealer sends a proxy, they must send a proxy for 
each location listed on the Atlantic shark dealer permit. Atlantic 
shark dealers may not renew their Atlantic shark dealer permit without 
submitting either a dealer or proxy certificate for each location 
listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. Additionally, Atlantic 
shark dealers may not ``first-receive'' shark products at a location 
unless a valid workshop certificate is on the premises of each place of 
business listed under the shark dealer permit. As initially discussed 
in the proposed rule for Amendment 2 for the Management of Atlantic 
Shark Fisheries (July 27, 2007; 72 FR 41392), and anticipated to be 
contained in the final rule, ``first-receive'' means to take immediate 
possession of fish, or any part of a fish, as they are offloaded from 
the owner or operator of a vessel for commercial purposes.
    Since implementation of these requirements, NMFS has observed that 
some dealers may not be first receiving shark products at all of the 
locations listed on their permit, thus making it unnecessary to require 
shark workshop certification for those locations. These dealers have 
multiple locations listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit, 
including those where they may not first receive shark products. For 
example, a dealer may purchase red snapper at one location, and shark 
at another location. However, the dealer's shark permit lists both of 
these locations as owned by the dealer, including the snapper-only 
site, making it necessary for workshop certification at both the shark 
site and the snapper site. It is not currently feasible, for both 
technical and administrative reasons, to modify the NMFS permits 
database to accommodate dealers who have different locations where they 
first receive different species.
    To remedy this situation, NMFS is proposing a minor amendment to 
the HMS regulations which would specify that, when applying for or 
renewing an Atlantic shark dealer permit, an applicant must submit an 
Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate (dealer or proxy) 
for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first 
receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, rather 
than for each location listed on their dealer permit. This proposed 
action would eliminate the need for a dealer to send a proxy to a 
workshop to obtain a certificate for a business location that does not 
first receive Atlantic shark products for the sole purpose of renewing 
their Atlantic shark dealer permit. The requirement to display an 
Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate would similarly only 
be required at locations listed on the dealer permit where sharks are 
first received. Additionally, NMFS proposes to require extensions of a 
dealer's business, such as trucks and other conveyances, to possess a 
copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of 
business covered by the dealer permit. This requirement would allow 
trucks and other conveyances to be immediately identified as extensions 
of a NMFS certified place of business which is eligible to first 
receive Atlantic sharks. With these minor amendments, the objective of 
improved identification and reporting of shark species is expected to 
continue, while the impact on dealers may be lessened.

Clarification of Buoy Gear Usage

    NMFS proposes to make a technical clarification to refine the 
regulatory language describing buoy gear usage. It would reinforce 
existing language in the ``prohibitions'' section of the HMS 
regulations regarding which permit holders are authorized to utilize 
buoy gear. This clarification would not result in any substantive 
change to the buoy gear usage requirements. NMFS is proposing this 
minor change to address questions and comments received from 
constituents and to ensure consistency within the HMS regulations.

Request for Comments

    Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted at public hearings, 
or via the federal e-Rulemaking portal, mail, or fax (see ADDRESSES). 
Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by May 12, 2008.

Public Hearings

    NMFS will hold three public hearings to receive comments from 
fishery participants and other members of the public regarding this 
proposed rule. These hearings will be physically accessible to people 
with disabilities. Request for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Richard A. Pearson at (727) 824-
5399 at least five days prior to the hearing date. At the beginning of 
each meeting, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules 
(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be 
called to give their comments in the order in which they register to 
speak; and the attendees should not interrupt one another, etc.). The 
NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all 
attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so 
choose. Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if 
they do not, they will be asked to leave the meeting. For individuals 
unable to attend a hearing, NMFS also solicits written comments on the 
proposed rule (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
    The hearing dates and locations are:
    1. May 1, 2008, 3:30 - 5:30 p.m., NMFS Northeast Regional Office, 
One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
    2. May 6, 2008, 6 - 8 p.m., NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 
13\th\ Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701.
    3. May 7, 2008, 3 - 5 p.m., NOAA Auditorium, 1301 East West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, other

[[Page 19798]]

