[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71510-71608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28064]



[[Page 71509]]

Vol. 79

Tuesday,

No. 231

December 2, 2014

Part II





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 635





Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly 
Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7; Final 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 71510]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 120328229-4949-02]
RIN 0648-BC09


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2006 Consolidated Atlantic 
Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 7

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements Amendment 7 to the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan 
(2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) to ensure sustainable management of bluefin 
tuna consistent with the 2006 HMS FMP and address ongoing management 
challenges in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries. This final rule also 
implements minor regulatory changes related to the management of 
Atlantic HMS. Amendment 7 management measures were developed by NMFS 
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention 
Act (ATCA). This final rule: Allocates U.S. bluefin tuna quota among 
domestic fishing categories; implements measures applicable to the 
pelagic longline fishery, including Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQs), 
two new Gear Restricted Areas, closure of the pelagic longline fishery 
when annual bluefin tuna quota is reached, elimination of target catch 
requirements associated with retention of incidental bluefin tuna in 
the pelagic longline fishery, mandatory retention of legal-sized 
bluefin tuna caught as bycatch, expanded monitoring requirements, 
including electronic monitoring via cameras and bluefin tuna catch 
reporting via Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), and transiting provisions 
for pelagic and bottom longline vessels; requires VMS use and reporting 
by the Purse Seine category; changes the start date of the Purse Seine 
category from July 15 to a date within a range of June 1 to August 15, 
to be established by an annual action; requires use of the Automated 
Catch Reporting System by the General and Harpoon categories; provides 
additional flexibility for inseason adjustment of the General category 
quota and Harpoon category retention limits; and changes the allocation 
of the Angling category Trophy South subquota for the Gulf of Mexico. 
Finally, this rule implements several measures not directly related to 
bluefin tuna management, including a U.S. North Atlantic albacore tuna 
quota; modified rules regarding permit category changes; and minor 
changes in the HMS regulations for administrative or clarification 
purposes.

DATES: Effective January 1, 2015, except for Sec.  635.9(b)(2)(ii), 
(e)(1), which are effective June 1, 2015; and Sec.  635.15(b)(3), 
(b)(4)(ii), and (b)(5)(i), which are effective January 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, 
including the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), and other 
relevant documents are available from the HMS Management Division Web 
site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Warren or Brad McHale at 978-
281-9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed 
under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and regulations at 50 CFR part 635, 
pursuant to the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. Under 
ATCA, the Secretary shall promulgate such regulations as may be 
necessary and appropriate to carry out International Commission for the 
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) recommendations. The authority 
to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA has been 
delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for 
Fisheries, NOAA (AA). On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal 
Register (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006, 
implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which details the 
management measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries, including the 
incidental and directed Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries.

Background

    A brief summary of the background of this final action is provided 
below. A more detailed history of the development of these regulations, 
and the alternatives considered, are described in Amendment 7 to the 
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(Amendment 7 FEIS, August, 2014), which can be found online at the HMS 
Web site noted above.
    NMFS published a proposed rule on August 21, 2013 (78 FR, 52032), 
which proposed the ``preferred alternatives'' analyzed in the Draft 
Amendment 7 Environmental Impact Statement and solicited public 
comments on the measures, which were designed to address the following 
objectives: (1) Prevent overfishing of and rebuild bluefin tuna stock, 
achieve on a continuing basis optimum yield, and minimize bluefin 
bycatch to the extent practicable by ensuring that domestic bluefin 
tuna fisheries continue to operate within the overall total allowable 
catch (TAC) set by ICCAT consistent with the existing rebuilding plan; 
(2) optimize the ability for all permit categories to harvest their 
full bluefin quota allocations, account for mortality associated with 
discarded bluefin in all categories, maintain flexibility of the 
regulations to account for the highly variable nature of the bluefin 
fisheries, and maintain fairness among permit/quota categories; (3) 
reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna and minimize reductions in target 
catch in both directed and incidental bluefin fisheries, to the extent 
practicable; (4) improve the scope and quality of catch data through 
enhanced reporting and monitoring to ensure that landings and dead 
discards do not exceed the quota and to improve accounting for all 
sources of fishing mortality; and (5) adjust other aspects of the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary and appropriate, including northern 
albacore tuna quota implementation.
    On August 22, 2013 (78 FR 52123), NMFS published a notice in the 
Federal Register informing the public of the date and locations of 
public hearings on Amendment 7. From August 2013 to January 2014, NMFS 
conducted 11 public hearings, and consulted with the New England 
Fishery Management Council, the Gulf of Mexico Management Council, and 
the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. The hearings were held 
in diverse locations in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal states. On 
August 30, 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency published a Notice 
of Availability of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) (78 
FR 53754; August 30, 2013).
    The August 21, 2013, Amendment 7 proposed rule set the end of the 
public comment period as October 23, 2013, but given the length and 
complexity of the rule, and to provide additional time for 
consideration of public comments in light of the November meeting of 
ICCAT, the end of the comment period was extended to December 10, 2013 
(78 FR 57340; September 18, 2013). Subsequently, due to the government 
shutdown in October 2013, and NMFS' inability to respond to 
constituents

[[Page 71511]]

during that time frame and based on requests for an extension due to 
the complexity of the measures covered in the DEIS, NMFS again extended 
the end of the public comment period until January 10, 2014, to provide 
additional opportunity for informed comment (78 FR 75327; December 11, 
2013). On December 26, 2013, NMFS published a Federal Register notice 
announcing a public hearing conference call and webinar to provide 
additional opportunity for the public from all geographic areas to 
comment (78 FR 78322).
    The comments received on Draft Amendment 7 and its proposed rule, 
and responses to those comments, are summarized below in the section 
labeled ``Response to Comments.''
    The bluefin tuna fishery is managed principally through a quota. 
Currently, NMFS implements and codifies the ICCAT-recommended U.S. 
quota through rulemaking, annually or bi-annually depending on the 
length of the relevant ICCAT recommendation. Also through rulemaking 
(the ``quota specifications process'') NMFS annually adjusts the U.S. 
baseline bluefin quota to account for any underharvest or overharvest 
of the adjusted U.S. quota from the prior year; specifies subquotas 
that result from application of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 
allocations; and adjusts subquotas as appropriate following 
consideration of domestic management needs. NMFS must account not only 
for landings but for bluefin tuna discarded dead. NMFS estimates and 
accounts for dead discards in the pelagic longline fishery, which 
cannot target bluefin tuna but catches them while targeting swordfish 
and other tunas.
    National Standard 1 requires that ``conservation and management 
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing 
basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States 
fishing industry.'' The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines ``optimum yield'' 
as the amount of fish that, among other things, provides for rebuilding 
to a level consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield from 
the fishery. In ATCA, Congress also directed NMFS to manage the bluefin 
fishery to ensure that NMFS provides U.S. fishing vessels ``with a 
reasonable opportunity to harvest such allocation, quota, or at such 
fishing mortality level. . . .'' This rule builds upon an extensive 
regulatory framework for management of the domestic bluefin fishery 
pursuant to the 20-year rebuilding program adopted in the 1999 FMP and 
continued under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. As described below, the 
final rule measures were designed to allow fishery participants to 
fully harvest, but not exceed, the U.S. bluefin quota by refining the 
existing management tools. NMFS is implementing a detailed, multi-level 
approach to resolving challenges in administering and carrying out the 
current quota system, which, if left unaddressed, may otherwise result 
in overharvests of the U.S. quota in the future. These final rule 
measures directly support the goals of reducing overfishing, rebuilding 
the western bluefin stock, and achieving optimum yield by ensuring that 
the fishery continues to be managed within the ICCAT-approved TAC, and 
consistent with National Standard 1's requirements.

Northern Albacore Tuna

    Amendment 7 also includes measures for management of north Atlantic 
albacore (or ``northern albacore'') tuna. Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted 
recommendations regarding the northern albacore tuna fishery. A multi-
year management measure for northern albacore tuna was first adopted in 
2003, setting the TAC at 34,500 mt. ICCAT's Standing Committee on 
Research and Statistics (SCRS) assessed the northern albacore tuna 
stock in 2009 and concluded that the stock continues to be overfished 
with overfishing occurring, recommending a level of catch of no more 
than 28,000 mt to meet ICCAT management objectives by 2020. In 
response, in 2009 ICCAT established a North Atlantic albacore tuna 
rebuilding program via Recommendation 09-05, setting a 28,000mt TAC and 
including several provisions to limit catches by individual ICCAT 
parties (for major and minor harvesters) and reduce the amount of 
unharvested quota that could be carried forward from one year to the 
next, from 50 percent to 25 percent of a party's initial catch quota. 
The 2009 recommendation expired in 2011.
    In 2011, ICCAT Recommendation 11-04 again set a TAC of 28,000 mt 
for 2012 and for 2013 and contained specific recommendations regarding 
the North Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding program, including an 
annual TAC for 2012 and 2013 allocated among the European Union, 
Chinese Taipei, the United States, and Venezuela. The U.S. quota for 
2012 and 2013 is 527 mt. The recommendation limits Japanese northern 
albacore tuna catches to 4 percent in weight of its total Atlantic 
bigeye tuna longline catch, and limits the catches of other ICCAT 
parties to 200 mt. The recommendation also specifies that quota 
adjustments for a given year's underharvest or overharvest may be made 
for either 2 or 3 years from the subject year (i.e., adjustments based 
on 2013 catches would be made in either 2015 or 2016). Pursuant to ATCA 
and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in this final rule NMFS implements the 
ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota and establishes provisions to adjust the 
base quota for over or underharvests via annual quota specifications.