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, 
subject to further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is 
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at 
the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY 
section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of 
this analysis is 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 synchronize the number of 
available limited access swordfish, shark, and tunas longline permits 
to help provide a reasonable opportunity for U.S. vessels to harvest 
quota allocations recommended by the International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), in recognition of the improved 
stock status of North Atlantic swordfish (B = 0.99Bmsy). The proposed 
action regarding the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs that have 
been expired for more than one year is necessary to help ensure that an 
adequate number of complementary Atlantic tunas longline LAPs are 
available for swordfish and shark LAP holders to fish legally for 
Atlantic swordfish and tunas with PLL gear.
    The proposed amendment regarding attendance requirements at 
Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops would specify that, for permit 
renewal, a dealer must submit an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop 
certificate (dealer or proxy) for each place of business listed on the 
dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, 
barter, or trade, rather than from each location listed on their dealer 
permit. This would eliminate the need for a dealer to send a proxy to a 
workshop to obtain a certificate for a business location that does not 
first receive Atlantic shark products for the sole purpose of renewing 
their Atlantic shark dealer permit. The requirement to display an 
Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate would similarly only 
be required at locations listed on the dealer permit where sharks are 
first received. The proposed measure is the preferred method to address 
this issue because it is not feasible, for both technical and 
administrative reasons, to modify the NMFS permits database to 
accommodate dealers having different locations where they first receive 
different species. Additionally, the proposed action would require 
extensions of a dealer's business, such as trucks and other 
conveyances, to possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate 
issued to a place of business covered by the dealer permit. This 
requirement would allow trucks and other conveyances to be immediately 
identified as extensions of a NMFS- certified place of business which 
is eligible to first receive Atlantic sharks. The identification and 
reporting of shark species would not be compromised, but impacts on 
dealers would be lessened.
    Section 603(b)(3) requires agencies to provide an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The proposed 
action to modify permit renewal requirements for Atlantic tunas LAPs 
would most immediately impact approximately 40 vessel owners that are 
the most recent permit holders of record, but are currently not 
eligible to renew that permit because it has been expired for more than 
one year. Potentially, 245 vessel owners that are currently issued 
Atlantic tunas LAPs, as well as swordfish and shark LAPs, could be 
affected by this action if, in the future, they fail to renew their 
Atlantic tunas longline LAP within one year of expiration.
    Prior to the effective date of the shark workshop certificate 
requirement (December 2007), there were 186 individual Atlantic shark 
dealer permits issued by NMFS. Fifty-six of these individual dealers 
had multiple locations listed on their permit (ranging from two to 11 
locations). As of February 6, 2008, 67 shark dealers had been issued 
workshop certificates for all of their locations. NMFS has identified 
108 shark dealers that have not been issued any certificates for any 
locations. Finally, 12 of the 56 dealers with multiple locations listed 
on their permit have been issued at least one certificate, but not 
certificates for all of the locations listed on their permit. Thus, 
under the current regulations, they are not eligible to renew their 
shark dealer permit. These 12 Atlantic shark dealers who have not been 
issued proxy certificates for all of their locations would be most 
immediately affected by the proposed action regarding attendance 
requirements at Atlantic Shark Identification Workshops. Potentially, 
any of the 56 shark dealers with multiple locations listed on their 
permit could be impacted by the proposed action. All of the 
aforementioned businesses are considered small business entities 
according to the Small Business Administration's standard for defining 
a small entity.
    This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting, record 
keeping, 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 and ATCA, 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 considered two different alternatives to modify the renewal 
procedures for the Atlantic tunas longline LAP. The impacts and 
justification for the selection of the preferred alternative are 
described below.
    Alternative 1 for the renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs 
(alternative 2.1.1 in the IRFA) is the No Action, or status quo 
alternative. Current HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.4(m)(2) specify that 
only persons holding a non-expired Atlantic tunas longline LAP in the 
preceding year are

[[Page 19799]]