Implemented Measures

    The rule finalizes most of the management measures that were 
contained in the proposed rule for Amendment 7 as they were proposed, 
with several exceptions. This section provides a summary of the final 
management measures being implemented by Amendment 7 and notes certain 
changes from the proposed rule to this final rule that may be of 
particular interest to the regulated community. These include changes 
to the basis for annual purse seine quota availability, changes to two 
Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs), changes to the range of years used in the 
performance metrics and BFT quota allocations formula, changes to VMS 
requirements, and changed to effective dates. Measures that are 
different from the proposed rule, or measures that were proposed but 
not implemented, are described in detail in the section titled, 
``Changes from the Proposed Rule.''

1. Quota Reallocation

Codified Quota Reallocation

    The Longline category's percentage of the baseline U.S. bluefin 
tuna quota remains at 8.1 percent, but each year the Longline category 
quota will be increased by a net amount of 62.5 mt based on deductions 
from the other quota categories, to more fully and predictably account 
for Longline category incidental bluefin catch, including both dead 
discards and landings. This measure does not modify the previously-
codified category quota allocation percentages. Rather, NMFS will 
calculate the bluefin quota for each of the quota categories through 
the following process: First, 68 mt will be subtracted from the 
baseline annual U.S. BFT quota for reallocation to the Longline 
category quota. All quota categories will be reduced consistent with 
the allocation percentages codified at 50 CFR 635.27. Second, the 
remaining quota will be divided among the categories according to those 
allocation percentages. Third, the 68 mt derived in Step One from all 
categories, including the Longline category, will be added to the 
Longline category quota. The net

[[Page 71512]]

amount of quota increase for the Longline category will be 62.5 mt.
    Thus, 32.0 mt will be deducted from the General category (i.e., 
47.1 percent of 68 mt), 2.7 mt from the Harpoon category (3.9 percent), 
12.6 mt from the Purse Seine category (18.6 percent), 5.5 mt from the 
Longline category (8.1 percent), 13.4 mt from the Angling category 
(19.7 percent), and 1.7 mt from the Reserve category (2.5 percent). 
This equals 68 mt, which will be added to the Longline category, 
resulting in a net increase to the Longline category of 62.5 mt (68 mt 
minus the Longline category's contribution of 5.5 mt). If, for example, 
the baseline annual U.S. quota is 923.7 mt in a given year, then 403.0 
mt would be allocated to the General category (i.e., 47.1 percent of 
855.7 mt), 33.4 mt to the Harpoon category (3.9 percent), 159.1 mt to 
the Purse Seine category (18.6 percent), 137.3 mt for the Longline 
category (8.1 percent plus the 62.5 mt), 168.6 mt for the Angling 
category (19.7 percent), and 21.4 mt for the Reserve category (2.5 
percent)
    This measure provides additional quota to the Longline category to 
facilitate the ability to account for both landings and dead discards 
within the Longline category quota, consistent with the historical 
separate dead discard allocation, yet limits the amount of reallocation 
to the Longline category if the total U.S. quota increases. For more 
information on the historical dead discard allocation and the 
associated rationale for the 68 mt augmentation of the Longline 
category, see the Codified Reallocation section (2.1.2) of the FEIS.

Annual Quota Reallocation

    NMFS will annually adjust the Purse Seine quota, using a formula 
based on the weights of reported landings and estimated weights of dead 
discards (calculated from reported lengths) by purse seine fishery 
participants in the previous year. Twenty-five percent of each Purse 
Seine category participant's base quota will be available as a minimum 
to each Purse Seine fishery participant annually. Beyond that amount, 
quota will be available to such participants based on the fishery 
participant's catch in the previous year. Any quota not allocated to 
the Purse Seine category participants will be allocated to the Reserve 
category for possible redistribution consistent with specified 
regulatory criteria to other quota categories, and to support other 
objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. By moving portions of the 
unused Purse Seine quota to the Reserve category annually, this measure 
will give NMFS more flexibility in administering the quota system.
    Based on public comment, this measure was modified from the 
proposed rule so that the annual formula for quota availability is 
based on the previous year's individual purse seine participant's 
catch, rather than based on the catch of the Purse Seine category as a 
whole. This modification ties quota allocation more closely to the 
individual participants catch and creates incentive for fishery 
participants to remain active in the fishery. Without this 
modification, individual allocations would be tied to the catch of the 
other vessels in the fishery, which could have unfair results if catch 
were to vary greatly among the vessels. For example, in a year where 
overall category catch were low, an individual purse seine participant 
could have a relatively low amount of quota available for use, even if 
that participant landed a substantial portion of its allocation during 
the previous year.
    Annually, NMFS will make a determination regarding the quota 
available for each purse seine participant for the year, based on the 
bluefin catch by such participants in the previous year. Purse Seine 
participants will have available for use either 100 percent, 75 
percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent of their base quota, according the 
following allocation criteria: If the individual catch is between 0 and 
20 percent of the individual base quota in year one, the Purse Seine 
fishery participant will have available for use 25 percent of their 
base quota in year two, and 75 percent of their quota will be available 
to the Reserve Category for that year. If the individual catch is 
greater than 20 percent and up to 45 percent of their individual base 
quota in year one, the Purse Seine fishery participant will be 
allocated 50 percent of their quota in year two, and 50 percent of 
their quota will be available to the Reserve Category for that year. If 
the individual catch is greater than 45 percent and up to 70 percent of 
their base quota in year one, the Purse Seine fishery participant will 
have available for use 75 percent of their individual base quota in 
year two, and 25 percent of their quota will be available to the 
Reserve Category for that year. If the individual catch is greater than 
70 percent of their base quota in year one, the Purse Seine fishery 
participant will have available for use 100 percent of their baseline 
quota in year two, and no quota will be available to the Reserve 
Category for that year. These thresholds (>20 percent, >45 percent, >70 
percent) will apply following the same pattern in years beyond year 
two, with each year's quota reflecting the previous year's catch. In 
summary, if Purse Seine fishery participants catch a large portion of 
their individual allocated base quota in one year, they have available 
for use a large portion of their base quota in the next year. If a 
Purse Seine fishery participant's catch is low in one year, a larger 
portion of their Purse Seine base quota becomes available for other 
management purposes. The Purse Seine quota available would not be 
``locked-in'' at a low level because the criteria are structured to 
enable increased utilization of available quota. For example, if the 
catch in year one is between 0 and 20 percent of their individual year 
one baseline Purse Seine quota, the Purse Seine fishery participant 
would have available for use 25 percent of their individual baseline 
quota in year two. If, in year two, the individual catch is greater 
than 20 percent of their individual baseline quota, but still within 
their individual annual allocation (i.e., catch is between 20 percent 
and 25percent), the Purse Seine fishery participant would have 
available for use 50% of their individual baseline quota in year three. 
The Purse Seine participants catch levels and allocation levels have 
been staggered to allow for an increase in allocation in the following 
year, without causing the Purse Seine fishery participant to exceed the 
current year's allocation to do so.
    This measure balances the need to provide the Purse Seine category 
participants a reasonable amount of fishing opportunity in a 
predictable manner, while making use of quota that may otherwise be 
unused. As described under ``Modifications to the Reserve Category,'' 
quota that is available to the Reserve Category may be utilized in a 
variety of ways to meet multiple objectives. NMFS will annually 
calculate the Purse Seine catch for that year and publish a notice in 
the Federal Register regarding the amount of quota that would be 
allocated to the Purse Seine fishery participants, as well as the 
corresponding amount allocated to the Reserve category and any 
disposition of the quota from the Reserve category for the subsequent 
year made at that time. After the initial adjustment, NMFS may make 
additional modifications to the Purse Seine quota inseason in 
accordance with the criteria for inseason adjustments specified at 
Sec.  635.27(a), or make subsequent use of quota from the Reserve 
category.

Modifications to the Reserve Category

    This measure gives NMFS management flexibility by augmenting the 
amount of quota in the Reserve category under certain circumstances

[[Page 71513]]

and adds new criteria to the list of determination criteria NMFS 
considers in redistributing quota to or from the Reserve category, to 
be responsive to the current conditions in the fisheries and facilitate 
adaptation to future changes in the fisheries. The potential sources of 
quota for the Reserve category on top of its baseline allocation of 2.5 
percent are: (1) Available underharvest of the U.S. quota that is 
allowed to be carried forward; and (2) unused Purse Seine quota, under 
the Annual Quota Reallocation measure described above. For example, 
under the Annual Quota Reallocation, NMFS will annually adjust the 
purse seine quota, using a formula based on the weights of reported 
landings and estimated weights of dead discards (calculated from 
reported lengths) by each Purse Seine fishery participants in the 
previous year. Any remaining amount of Purse Seine quota will then be 
reallocated to the Reserve category for that subsequent year. NMFS 
could utilize quota from the Reserve category inseason after 
considering defined criteria and objectives. NMFS adds five criteria to 
the existing nine criteria to consider when making inseason or annual 
quota adjustments. The five new criteria, added to Sec.  
635.27(a)(8)(1)-(9) are: (10) Optimize fishing opportunity; (11) 
account for dead discards; (12) facilitate quota accounting; (13) 
support other fishing monitoring programs through quota allocations 
and/or generation of revenue; and (14) support research through quota 
allocations andr generation of revenue.
    These modifications to the Reserve category will increase 
management flexibility in administering the quota system in a way that 
takes into account fluctuations in the characteristics of the fishery.

 2. Gear Restricted Areas

Modified Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, With Conditional Access

    This final rule establishes a GRA off Cape Hatteras, NC, and limits 
access to this area for vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear 
during the 5-month period from December through April. The shape of the 
GRA has been modified from the proposed rule to remove the southeastern 
corner of the defined geographic area. This change was to avoid 
unintended effects on fishing outside the closed area that would have 
occurred if the action were implemented as proposed because it did not 
account for the effect of the prevailing currents on how pelagic 
longline gear drifts in that area.
    Under this management measure, NMFS annually will grant qualified 
vessels conditional access to this GRA to fish with pelagic longline 
gear. Access will be granted based on a formula consisting of the 
following metrics: Ratio of bluefin tuna interactions to designated 
species catch, compliance with the Pelagic Observer Program 
requirements, and compliance with HMS logbook reporting requirements. 
Vessels will not qualify to fish in the area with pelagic longline gear 
if they have not demonstrated their ability to avoid bluefin tuna and/
or comply with reporting and monitoring (observer) requirements. Non-
qualifying vessels will be allowed to use other gear types to fish for 
non-bluefin HMS species authorized for use by pelagic longline vessels, 
such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel, in the area 
during the months of the restriction (December through April), but they 
may not fish with pelagic longline gear in during those months. 
Although originally proposed in the Proposed Rule, the final rule does 
not allow non-qualifying vessels access to the GRA to fish under the 
General category regulations and target bluefin (discussed further in 
the Comments and Responses). The principal objective of conditional 
access to the GRA is to balance the objective of reducing dead discards 
with the objective of providing reasonable fishing opportunity. The 
second objective is to provide strong incentives to modify fishing 
behavior to avoid bluefin tuna and reduce dead discards, as well as 
improve compliance with the logbook reporting and observer 
requirements. This regulatory approach is based on the fact that, 
historically, relatively few vessels have consistently been responsible 
for the majority of the bluefin tuna dead discards within the Longline 
category. Conditioning access on compliance with reporting and 
monitoring requirements reflects the critical importance of fishery 
data to the successful management of the fisheries.
    The initial evaluation of performance metrics will be based upon 
data from 2006 through 2012, and subsequent ``performance scores'' will 
be based upon the most recent complete three-consecutive-year period 
for which data are available. In a situation where an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline permit has been transferred from one vessel to another, or 
there has been an ownership change of a permitted vessel, the relevant 
vessel fishing history used for the calculation of the performance 
score regarding access to the Cape Hatteras GRA remains with the 
vessel. As further explained in the Response to Comments below (Comment 
26), NMFS modified the relevant historical time period from the 
proposed rule (which was 2006-2011). Atlantic Tuna Longline permit 
holders will be notified annually of the status of their relevant 
vessel, and only aggregated information regarding the vessel status 
will be made public. Atlantic Tuna Longline permit holders will be able 
to appeal their relevant vessel performance scores to NMFS by 
submitting a written request to appeal, indicating the reason for the 
appeal and providing supporting documentation for the appeal (e.g., 
copies of landings records and/or permit ownership, Pelagic Observer 
Program information, logbook data, etc.). NMFS will evaluate the appeal 
based upon the following criteria: (1) The accuracy of NMFS records 
regarding the relevant information; and (2) correct assignment of 
historical data to the vessel owner/permit holder. Such permit holders 
may also appeal on the basis of changes in vessel ownership or permit 
transfers. Appeals based on hardship factors will not be considered. 
See below for more information on appeals.
    NMFS will have the authority to terminate access for all pelagic 
longline vessels or individual pelagic longline vessels to the GRA via 
inseason action to address issues including: (1) Failure to achieve or 
effectively balance the objective of reducing dead discards with the 
objective of providing fishing opportunity; (2) bycatch of bluefin tuna 
or other HMS species that may be inconsistent with the objectives or 
regulations or the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, or ICCAT recommendations; 
or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or protected species that is 
inconsistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Pelagic 
Longline Take Reduction Plan (PLTRP), or the 2004 Biological Opinion 
(BiOP).
    The performance metric formula will enable qualified vessels to 
continue to fish in the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, yet will 
substantially reduce bluefin tuna dead discards by precluding fishing 
in the GRA by those with a history of high bluefin tuna interaction in 
relation to other designated species catch. In order to characterize 
vessel performance in a manner that is fair, consistent, and feasible 
to administer, the performance metric formula is based on relatively 
simple, objective, and quantifiable information. For each of the three 
performance metrics, a vessel will be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 
5 reflecting better performance. Vessels with a ratio of bluefin tuna 
interactions to designated species catch of 1 will not be allowed to 
fish in the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA using pelagic longline

[[Page 71514]]

gear. If a vessel's Pelagic Observer Program Compliance score is 2 or 
less, that vessel will not be allowed to access the area and fish with 
pelagic longline gear, unless the vessel's logbook compliance score is 
4 or 5.
    The performance metric formula will reflect bluefin tuna 
interactions as measured by the ratio of the number of bluefin tuna 
interactions (landings, dead discards, and live discards, in number of 
fish) to the weight of designated species landings (in pounds). These 
designated species will consist of the more common marketable catch 
harvested by pelagic longline vessels: Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, 
albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin 
mako, and thresher sharks. The use of a ratio incorporating both 
designated species landings and bluefin tuna interactions provides a 
metric that is intended to eliminate bias resulting from the 
differences among vessels in size or fishing effort.
    The Pelagic Observer Program metric reflects compliance with 
requirements regarding communications, and other aspects of observer 
deployment. The scoring system is designed to be neutral with respect 
to valid reasons that a vessel was selected by the observer program but 
did not take an observer, and designed to weigh trips that were not 
observed due to noncompliance with the communication requirements more 
heavily than those that were not observed due to noncompliance with the 
safety and accommodation requirements. The logbook reporting metric 
reflects compliance with the requirement that the vessel owner/operator 
must submit the logbook forms postmarked within 7 days of offloading 
the catch, and, if no fishing occurred during a month, must submit a 
no-fishing form postmarked no later than 7 days after the end of that 
month.

Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline Gear Restricted Areas

    This final rule establishes two GRAs in the Gulf of Mexico and 
limits access to these areas for vessels fishing with pelagic longline 
gear during the 2-month period from April through May to reduce dead 
discards and protect bluefin tuna on their spawning grounds, while 
maintaining fishing opportunities for pelagic longline vessels as 
appropriate. As described in the Response to Comments below (Comments 
52 and 53), the size and location of the geographic area of the GRA has 
been modified from the proposed rule to take into account the best 
available information about the location of bluefin interactions 
(eastward trend), the high variability of bluefin tuna distribution, 
the economic importance of the fishery, and other factors.
    Other gear types authorized for use by pelagic longline vessels 
such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel are allowed in 
these areas, provided the vessel abides by any rules/regulations that 
apply to those gear types

Transiting Closed Areas

    This final rule allows vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Longline 
permit, Swordfish Incidental or Directed Limited Access permit, or a 
Shark Limited Access permit fishing with bottom or pelagic longline 
gear to transit areas that are closed or restricted to such gear, if 
they remove and stow the gangions, hooks, and buoys from the mainline 
and drum. No baited hooks are allowed. The specific closed and 
restricted areas to which this transiting provision applies include 
those established by this rule (Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs and Modified 
Cape Hatteras GRA), as well as the following pelagic longline closed 
areas in effect: Northeastern U.S. Closure, Northeast Distant 
Restricted Fishing Area, Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast Closed 
Area, and DeSoto Canyon Closed Area. This measure will allow vessels to 
transit the following bottom longline closed areas in effect: Mid-
Atlantic Shark, Snowy Grouper Wreck, Northern South Carolina, Edisto, 
Charleston Deep Artificial Reef, Georgia, North Florida, St Lucie Hump, 
East Hump, Madison-Swanson, Steamboat Lumps, and Edges 40 Fathom 
Contour.
    This regulatory provision reduces travel costs by allowing more 
direct routes of travel, and addresses the safety-at-sea concern 
associated with the requirement to steam around restricted areas.

3. Quota Controls

NMFS Closure of the Pelagic Longline Fishery

    Under measures adopted in the final rule, the pelagic longline 
fishery will close (i.e., use of pelagic longline gear is prohibited) 
when the total Longline category quota is reached, projected to be 
reached or exceeded, or when there is high uncertainty regarding the 
estimated or documented levels of bluefin tuna catch. These closures 
will help prevent overharvest of the Longline category quota and 
prevent further discards of bluefin tuna. When NMFS projects that the 
quota will be reached, it will file a closure action with the Office of 
the Federal Register for publication. Vessels will be required to 
offload all bluefin tuna prior to the closure date/time. Criteria NMFS 
will consider include those listed under Sec.  635.27(a)(8) as well as: 
Total estimated bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead discards) in 
relation to the quota; estimated amount by which the bluefin tuna quota 
might be exceeded; usefulness of data relevant to monitoring the quota; 
uncertainty in the documented or estimated dead discards or landings of 
bluefin tuna; amount of bluefin tuna landings or dead discards within a 
short time; effects of continued fishing on bluefin tuna rebuilding and 
overfishing; provision of reasonable opportunity for pelagic longline 
vessels to pursue the target species; variations in seasonal 
distribution, abundance or migration patterns of bluefin tuna; and 
other relevant factors. NMFS will use the best available data to 
calculate the most recent, complete, and available estimate of dead 
discards on a fishery-wide basis consistent with current regulations. 
Best available data may include, among other things, vessel-based 
reports, electronic monitoring data, and observer data, as appropriate.

Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQs)

    This final rule implements an IBQ management system, which is 
summarized and then described in further detail below.