eligible to renew that permit. Under alternative 1, there would be no 
change in the existing regulations and, as such, no change in the 
current baseline economic impacts. However, the situation regarding the 
renewal of Atlantic tunas longline LAPs is unique. As discussed in the 
preamble, until September 2007, the regulations governing the renewal 
of the Atlantic tunas longline LAP were administered differently than 
for swordfish and shark LAPs. Since September 2007, the permit renewal 
regulations have been administered similarly. Thus, the No Action 
alternative would continue any existing economic impacts, but those 
impacts have only been in existence since September 2007.
    The No Action alternative is not preferred because it has the 
largest associated adverse economic impacts. Without an Atlantic tunas 
longline LAP, a permit holder is prohibited from fishing for tunas with 
longline gear and from retaining swordfish, even if the vessel has been 
issued a directed or incidental swordfish permit. As many as 40 
commercial fishing vessels that have historically participated in the 
PLL fishery would continue to be prohibited from participating in the 
fishery, harvesting the U.S. swordfish quota, and creating jobs. 
Resultant lossess to the overall economy of as much as $7,842,280 in 
annual gross revenues would continue to occur under this alternative. 
Also, between $200,000 and $721,839 in fleet-wide lost net revenues 
would continue to occur, distributed among the 40 vessels that are 
impacted by this alternative. Each individual vessel owner would 
continue to lose from $0 to potentially over $100,000 in net revenues 
annually, depending upon the profitability of their business.
    Under Proposed Alternative 2 (preferred alternative 2.1.2 in the 
IRFA), NMFS would remove the one-year renewal timeframe for Atlantic 
tunas LAPs. This would allow the Agency to issue Atlantic tunas LAPs to 
the most recent permit holder of record, even if the permit had not 
been renewed within one year of expiration, provided that the 
associated swordfish and shark LAPs had been maintained through timely 
renewal and all other current requirements for permit renewal were met. 
The requirement to possess swordfish and shark LAPs in order to obtain 
an Atlantic tunas LAP would remain in effect. Also, current regulations 
which specify that only persons holding non-expired swordfish and shark 
LAPs in the preceding year are eligible to renew those permits would 
remain in effect.
    Relative to the No Action alternative, removing the one-year 
renewal timeframe for Atlantic tunas LAPs is projected to potentially 
increase net and gross revenues for approximately 40 vessel owners who 
are otherwise qualified to fish for swordfish and tunas with longline 
gear, except that they are currently ineligible to renew their Atlantic 
tunas longline LAP. Overall gross economic benefits could potentially 
increase as much as $7,842,280 under this alternative, relative to the 
baseline. Also, an overall fleet-wide increase in net revenues 
(profits) of approximately $200,000 to $721,839 could occur, 
distributed among the 40 vessels potentially impacted by this 
alternative. Under this alternative, each individual vessel owner could 
see an increase in annual net revenues ranging from $0 to potentially 
over $100,000, depending upon the profitability of their business.
    Another important economic benefit associated with the proposed 
action is that it could help to maintain the domestic swordfish and 
tuna PLL fishery at historical levels. All of the potentially affected 
vessels/permit holders originally qualified for the longline fishery in 
1999, or received the necessary permits through transfer. If adopted, 
the proposed action could help the United States retain its historic 
swordfish quota allocation at ICCAT and sustain employment 
opportunities by maintaining the PLL fleet at historical levels. 
Maintaining a viable domestic PLL fishery is important, because it 
helps to demonstrate to other nations that a well-managed, 
environmentally-sound fishery can also be profitable. This could 
eventually provide an incentive for other nations to adopt similar 
management measures that are currently required of the U.S. PLL fleet 
such as circle hooks, careful release gears, and others.
    A related potential impact associated with both alternatives is 
that changes to the value of an Atlantic tunas longline LAP could occur 
by changing the supply of available permits. The no action alternative 
would likely reduce the supply of available permits over time, thereby 
increasing the value. The proposed action could initially increase the 
supply, and thereby reduce the value. These impacts would be either 
positive or negative for small business entities, depending upon 
whether the Atlantic tunas longline LAP was being bought or sold.
    There are no other significant alternatives for the renewal of 
Atlantic tunas longline permit, except for the two aforementioned 
alternatives. The proposed action achieves the objectives of this 
rulemaking, provides benefits to small entities, and has few associated 
impacts because the proposed regulatory changes are more representative 
of the actual operational capabilities of the Atlantic tunas longline 
LAP renewal system.
    Alternative 1 for attendance requirements at Atlantic Shark 
Identification Workshops (alternative 2.2.1 in the IRFA) is the no 
action alternative. All dealers intending to renew their Atlantic shark 
dealer permit would continue to be required to become certified at an 
Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop, or to have their proxies 
certified. Dealers with multiple locations would receive certificates 
for each location listed on their permit. Dealers opting not to become 
certified and to send a proxy would continue to be required to send a 
proxy for each location listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. 
Atlantic shark dealers would not be allowed to renew their permit 
without submitting either a dealer or proxy certificate for each 
location listed on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. Additionally, 
Atlantic shark dealers could not first receive shark products at a 
location that does not have a valid workshop certificate for that 
address on the premises.
    There are approximately 56 Atlantic shark dealers with more than 
one location listed on their permit. These dealers have the choice of 
becoming certified themselves, or sending a proxy to the workshops for 
each location listed on a permit. As described in the Consolidated HMS 
FMP and its final rule (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006), on an individual 
basis the costs incurred by dealers and/or proxies are those related to 
travel and the time required to attend the workshops, which result in 
out of pocket expenses and lost opportunity costs. Travel costs to 
attend these workshops vary, depending upon the distance that must be 
traveled. Daily opportunity costs for dealers are not currently known. 
Therefore, it is not possible to precisely quantify the costs 
associated with the no action alternative. At a minimum, the costs for 
a dealer attending a workshop include travel expenses and at least one 
day of lost opportunity costs. At a maximum, for dealers opting to send 
proxies for each location listed on their permit, the costs could 
include travel expenses for several proxies and several days of lost 
opportunity costs.
    Alternative 2 for Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop attendance 
requirements (preferred alternative 2.2.2 in the IRFA) would specify 
that, upon permit renewal, a dealer must submit an