Summary of the IBQ Program

    NMFS is implementing an IBQ Program pursuant to section 303A of the 
MSA, which authorizes development of limited access privilege programs 
(LAPP). A LAPP creates permits, which are issued for a period of not 
more than 10 years, to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a 
unit(s) representing a portion of the total allowable catch that may be 
received or held for exclusive use by a person. Section 303A(c), 16 
U.S.C. 1853a, identifies the requirements for such a program (note that 
the referendum requirements of section 303A(c)(6)(D) are inapplicable 
to this program for the Atlantic HMS fisheries). This final rule 
implements IBQs for vessels permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category (provided they also hold necessary limited access swordfish 
and shark permits). Specifically, the IBQ Program requires vessels 
fishing with pelagic longline gear to account for bluefin tuna landings 
and dead discards using IBQ allocation (obtained through shares or 
leases of allocation), and prohibits the use of pelagic longline gear 
when the vessel's IBQ allocation has been caught. An IBQ share is a 
percentage of the total available Longline quota. Thus, if the total 
available Longline quota is modified as a result of an ICCAT

[[Page 71515]]

recommendation and the Longline quota is changed as a result, the share 
(specific percentage) associated with an eligible permit would not 
change, but would result in a modified amount of IBQ allocation (mt or 
equivalent pounds).
    The Northeast Distant Area (NED) is a distinctly managed geographic 
area due to the specification of a separate ICCAT quota relative to the 
rest of the pelagic longline fishery and is not managed under the full 
IBQ Program restrictions. However, there are provisions of the IBQ 
Program that will apply to vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear 
in the NED. For example, vessels will be required to have the minimum 
IBQ allocation to operate in the NED starting in 2016 and when NED 
bluefin quota has been exhausted, permitted vessels must abide by all 
the requirements of the IBQ Program.
    The IBQ Program is a suite of management measures intended to work 
together. An IBQ share is the percentage of the Longline category quota 
that is associated with an eligible vessel, based upon the IBQ share 
formula and the relevant vessel history, and an IBQ allocation is the 
amount (mt) of bluefin tuna quota that is distributed to a permitted 
vessel, based upon the relevant IBQ share, and the annual Longline 
category quota. Eligible pelagic longline vessels will receive one of 
three IBQ share percentages (1.2%, 0.6%, or 0.37%), which must be used 
by individual vessels to account for all their bluefin tuna landings 
and dead discards. Shares and allocations are designated as either Gulf 
of Mexico (GOM) or Atlantic (ATL). Vessels are prohibited from using 
Atlantic allocation to account for bluefin tuna catch in the Gulf of 
Mexico, thereby limiting potential shifts in effort. Specifically, a 
vessel with bluefin catch in the Gulf of Mexico may not use Atlantic 
allocation to account for such catch. However, vessels may use Gulf of 
Mexico allocation to account for bluefin catch in both the Gulf of 
Mexico and Atlantic. Allocations may be leased annually by Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category permit holders or Purse Seine category 
participants, and a minimum amount of allocation is required for a 
pelagic longline vessel to depart on a trip in the Atlantic (0.125 mt) 
using pelagic longline gear. A higher minimum amount of quota 
(allocation) is required for a pelagic longline vessel to depart on a 
fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico (0.25 mt). A pelagic longline vessel 
may not use Atlantic allocation to satisfy the minimum share 
requirement for a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico. If a vessel 
retains legal sized bluefin tuna in excess of its allocation (``quota 
debt''), it may land the fish, but must lease additional IBQ allocation 
from another vessel to account for the excess catch, and is not allowed 
to fish with pelagic longline gear until the quota debt is balanced in 
the system (is accounted for) and the minimum allocation required for a 
vessel to depart on a trip is acquired. A vessel's IBQ allocation 
cannot carry-over from one year to the next, but if a vessel is unable 
to satisfy its quota `debt' in a particular fishing year, quota will be 
deducted from the vessel's allocation during the subsequent year.
    Although temporary leasing of IBQ allocation can occur, no 
permanent sale of IBQ shares is allowed at this time, to reduce risks 
for permit holders during the initial stages of the IBQ Program, when 
the market for bluefin tuna quota shares is new and uncertain. Measures 
to allow permanent sale of bluefin tuna quota shares may be implemented 
in the future through separate proposed and final rulemaking. This will 
allow time for IBQ fishermen to familiarize themselves with the IBQ 
Program and market for bluefin tuna shares.
    As described in more detail below, NMFS is implementing an 
internet-based system to track bluefin tuna catch (pelagic longline and 
purse seine), and the use and leases of IBQ allocation. VMS must be 
used by vessel operators to report bluefin tuna catches to increase the 
timeliness of dead discard data; and electronic monitoring (cameras and 
associated equipment) are required on pelagic longline vessels as one 
element of the monitoring program.
    The IBQ Program will be evaluated after 3 years, and NMFS will 
implement a cost recovery program through separate rulemaking.

What vessels are eligible to receive initial bluefin tuna quota shares?

    Vessels must meet two requirements to be eligible to receive IBQ 
shares: (1) Vessels must have a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permit; and (2) vessel must be deemed to be ``active''. Vessels that 
made at least one set using pelagic longline gear between 2006 and 2012 
(based on pelagic longline logbook data) are defined as ``active'' This 
date range includes 2012, and therefore is one year longer than that 
proposed to ensure that recent participants in the fishery are defined 
as ``active.'' For the purpose of IBQ share eligibility, a ``valid 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit'' is one held as of the date 
the proposed rule was published, which was August 21, 2013.
    Vessels with valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permits that do not meet 
the initial eligibility criteria may lease bluefin tuna IBQ allocation 
from IBQ allocation holders. Permits that are not associated with a 
vessel, such as a permit characterized as ``No Vessel ID,'' are not 
eligible for an initial IBQ share but would be eligible to receive IBQ 
allocation (through a lease) if and when the permit is reassociated 
with a vessel. Such a vessel would be required to lease IBQ allocation 
before fishing with pelagic longline gear. New entrants to the fishery 
must either obtain an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit with associated 
quota share, or if the valid permit did not have quota share, obtain 
bluefin tuna quota through lease/sale to fish.

How much bluefin tuna quota does each eligible vessel get?

    A vessel's IBQ share of the Longline quota is based upon two 
elements: The amount of bluefin tuna caught between 2006 and 2012, and 
the amount of designated species landings (i.e., swordfish; yellowfin, 
bigeye, albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and porbeagle, 
shortfin mako, and thresher sharks). As discussed below in the 
``Response to Comments'' (Comment 76), this date range includes 2012, 
and therefore is one year longer than that proposed to consider the 
most recent fishing activity of vessels, and to be inclusive regarding 
the important elements. More specifically, the two factors that are the 
basis of the allocation formula are: (1) Historical bluefin tuna catch 
(from vessel logbook data) expressed as ratio of the number of bluefin 
tuna interactions to `designated species' landings; and (2) `designated 
species' landings (from the NMFS dealer data (weigh-out slips) and 
logbook information). The use of these two factors in the quota share 
allocation formula is intended to acknowledge past bluefin tuna 
avoidance, ensure a fair initial allocation, and consider the diversity 
in vessel fishing patterns and harvest characteristics. Past fishing 
that resulted in fewer bluefin tuna interactions will result in larger 
IBQ shares of bluefin tuna. Landings of designated species are an 
indicator of both the level of fishing effort and activity as well as 
vessel success at targeting those species and minimizing bluefin 
bycatch interactions. This method incorporates the rate of historical 
bluefin tuna interactions but also includes the amount of designated 
species landings, recognizing that greater levels of fishing activity 
are likely to be correlated with a greater number of bluefin tuna 
interactions.
    The specific IBQ allocation formula is as follows: Because the 
bluefin tuna interactions to designated species

[[Page 71516]]

landings ratio is very small, designated species landings were 
multiplied by 10,000 in order to derive a ratio that is more practical 
(i.e., 0.95 instead of 0.000095). In order to combine the two metrics, 
scores were assigned to each metric (the bluefin tuna catch to 
designated species landings ratio and historical designated species 
landings) as described below. Active vessels were sorted into three 
categories, using total designated species landings from 2006 through 
2011, based on percentiles of landings from lowest to highest (low, 
medium, and high, 0 to <33 percent; 33 to <66 percent and 66 to 100 
percent, respectively). Similarly, the active vessels were sorted 
according to the ratio of bluefin interactions to HMS landings, from 
lowest to highest. For example, a vessel with a 2006-2011 weight of 
designated species landings of greater than or equal to 367,609 lb (the 
66 to 100th percentile of landings) would be placed in the ``High'' 
category and assigned a score of 3 (the highest score). In contrast, a 
vessel with a total designated species landing of only 95,000 pounds 
for 2006 through 2011 would receive a designated species landings score 
of 1. A vessel with a bluefin to designated species landings ratio of 
less than 0.2884 (66 to 100th percentile of bluefin to designated 
species landings ratios), would place in the top category and receive a 
bluefin to designated species landings ratio score of 3. A low ratio 
indicates relatively few bluefin interactions and therefore receives a 
high score.
    Finally, the two scores were combined to form the basis of the 
allocation. For each vessel, the score for designated species landings 
was added to the score for bluefin to designated species ratio. For 
example, if a vessel scored in the ``High'' category for both 
designated species landings and bluefin to designated species landings 
its combined score would be 6 (3 + 3). If a vessel scored High for 
bluefin ratio, but Low for designated landings, it would be scored a 4 
(1 + 3) and it would be placed in the Medium rating score category. 
Vessels assigned to a particular category will be allocated the same 
percentage share.
    Vessels are allocated shares of 1.2%, 0.6%, or 0.37% of the 
Longline category quota. For 2015 (unless the U.S. quota is modified by 
ICCAT in 2014), based on a revised baseline Longline category bluefin 
tuna quota of 137 mt (baseline plus 62.5 mt), vessels will be allocated 
1.64 mt, 0.82 mt, or 0.51 mt of bluefin tuna, respectively. These 
specific allocations are larger than those proposed because the actual 
number of eligible vessels was less than the number of eligible vessels 
analyzed at the proposed rule stage. The number of eligible vessels 
determined by the proposed rule was higher because the proposed rule 
analysis included permits that were not associated with vessels at the 
time of the publication of the proposed rule (August 21, 2013), and did 
not reflect both eligibility criteria. Allocation among fewer eligible 
vessels increases the allocation amount per vessel. The rationale for 
this measure is to implement criteria that reflect participation in the 
fishery. By allocating only to ``active'' vessels, the measure will 
facilitate continued participation in the fishery by vessels that have 
made past investments in the fishery. Permitted vessels that do not 
meet the initial eligibility criteria necessary to receive bluefin 
quota share allocation will still be eligible to obtain quota through a 
lease of IBQ allocation. The criteria did not include 2013 or 2014 
because the DEIS and FEIS, respectively, were being written, during 
those years, and there were limitations on the availability of 
finalized data. Availability of finalized logbook and dealer data 
during 2013 and 2014 was limited to 2011 and 2012 data, respectively.
    As described below, under ``Appeal of Initial IBQ Shares,'' when 
NMFS determines that all requests for appeal have been resolved, NMFS 
may adjust all IBQ shares as necessary to accommodate permitted holders 
that have been deemed eligible or provided an increased IBQ share 
through the appeals process.
    All bluefin tuna quota allocated to Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 
participants is also designated as ``Atlantic,'' subject to the 
restriction that it may only be used in the Atlantic (by either a Purse 
Seine vessel or via a lease to a pelagic longline vessel).
    If a vessel has fishing history in both the Gulf of Mexico and 
Atlantic, it may receive quota shares of both the Gulf of Mexico and 
Atlantic, depending upon the amount of quota share and the proportion 
of fishing history in the two areas. A relatively small percentage of 
sets in one area will not be reflected in the quota share. If a vessel 
would be allocated less than a minimum share amount for a particular 
area (i.e., less than 0.125 mt for the Atlantic or less than 0.25 mt 
for the Gulf of Mexico), then no allocation will be designated for that 
area and all of the permit holder's share would be designated to the 
other area (Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico). For example, if a vessel is 
eligible for an allocation of 0.51 mt, and historically landed 10 
percent of their catch in the Gulf of Mexico, the vessel would receive 
an allocation of 100 percent ``Atlantic'' quota (and none designated as 
``Gulf of Mexico'') because 10 percent of 0.51 mt (.005 mt) is less 
than the minimum share required to fish in the Gulf of Mexico (0.25 
mt). Owners of vessels with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permit will be sent certified letters informing them of their IBQ share 
and resultant allocation. In determining initial quota share 
eligibility and calculating the initial quota share NMFS used data 
associated with a vessel's history. In the future, the IBQ share will 
be associated with the permit, not the vessel. For example, if a 
permitted vessel has IBQ shares, and the owner of the permitted vessel 
decides to sell the permit but keep the vessel, the seller of the 
permit (the vessel owner) would no longer have any quota share or 
privileges with respect to the IBQ Program because IBQ shares would be 
associated with the permit that was sold. In contrast, the buyer of the 
permit would receive IBQ shares and allocation associated with that 
permit once the permit is associated with a vessel.

Appeals of Initial IBQ Shares and GRA Access Determinations

    This final rule implements a two-step appeals process for review of 
the Secretary's decisions regarding initial assignment of IBQ shares. 
This rule also adds an opportunity for HMS Management Division to 
initially review a request for a quota share adjustment or access to 
the Cape Hatteras GRA, in order to facilitate possible expedited 
resolution of such requests without a requestor needing to go through a 
full National Appeals Office process. Specifically, the final rule 
describes an initial review step by the HMS Management Division through 
which the appellant must first submit a written request to appeal their 
initial IBQ share or access the Cape Hatteras GRA prior to submitting 
any appeals to the National Appeals Office. It also adds administrative 
details about the process (i.e., on acceptable supporting 
documentation, and the specific timing of the steps). This modification 
was made in response to public comment requesting clarification of the 
process. Although this final rule adds administrative details regarding 
the appeals process, the range of criteria that permit holders may base 
an appeal on did not change from the proposed to the final rule. 
Additional discussion of these changes is in the section of this 
preamble called ``Changes to the Proposed Rule.''
    Upon publication of this final rule, NMFS will notify all permit 
holders by certified letter of their initial IBQ share

[[Page 71517]]

and resultant allocation and whether they have granted access to the 
Cape Hatteras GRA. If permit holders wish to appeal their IBQ share 
determination or GRA access determination, they must first submit a 
written request for adjustment of their initial IBQ share or GRA access 
determination to the HMS Management Division, indicating the reason for 
the requested change and providing supporting documentation as detailed 
below. All requests for adjustment to initial IBQ shares or GRA access 
determination must be submitted to the HMS Management Division within 
90 days of publication of the final rule. HMS Management Division staff 
will evaluate all such requests and supporting documentation, then 
notify the appellant by letter signed by the HMS Management Division 
Chief of NMFS' decision to approve or deny the request. If the request 
is approved, then NMFS will appropriately adjust the appellant's 
initial IBQ share and resultant allocation and/or grant access to the 
Cape Hatteras GRA. If denied, the permit holder may appeal the decision 
to the NMFS National Appeals Office within 90 days of receipt of the 
notice of denial by submitting a written petition of appeal. Appeals 
will be governed by the regulations and policy of the National Appeals 
Office at 15 CFR part 906. National Appeals Office regulations detail 
the procedure for appealing the quota share decision (See Sec.  906.3).
    The decisions subject to a request for appeal are: (1) Initial 
eligibility for IBQ shares based on ownership of an active vessel (as 
defined by this rule under Sec.  635.15) with a valid Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit combined with the shark and swordfish limited 
access permits required under the current permit regulations; (2) the 
accuracy of NMFS records regarding a vessel's amount of designated 
species landings and/or bluefin interactions; and (3) correct 
assignment of target species landings and bluefin interactions to the 
vessel owner/permit holder. As discussed under the IBQ measures above, 
the IBQ share formula is based upon historical data associated with a 
permitted vessel. Because vessels may have changed ownership, or 
permits may have been transferred during 2006 through 2012, the current 
owner of a permitted vessel may also appeal on the basis of historical 
changes in vessel ownership or permit transfers, if current owner 
believes that the data used in the analysis were not accurate because 
of such changes. NMFS will consider only written requests for appeals. 
When permit holders are informed of their initial IBQ shares and 
resultant allocations and/or access determination, they will be 
provided instructions regarding the process to appeal that decision. 
Landings eligibility criteria require evidence of documented legal 
landings during the timeframe from January 1, 2006, through December 
31, 2012. Public comment on the DEIS and proposed rule reflected a need 
to clarify aspects of the appeals process. Thus, NMFS is clarifying in 
this final rule that, regarding what will be considered ``documented 
legal landings,'' NMFS will consider official NMFS logbook records or 
weighout slips for landings between January 1, 2006, through December 
31, 2012, that were submitted to NMFS prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days 
after the cutoff date for eligible landings), and verifiable sales 
slips, receipts from registered dealers, state landings records, and 
permit records as accompanying documentation of an appeal. Landings 
data are required to be submitted within 7 days of landing under the 
applicable regulations. Recognizing that somewhat-late reporting could 
have occurred for a variety of reasons, however, NMFS is clarifying 
that it will consider ``documented'' landings for appeals purposes to 
be those reported within 60 days. NMFS will count only those designated 
species landings that were landed legally when the vessel owner had a 
valid permit. Appeals regarding bluefin interactions may be based on 
HMS logbook records as described, observer data, or other NMFS data. No 
other proof of catch history will be considered. NMFS permit records 
will be the sole basis for determining permit transfers . Photocopies 
of the written documents are acceptable in the original application or 
appeal; NMFS may request the originals at a later date. NMFS may refer 
any submitted materials that are of questionable authenticity to the 
NMFS Office of Enforcement for investigation. Appeals based on hardship 
factors will not be considered. Consistent with most limited effort and 
catch share programs, hardship is not a valid basis for appeal due to 
the multitude of potential definitions of hardship and the difficulty 
and complexity of administering such criteria in a fair manner.
    When NMFS determines that all requests for IBQ share appeals have 
been resolved, NMFS may adjust all IBQ share percentages as appropriate 
to accommodate permitted holders that are deemed eligible or that are 
provided an increased IBQ share through the appeals process.

Mandatory Retention of Legal-Sized Bluefin Tuna

    Pelagic longline vessels must retain all legal-sized commercial 
bluefin tuna that are dead at haul-back. Because these fish must be 
retained, regulatory discards and the waste of fish will be decreased, 
and it will be more likely that such fish are accurately accounted for 
and have a positive use (e.g., marketed, used for scientific 
information, etc.). Bluefin tuna, of all size classes, that are live at 
haul-back should be carefully removed from the hooks and returned to 
the ocean to ensure survivability. Legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna 
that are alive at haul-back may be retained; however they will be 
accounted for under the IBQ allocation.

Fishing Under the IBQ Program

    This section provides a brief example of how some of the Amendment 
7 requirements applicable to a vessel fishing with pelagic longline 
gear will work together. Additional details regarding the VMS and 
electronic monitoring programs are provided below in sections of this 
preamble titled ``VMS'': and ``Electronic Monitoring.''
    As discussed in the proposed rule, IBQ allocation leases would be 
executed by the eligible vessel owners, or their representatives, 
through the internet and a NMFS database. Owner-performed leases will 
provide the quickest execution of leases because any eligibility 
criteria will be verified automatically based on information loaded 
into that system, and will not involve the submission or review of a 
paper application, or any lag time associated with NMFS staff being 
directly involved in the lease approval process. The online IBQ System 
used to track and lease bluefin IBQ shares and resultant allocations 
will be operated out of NMFS's Southeast Regional Office (SERO). The 
administrative functions associated with this IBQ System (e.g., 
registration and account setup, landing and dead discard tracking, and 
leases of allocation) are designed to be accomplished online; 
therefore, a participant must have an IBQ System account to 
participate. NMFS will provide instructions to IBQ participants about 
the required software, how to use the IBQ System to lease IBQ 
allocation and track IBQ use and balances, how to perform the necessary 
accounting actions that support administration of the program, and how 
to obtain assistance with using the system. An eligible permit holder 
must create an IBQ System account online, and log into the password 
protected IBQ

[[Page 71518]]