[[Page 19800]]

Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate (dealer or proxy) 
for each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first 
receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, rather 
than from each location listed on their dealer permit. The requirement 
to display an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop certificate would 
similarly only be required at locations listed on the dealer permit 
where sharks are first received. This would eliminate the need for a 
dealer to send a proxy to a workshop to obtain a certificate for a 
business location that does not first receive Atlantic shark products 
for the sole purpose of renewing their Atlantic shark dealer permit.
    As mentioned above, there are currently 56 shark dealers with 
multiple locations listed on their permit which could be impacted by 
the proposed action. Of these, 12 Atlantic shark dealers have not 
currently been issued Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop 
certificates for all of the locations listed on their permit.
    NMFS anticipates that the total costs (travel costs and opportunity 
costs) associated with proposed alternative 2 for Atlantic Shark 
Identification Workshop attendance requirements would be lower than 
those associated with the no action alternative, but only for those 
Atlantic shark dealers that: (1) opt to send a proxy (or proxies) to 
the workshop; (2) have multiple locations listed on their permit; and, 
(3) only first receive shark products at some of the locations listed 
on their Atlantic shark dealer permit. Costs would remain unchanged for 
shark dealers that do not meet these three criteria. For dealers that 
meet these criteria, the costs would be reduced by an amount equivalent 
to sending proxies for each location listed on the permit that do not 
first receive shark products. For example, if a dealer chooses to send 
proxies and has four locations listed on the permit, but only two of 
those locations first receive shark products, the costs would be 
reduced by the amount equivalent to sending two proxies to an Atlantic 
Shark Identification Workshop.
    Alternative 2 would also require extensions of a dealer's business, 
such as trucks and other conveyances, to possess a copy of a valid 
dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of business covered by 
the dealer permit. This requirement would allow trucks and other 
conveyances to be immediately identified as extensions of a NMFS 
certified place of business which is eligible to first receive Atlantic 
sharks. NMFS anticipates that this requirement would have minimal costs 
but could improve the enforceability of existing Atlantic shark 
regulations.
    There are no other significant alternatives for workshop attendance 
requirements except for these two alternatives. Administratively it is 
not currently feasible, for both technical and programmatic reasons, to 
modify the NMFS permits database to accommodate dealers having 
different locations where they first receive different species. The 
requirement to display an Atlantic Shark Identification Workshop 
certificate at all locations where sharks are first received would 
remain in effect. Therefore, the proposed alternative achieves the 
objective of improving the identification and reporting of shark 
species, while simultaneously lessening impacts on dealers. The 
proposed alternative will also improve the enforceability of existing 
Atlantic shark regulations by requiring extensions of a dealer's 
business, such as trucks and other conveyances, to possess a copy of a 
valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a place of business covered 
by the dealer permit.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Management, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 7, 2008.
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, paragraph (m)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits and fees.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) Shark and swordfish LAPs. The owner of a vessel of the U.S. 
that fishes for, possesses, lands or sells shark or swordfish from the 
management unit, or that takes or possesses such shark or swordfish as 
incidental catch, must have the applicable limited access permit(s) 
issued pursuant to the requirements in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this 
section. Only persons holding non-expired shark and swordfish limited 
access permit(s) in the preceding year are eligible to renew those 
limited access permit(s). Transferors may not renew limited access 
permits that have been transferred according to the procedures of 
paragraph (l) of this section.
    3. In Sec.  635.8, paragraphs (b)(4), (b)(5), and (c)(4) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.8  Workshops.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Dealers may send a proxy to the Atlantic shark identification 
workshops. If a dealer opts to send a proxy, the dealer must designate 
at least one proxy, including at least one proxy from each place of 
business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic 
shark by way of purchase, barter, or trade pursuant to Sec.  
635.4(g)(2). The proxy must be a person who is currently employed by a 
place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a primary 
participant in the identification, weighing, and/or first receipt of 
fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and fills out dealer reports 
as required under Sec.  635.5. Only one certificate will be issued to 
each proxy. If a proxy is no longer employed by a place of business 
covered by the dealer's permit, the dealer or another proxy must be 
certified as having completed a workshop pursuant to this section. At 
least one individual from each place of business listed on the dealer 
permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, 
or trade must possess a valid Atlantic shark identification workshop 
certificate.
    (5) A Federal Atlantic shark dealer issued or required to be issued 
a shark dealer permit pursuant to Sec.  635.4(g)(2) must possess and 
make available for inspection a valid Atlantic shark identification 
workshop certificate at each place of business listed on the dealer 
permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, 
or trade. For the purposes of this part, trucks and other conveyances 
are considered to be extensions of a dealer's place of business and 
must possess a copy of a valid dealer or proxy certificate issued to a 
place of business covered by the dealer permit. A copy of this 
certificate issued to the dealer or proxy must be included in the 
dealer's application package to obtain or renew a shark dealer permit. 
If multiple businesses are authorized to receive Atlantic sharks under 
the dealer's permit, a copy of the workshop certificate for each place 
of business listed on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic 
sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade must be included in the 
shark dealer permit renewal application package.