System to execute an IBQ allocation lease, to check the amount of IBQ 
in their account, or perform other functions, according to instructions 
provided by NMFS. Similarly, a dealer purchasing bluefin tuna caught 
from a vessel fishing with pelagic longline or Purse Seine gear must 
have an online dealer account, computer access, and internet access.
    Before they may depart to fish with pelagic longline gear vessels 
must have the required minimum IBQ allocation and must have balanced 
any outstanding quota debt from previous trips, and comply with the VMS 
and electronic monitoring requirements. Vessels are required to haul 
gear and handle catch in accordance with the electronic monitoring 
program requirements (described below under electronic monitoring 
requirements), retain any legal sized dead bluefin, and report bluefin 
catch and information on sets through their VMS during the trip 
(described below under VMS Requirements). If a vessel retains legal-
sized bluefin tuna in excess of its IBQ allocation, it may land and 
sell the fish, but the permit holder must acquire additional IBQ 
allocation to account for the excess catch, and is not allowed to fish 
with, or have onboard, pelagic longline gear until the quota debt has 
been resolved.
    At the end of the trip, the permitted dealer purchasing the 
landings must enter all bluefin landing information from the trip. The 
vessel owner or operator, or their designee, must coordinate with the 
dealer to enter their dead discards, into the IBQ System. The landing 
transaction completed by the dealer must include the name and permit 
number of the vessel that landed the bluefin and any other information 
regarding the landings, as instructed by NMFS (such as the 
shareholder's account number, vessel account number, individual tag 
number, weights for landed bluefin tuna, and the number of dead 
discarded bluefin tuna by appropriate length bin). The permit holder, 
or designee, must validate the landings information and enter the dead 
discard information (such as numbers of fish by approximate size) 
before the transaction is processed. If, by the end of the fishing year 
a permit holder does not have adequate allocation (obtained either 
through leasing under paragraph (c)), or additional allocation under 
paragraph (f) to settle their vessel's quota debt, the vessel's 
allocation will be reduced in the amount equal to the quota debt, in 
the subsequent year, or years, until the quota debt is fully accounted 
for. A vessel may not fish if there is outstanding annual quota debt 
from a previous year. For those permit holders who own or operate 
multiple vessels with allocation, if, at the end of the year, one or 
more of the vessels has an outstanding quota debt, yet the other 
vessels still have allocation, the IBQ system will apply any remaining 
unused allocation associated with the other vessels to account for the 
quota debt of the other. This system functionality has been added since 
the proposed rule because unused allocation does not carry over from 
one year to the next, but quota debt does. This addition will ease the 
regulatory burden of resolving quota debt, and reduces the possibility 
that a permit holder of multiple vessels may inadvertently fail to 
manually resolve an existing quota debt with allocation associated with 
one of their other vessels at the end of the year and otherwise miss 
the opportunity to resolve the debt.
    For example, if a permit holder owns two vessels, Vessel A and 
Vessel B and both have IBQ allocations but at the end of the year 
Vessel A has a quota debt of .20 mt, and Vessel B has remaining unused 
IBQ allocation of .10 mt, the IBQ System would automatically transfer 
.10 mt of Vessel B IBQ allocation to Vessel A to count toward resolving 
Vessel A's quota debt. Vessel A would still have a quota debt of .10 mt 
and, when annual IBQ allocation occurs at the start of the subsequent 
year, Vessel A's annual IBQ allocation would be reduced by .10 mt to 
account for the previous year's quota debt.
    This final rule clarifies the relationship of accrued quota debt 
and Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit under the IBQ Program. If 
an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit holder participated in the 
IBQ Program and has a quota debt that remains unresolved at the time of 
such permit's sale or transfer, then that quota debt remains associated 
with the permit. This is consistent with the IBQ share remaining linked 
to the eligible permit itself and further refines how IBQ shares, 
resultant allocation, and quota debt will be managed to ensure 
accountability under the IBQ Program, even if permits are sold or 
transferred.
    To ensure that all IBQ Program activity can be accounted for on an 
annual basis, the IBQ System will prohibit any and all online 
transactions, such as catch transactions and IBQ allocation leases, 
between December 31 at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m. (Eastern Time). 
IBQ System functions will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the 
following year. No IBQ System transactions will be allowed or available 
during this 20 hour time period to provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ 
accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the upcoming year, etc. If a vessel 
with the required minimal IBQ allocation departs on a trip prior to the 
end of a calendar year and returns to port after the start of the 
following year, any bluefin landings or dead discards will be counted 
against the new year's allocation.
    In this final rule, NMFS will maintain the authority to ensure that 
the bluefin catch by pelagic longline vessels does not exceed the 
Longline quota. NMFS may, under certain circumstances, such as high 
uncertainty regarding the VMS reported dead discards, utilize the 
current methodology for generating and using estimates of pelagic 
longline dead discards. Prior to this final rule NMFS has used previous 
years' estimate as proxy for anticipated dead discards, and subtracted 
that estimate of dead discards ``off the top'' of the entire Longline 
quota. Although not anticipated, NMFS will maintain this ability until 
both methodologies can be compared in parallel to verify accuracy.

The Northeast Distant Area (NED) and the IBQ Program

    Under current ICCAT recommendations, the NED is a distinctly 
managed geographic area managed under a separate quota. Because the NED 
is managed as a distinct area with a relatively small quota, and 
managing the NED under the IBQ system would add additional complexity 
to the IBQ system, the quota associated with the NED (25 mt) is not 
managed under the full IBQ Program restrictions. However, there are 
provisions of the IBQ Program that will apply to vessels fishing with 
pelagic longline gear in the NED. For example, vessels will be required 
to have the minimum IBQ allocation to operate in the NED starting in 
2016 and when NED bluefin quota has been exhausted, permitted vessels 
must abide by all the requirements of the IBQ Program. Electronic 
monitoring systems, installed by June 1, 2015, will be required in 
order for vessels to fish with pelagic longline gear including in the 
NED, and data from the electronic monitoring system may be used to 
ensure that targeting fishing is not occurring. NMFS reminds the 
regulated community that the international separate allocation is only 
for bycatch in the NED and of the domestic prohibitions against 
targeting bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear. NMFS will re-visit 
this issue if necessary if subsequent years' data indicate that 
additional controls are needed.

[[Page 71519]]

Quota Leasing

    This measure allows Longline and Purse Seine category vessels to 
lease allocation to or from other vessels in these categories (provided 
they have active accounts in the IBQ system), so that allocations will 
become better aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that catch bluefin tuna 
may be able to obtain quota from those that do not interact with 
bluefin tuna, or that have not used their full allocation of bluefin 
tuna). Allocation may be leased annually by Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit holders from other Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permit holders or from Purse Seine category participants, regardless of 
whether they are eligible for their own quota share. Leasing of IBQ 
allocations is allowed among all Longline category vessels with valid 
limited access permits, regardless of whether they are eligible for 
their own quota share. If a vessel catches bluefin tuna using 
allocation that it has leased from another vessel, the fishing history 
associated with the catch of bluefin tuna will be associated with the 
vessel that catches the bluefin tuna (the lessee, not the lessor 
vessel). In other words, the lessee (vessel catching the fish) gets the 
`credit' for the landings and dead discards, and not the lessor (the 
vessel that leased the allocation to the catching vessel). The future 
catch of bluefin tuna will not affect the quota shares, but will affect 
the calculation of the performance metric of each vessel. Sub-leasing 
of quota is allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from vessel A to vessel B, then 
re-leased by vessel B to vessel C). For a particular calendar year, an 
individual lease transaction will be valid from the time of the lease 
until December 31.
    The initial limit on the amount of allocation an individual 
Longline or Purse Seine category participant may lease annually will be 
the combined Longline and Purse Seine category allocations. This will 
provide flexibility for vessels to purchase quota in a manner that can 
accommodate various levels of unintended catch of bluefin tuna, and 
enable the development of an unrestricted quota market.

Annual Individual Bluefin Quota Allocation

    Annual allocation of bluefin quota to eligible vessels with IBQ 
shares will occur January 1, based on the criteria described above 
(``What Vessels Are Eligible to Receive Initial Bluefin Tuna Quota 
Shares?'' and ``How Much Bluefin Tuna Quota Does Each Eligible Vessel 
Get?''). For vessels that are not eligible as of December 31 because 
they have begun--but not completed--the process of permit renewal or 
permit transfer, IBQ allocations will be made when the eligible permit 
holder completes the permit transaction(s). Subsequent to the annual 
allocation of quota, additional IBQ may be allocated to the vessels 
with bluefin quota share as a result of a U.S. baseline quota increase 
or transfer of quota from the Reserve category to the Longline 
category, pursuant to criteria for quota adjustments. Subsequent to the 
annual allocation of quota, quota may be deducted from vessels as a 
result of a decrease in the U.S. baseline quota, or to account for a 
quota debt (bluefin catch by a vessel that must be accounted for under 
the IBQ system, for which the vessel has insufficient quota).
    With respect to the relationship between the Atlantic Tunas 
Longline permit and the IBQ share, upon implementation of Amendment 7, 
the IBQ share is associated with the Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, 
and is not severable. If, in the future, NMFS allows permanent sale of 
quota shares, NMFS would also consider whether or not the share is 
severable from the Atlantic Tunas Longline permit. Under this final 
rule, any quota debt associated with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit 
will be associated with (and accompany) the permit upon sale/transfer 
of the permit. Quota debts will be also be associated with Atlantic 
Tunas Purse Seine category participants.

Elimination of Target Catch Requirement

    This final rule eliminates the current target catch requirements 
for pelagic longline vessels (including those fishing in the NED), 
which restricts the number of incidentally caught bluefin tuna a 
pelagic longline vessel may retain in relation to the amount of target 
species retained and sold. In the context of the IBQ system being 
implemented by Amendment 7, the current target catch requirement is no 
longer be necessary.

Formal IBQ Program Evaluation

    NMFS will formally evaluate the success and performance of the IBQ 
Program in achieving its objectives, after three years of operation and 
provide the HMS Advisory Panel with a publicly-available written 
document with its findings. The review will describe and analyze the 
changes that have taken place in the fishery since implementation of 
the IBQ Program. NMFS will utilize its standardized economic 
performance indicators, developed by its Office of Science and 
Technology, as part of its review. For example, the standardized 
economic performance indicators include catch (landings and dead 
discards), effort, revenues, and allocation leases and accumulation. 
Other indicators include the number of and distribution of bluefin tuna 
interactions. The review may also include analysis of data collection, 
monitoring, and reporting; enforcement; quota performance; quota 
distribution among permit holders; quota share and resultant allocation 
transferability; other elements of the IBQ Program; or aspects of the 
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP relevant to the IBQ Program such as gear 
restricted areas or purse seine measures.

Cost Recovery

    Section 303A(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a(e)) 
requires that, in establishing a LAPP, a Council shall develop a 
methodology and the means to identify and assess the management, data 
collection and analysis, and enforcement programs that are directly 
related to and in support of the LAPP; and provide for a program of 
fees paid by LAPP holders that will cover the costs of management, data 
collection and analysis, and enforcement activities. Such fees may not 
exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under the 
LAPP. While section 303A(e) requires development of cost recovery in 
establishing a LAPP, NMFS plans to implement cost recovery after the 
IBQ Program evaluation (after 3 years). This step-wise approach is 
consistent with the purpose of section 303A(e) and appropriate given 
the nature of the LAPP being proposed. The purpose of section 303A(e) 
is to collect fees to cover management, data collection and analysis, 
and enforcement activities. However, the cost of administering a cost 
recovery program may be high relative to the amount of money recovered, 
because some active vessels have very high fishing activity whereas 
others have relatively low activity. NMFS also notes that the 
underlying objective of the IBQ is to reduce incidental catch of 
bluefin tuna, which will impact the amount and ex-vessel value of fish 
harvested. Immediate implementation of a cost recovery program, without 
obtaining further information about the operation of the fishery with 
IBQs, would be very difficult and would increase costs and uncertainty 
for fishing vessels during a time period when the fishery would be 
bearing other new costs and sources of uncertainty. For the above 
reasons, NMFS is not implementing cost recovery until after it conducts 
the program evaluation. After the IBQ Program is evaluated after 3 
years,

[[Page 71520]]

NMFS will implement a cost recovery program through separate 
rulemaking.

4. Reporting Measures

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) Requirements

    This final rule implements VMS reporting requirements for vessels 
fishing with pelagic longline gear and issued an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit. It also requires vessels fishing with purse 
seine gear and issued an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit to 
install VMS and report through VMS to support the inseason monitoring 
of the pelagic longline and purse seine fisheries, as proposed. 
Additional detail is provided in this final rule to explain application 
of the requirements to the Purse Seine category, in response to public 
comment asking for clarification and because of the need for additional 
administrative detail.

Purse Seine Vessels

    Vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit must 
have an approved Enhanced Mobile Transmitting Unit (E-MTU) VMS unit 
installed by a qualified marine electrician to fish for Atlantic tunas 
with purse seine gear. Vessels must follow the procedures for 
installation and activation provided by NMFS and submit to NMFS the 
completed checklist and compliance certification statement. The VMS 
unit must submit automatic position reports every hour, 24 hours a day, 
unless a valid power down exemption has been granted by NMFS law 
enforcement. Owners of purse seine vessels may request a documented 
power down exemption from NMFS law enforcement if the vessel will not 
be fishing for an extended period of time. The request must describe 
the reason an exemption is being requested; the location of the vessel 
during the time an exemption is sought; the exact time period for which 
an exemption is needed; and sufficient information to determine that a 
power down exemption is appropriate. Prior to departing on a trip 
vessels that intend to fish for Atlantic tunas with purse seine gear 
must declare through E-MTU VMS their intent to fish with such gear and 
note their HMS target species), by submitting a ``Highly Migratory 
Species Trip Declaration Form'' (`hail out'). If a vessel operator is 
aware that transmission of automatic position reports has been 
interrupted, or is notified by NMFS that such reports are not being 
received, the vessel operatory must contact NMFS and follow the 
instructions given. After a fishing trip during which interruption of 
automatic position reports has occurred, the vessel's owner or operator 
must have a qualified marine electrician replace or repair the VMS unit 
prior to the vessel's next trip. Finally, as a condition of obtaining 
an HMS limited access permit, the vessel owners or operators must allow 
NMFS, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), or their designees access 
to the vessel's position data.
    Vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas with purse seine gear must 
submit, through VMS, a ``Highly Migratory Species Bluefin Tuna Catch 
Report'' for each set. Specifically, such vessels must report the 
number of sets within 12 hours of the set; and report the length of all 
bluefin discarded dead or retained (by standardized size ranges) within 
12 hours of completion of each the set (including reporting zero 
bluefin on a set). NMFS will provide vessel owners with instructions 
regarding the detailed methods of reporting such information using 
their VMS units. At least three hours prior to the end of a trip, the 
vessel operator must provide advanced notice of landing by submitted 
the ``Highly Migratory Species Pre-Landing Notification Form'' with 
information on the time and location of landing.
    If a vessel operator decides not to fish for or retain HMS for two 
or more trips, the operator may choose to ``declare out'' of the 
fishery, according to instructions provided by NMFS, and not be subject 
to the HMS hail in/hail out requirements during trips for which they 
are declared out of the HMS fishery.
    Vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear must report through VMS 
the number of hooks and sets within 12 hours of completion of each 
pelagic longline haul-backs and, for pelagic longline sets with bluefin 
tuna interactions, must report the length of all bluefin tuna retained 
or discarded dead (by standardized size ranges) within 12 hours of 
completion of the pelagic longline haul-back.
    NMFS will make specific VMS reporting instructions available to the 
purse seine and pelagic longline fisheries to facilitate this reporting 
requirement.

Electronic Monitoring

    The final rule adopts electronic monitoring requirements for all 
vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that fish with pelagic 
longline gear. This final rule requires all such vessels that are 
currently eligible to have a NMFS-approved contractor install a system 
and obtain certification of such installation. They must then properly 
maintain the video cameras and associated data recording and monitoring 
equipment, which will record all longline catch and relevant data 
regarding pelagic longline gear retrieval and deployment. NMFS will use 
the recorded data to verify the accuracy of counts and identification 
of bluefin tuna reported by the vessel owner/operator, as well as 
observers. Electronic monitoring will enable the collection of video 
images and fishing effort data that may be used in conjunction with 
other sources of information to estimate bluefin tuna dead discards, 
and may augment the ability of an observer to fulfill their duties by 
providing a record of catch during the time periods the observer may be 
unable to observe the catch directly.
    In light of public comments expressing concern about ensuring the 
functionality of electronic monitoring systems and the costs of such 
systems, this final rule relieves certain purchase and installation 
requirements that were set out in the proposed rule. Rather than 
requiring currently eligible vessel owners to buy and install equipment 
and make decisions about equipment specifications and functionality, 
this final rule instead requires the currently eligible vessel owners 
to obtain certification from a NMFS-approved contractor stating that 
the contractor has properly installed and verified the functionality of 
the electronic monitoring system in accordance with more detailed 
equipment and system requirements provided in the final rule. As set 
out in the proposed rule, vessel owners would have been responsible for 
the costs of the equipment and for installation for the electronic 
monitoring systems. Since publication of the proposed rule and the 
FEIS, and in response to public comment and to ease the regulated 
community's burden associated with the new monitoring requirements, 
NMFS has identified funds to pay for the equipment and its installation 
for those currently eligible vessels (eligible for initial quota 
shares). For all vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that 
fish with pelagic longline gear, vessel owners (or their 
representatives) must coordinate with the NMFS-approved contractor to 
install and test electronic monitoring equipment, and the contractor 
will then provide certification that the equipment has been properly 
installed. Vessel owners will be required to make their vessel 
accessible to designated personnel on a specific date, or range of 
dates, to allow installation and testing of electronic monitoring 
equipment, and may be required to steam to a

[[Page 71521]]