[[Page 19801]]

    (c) * * *
    (4) An Atlantic shark dealer may not first receive, purchase, 
trade, or barter for Atlantic shark without a valid Atlantic shark 
identification workshop certificate. A valid Atlantic shark 
identification workshop certificate must be maintained on the premises 
of each place of business listed on the dealer permit which first 
receives Atlantic sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade. An 
Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a Federal dealer permit issued 
pursuant to Sec.  635.4(g)(2) unless a valid Atlantic shark 
identification workshop certificate has been submitted with permit 
renewal application. If the dealer is not certified, the dealer must 
submit a copy of a proxy certificate for each place of business listed 
on the dealer permit which first receives Atlantic sharks by way of 
purchase, barter, or trade.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  635.21, paragraph (e)(4)(iii) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) A person aboard a vessel issued or required to be issued a 
valid directed handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish may not fish for 
swordfish with any gear other than handgear. A swordfish will be deemed 
to have been harvested by longline when the fish is on board or 
offloaded from a vessel using or having on board longline gear. Only 
vessels that have been issued, or that are required to have been 
issued, a valid directed or handgear swordfish LAP under this part may 
utilize or possess buoy gear. Vessels utilizing buoy gear may not 
possess or deploy more than 35 floatation devices, and may not deploy 
more than 35 individual buoy gears per vessel. Buoy gear must be 
constructed and deployed so that the hooks and/or gangions are attached 
to the vertical portion of the mainline. Floatation devices may be 
attached to one but not both ends of the mainline, and no hooks or 
gangions may be attached to any floatation device or horizontal portion 
of the mainline. If more than one floatation device is attached to a 
buoy gear, no hook or gangion may be attached to the mainline between 
them. Individual buoy gears may not be linked, clipped, or connected 
together in any way. Buoy gears must be released and retrieved by hand. 
All deployed buoy gear must have some type of monitoring equipment 
affixed to it including, but not limited to, radar reflectors, beeper 
devices, lights, or reflective tape. If only reflective tape is 
affixed, the vessel deploying the buoy gear must possess on board an 
operable spotlight capable of illuminating deployed floatation devices. 
If a gear monitoring device is positively buoyant, and rigged to be 
attached to a fishing gear, it is included in the 35 floatation device 
vessel limit and must be marked appropriately.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  635.71, paragraph (d)(14) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (14) Receive, purchase, trade, or barter for Atlantic shark without 
making available for inspection, at each of the dealer's places of 
business listed on the dealer permit which first receive Atlantic 
sharks by way of purchase, barter, or trade, a valid Atlantic shark 
identification workshop certificate issued by NMFS in violation of 
Sec.  635.8(b), except that trucks or other conveyances of the business 
must possess a copy of such certificate.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-7820 Filed 4-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S