designated port within their geographic region to enable such 
installation and training. This is consistent with the proposed rule's 
requirement that vessels be available for inspection, as it will not 
result in any additional absence from fishing time than was analyzed 
and proposed in the proposed rule or impose additional financial costs 
or regulatory burden.
    To fish using pelagic longline gear, a vessel must have a valid 
certification form from the NMFS-approved contractor certifying that it 
has a fully functioning electronic monitoring system on board. Because 
the pelagic longline fleet is diverse with respect to vessel size, 
mechanical infrastructure, and operation, and the technology supporting 
electronic monitoring is changing and improving, NMFS is implementing 
detailed regulations that include some technical specifications 
regarding the necessary equipment that constitutes an electronic 
monitoring system to respond to public comment that more details are 
needed while still providing flexibility to allow vessels to install 
equipment that performs well in a cost effective manner. NMFS will 
utilize both third party experts and NMFS staff to provide vessel 
owners instructions regarding the specific required equipment and 
operational features of the system. As explained in more detail below, 
vessels must, in accordance with instructions provided by NMFS and/or 
NMFS-approved contractor, coordinate installation and maintain the 
following equipment, as components of an electronic monitoring system: 
Two to four video cameras, a recording device, video monitor, hydraulic 
pressure transducer, winch drum rotation sensor, system control box, 
GPS receiver, and related support equipment needed to achieve the 
objectives (e.g., power supply, camera mounts, lighting). Slight 
modifications to the equipment listed above may be required to support 
the objectives of electronic monitoring, adapt to unique vessel 
characteristics, or achieve cost savings or efficiencies. Vessel 
owners/operators must coordinate installation and subsequently maintain 
and operate the system in accordance with instructions provide by NMFS, 
and allow inspection of the equipment by NMFS. The electronic 
monitoring system must include software to enable a test function so 
that the vessel operator may test the status of the system (i.e., 
whether it is fully functional) prior to each trip, and record the 
outcome of the test. A vessel operator may not depart on a pelagic 
longline trip unless the pre-trip test indicates that the system is 
fully functioning. Upon successful installation and testing by the 
NMFS-approved contractor, the NMFS-approved contractor will provide 
vessel owners with a certificate that the equipment installed 
constitutes a ``fully functioning electronic monitoring system'' based 
on written instructions and requirements that NMFS provided the 
contractor. The vessel owner must make the certificate available upon 
request by NMFS OLE. The required cameras must be installed to provide 
a view of the area where the longline gear is retrieved and catch is 
removed from the hook (prior to placing in the hold or discarding 
boatside) and such system must be connected to the mechanical hauling 
device so that recording is initiated by gear retrieval. The specific 
equipment functionality requirements are as follows:
    Video Cameras: Video data are produced by digital IP (Internet 
protocol) video cameras at a resolution of no less than 720p 
(1280x720). The individual vessel systems must include no less than two 
cameras: At least one camera to record close-up images of the deck at 
the haul back station for species identification/length estimation, and 
at least one camera to record activity along the side of the vessel at 
the water line of the haul back station to document animals that are 
caught and discarded but not brought aboard, as well as the disposition 
of that catch (released alive/dead). The frame rates of the footage 
will need to allow for easy of viewing. The cameras are not required to 
record audio.
    GPS Receiver: A GPS receiver is required to produce output, which 
includes location coordinates, velocity, and heading data, and is 
directly logged continuously by the control box at a minimum rate of 10 
seconds. The GPS receiver must be installed and remain in a location 
that receives a strong signal continuously.
    Hydraulic & Drum Rotation Sensors: A hydraulic sensor is required 
to continuously monitor the hydraulic pressure, and a drum rotation 
sensor must continuously monitor drum rotations in order to provide the 
data necessary for the EM system to trigger the video camera to record. 
The combination of these two sensors provide a mechanism to ensure that 
specific periods of time are captured on video, such as when gear is 
being retrieved and catch is removed from the hooks.
    EM Control Box & Monitor: The system must include a `control box' 
to receive and store the raw data provided by the sensors and cameras. 
The control box must contain removable hard drives and storage system 
adequate to store data for the entire trip (e.g., adequate to store the 
data associated with a trip lasting approximately 30 days). A 
wheelhouse monitor must provide a graphical user interface for 
harvesters to monitor the state and performance of the control box and 
should include information such as: Current date and time synced via 
GPS, GPS coordinates, current hydraulic pressure reading, presence of a 
data disk, percentage used of the data disk, and video recording 
status.
    Hydraulics: Prior to system installation, vessel operators must 
possess and install a fitting for the pressure side of the line of the 
drum hydraulic system. The fitting may be either ``T'' or inline, with 
a female \1/4\'' threaded National Pipe Thread (NPT) port to enable 
connection to the pressure transducer.
    Power: Electronic monitoring systems are capable or being powered 
by both alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) power. An EM 
system that is to be powered by a DC circuit must have free space on a 
12-volt bus bar in the wheelhouse and a dedicated DC power switch. If 
the EM systems are to be powered by AC circuits, vessels must provide 
an Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) in the wheelhouse.
    Camera Mounts: During installation of the EM system, cameras must 
be mounted so that the camera may be positioned to view the waterline 
outboard of the vessel rail. If determined during the vessel assessment 
that there is not suitable mounting structure onboard, vessels may be 
required to provide a mount that allows a camera to be positioned to 
view the waterline outboard of the vessel rail. Before each scheduled 
installation of an EM system, NMFS-approved contractors will discuss 
mounting alternatives with the vessel's owner or operator.
    Lighting: Vessels must provide sufficient lighting for cameras to 
clearly illuminate individual fish on deck at the haul back station and 
along the vessel rail at the waterline, at all times. Lighting will be 
evaluated by NMFS-approved contractors during the vessel assessment/EM 
installation. After installation, if NMFS-approved contractors review 
video footage and determine that lighting is insufficient, the vessel 
owner must adjust the lighting to ensure it is sufficient before the EM 
system can be recertified.
    Upon completion of a fishing trip, the vessel operator must mail 
the removable EM system hard drive containing all data to NMFS or the 
NMFS-approved contractor, within 48 hours of the

[[Page 71522]]

completion of the trip, according to instructions provided by NMFS. 
Prior to departing on a subsequent trip, the vessel owner or operator 
must install a replacement EM system hard drive to enable data and 
video recording. The vessel owner or operator is responsible for 
contacting NMFS, or NMFS-approved contractors, if they have not 
received a replacement hard drive(s). The vessel operator is 
responsible to ensure that all bluefin tuna are handled in a manner 
that enables the electronic monitoring system to record such fish, and 
must identify a crew person or employee responsible for ensuring that 
all handling, retention, and sorting of bluefin tuna occurs in 
accordance with the regulations. NMFS or the NMFS-approved contractor, 
with the vessel owner or operators'' input, will develop and provide a 
written Vessel Monitoring Plan, to document the standardized procedures 
relating to electronic monitoring and facilitate communication of such 
procedures to the vessel crew. The vessel owner or operator is 
responsible for ensuring that the EM system remains powered for the 
duration of each trip; that cameras are cleaned routinely to ensure 
unobstructed views, and the EM system components are not tampered with.
    NMFS will communicate instructional information in writing, via 
permit holder letters, to the vessel owners during all phases of the 
program to provide direction and assistance to vessel owners, and 
facilitate the provision of technical assistance.

Electronic Catch Reporting

    This final rule requires Atlantic Tunas General, Harpoon, and HMS 
Charter/Headboat categories to report the length of all bluefin tuna 
retained or dead discards through an online catch reporting system 
(either through a Web site designated by NMFS or calling a phone 
number) within 24 hours of the landings or end of each trip. 
Specifically, vessels must report the number of bluefin tuna retained, 
and the number of bluefin tuna discarded dead, according to 
instructions that will be provided by NMFS. NMFS also operates a 
similar automated landings reporting system (ALRS) for recreational 
bluefin tuna catch in the HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat category 
(when fishing recreationally). This discard information will enhance 
NMFS's ability to more fully and accurately account for all sources of 
fishing mortality, consistent with ICCAT recommendations.

5. General Category Flexibility for Quota Adjustment

    This final rule allows NMFS to proactively transfer General 
category quota from one or more of the time-periods that follow the 
January time-period to the January or other preceding sub-quota time 
periods within a fishing year, either through annual specifications or 
through inseason action. In other words, under this rule, NMFS may 
transfer subquota from one time period to another time period, earlier 
in the same calendar year. As described in more detail under Response 
to Comments (Comment 98), NMFS may transfer quota from the December 
sub-quota time period to the January sub-quota time period to address 
the unique characteristics of the January sub-quota period. For 
example, for an upcoming year (i.e., prior to January), NMFS may 
transfer quota from the December to the January sub-quota period. NMFS 
may also conduct lower priority transfers of sub-quota between time 
periods, for example, subquota could be transferred from the October 1 
through November 30 time period to the September time period.
    This final rule adds a new objective called ``quota adjustment'' to 
the current list of criteria and relevant factors NMFS considers when 
making inseason or annual quota adjustments.

6. Harpoon Category NMFS Authority To Adjust Retention Limits

    To optimize fishing opportunity for the Harpoon category 
participants within the available quota, NMFS may increase or decrease 
the daily retention limit of large medium bluefin tuna (greater than 
73'' CFL and less than 81'' CFL) within a range from two to four fish. 
Any adjustment will be based upon the regulatory determination criteria 
under Sec.  635.27(a)(8) (as revised by this final rule) that apply to 
inseason bluefin tuna adjustments including: The usefulness of 
information obtained from catches in the particular category for 
biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock; effects 
of the adjustment on bluefin tuna rebuilding and overfishing; effects 
of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the fishery 
management plan; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or 
migration patterns of bluefin tuna; effects of catch rates in one area 
precluding vessels in another area from having a reasonable opportunity 
to harvest a portion of the category's quota; and review of dealer 
reports, daily landing trends, and the availability of the bluefin tuna 
on the fishing grounds, as well as any other relevant factors.
    The default Harpoon category daily retention limit of large medium 
bluefin tuna will be two fish per vessel (the large medium bluefin tuna 
daily retention limit that applied prior to the 2011 regulatory 
change). The retention limit of giant bluefin tuna will remain 
unlimited. The objective of this measure is to optimize fishing 
opportunity for the Harpoon category participants within the available 
quota. This management measure enhances NMFS's ability to more 
precisely manage the landing rate of large medium bluefin tuna by the 
Harpoon category, thereby optimizing opportunities while preventing 
landings from exceeding the subquota.

7. Angling Category Trophy Subquota Distribution

    This final rule allocates one third of the Angling category trophy 
subquota specifically to account for those bluefin tuna caught 
incidentally while pursuing other species in Gulf of Mexico. The trophy 
subquota would be divided as follows: 33 percent to each of the 
northern area, the southern area outside the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Gulf of Mexico. Based upon the recent average trophy fish weight, this 
would allow up to 8 trophy bluefin tuna to be landed annually in each 
of the three respective areas. To distinguish bluefin tuna incidentally 
caught in the Gulf of Mexico from those caught in the Atlantic, the 
Gulf of Mexico region includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and 
north of the boundary stipulated at Sec.  600.105(c), which is 
essentially west of 83[deg] 00' West longitude but also includes the 
waters off southwestern Florida and north of the Florida Keys.
    The objective of this measure is to reduce discards for 
recreational vessels in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and account 
for incidentally caught bluefin tuna by converting a small number of 
potential dead discards in the Gulf of Mexico to potential landings. A 
separate subquota allocation for the Gulf of Mexico increases the 
likelihood that there will be trophy quota available to account for any 
potential incidental catch of bluefin tuna in that area, while still 
providing incentives not to target bluefin tuna.

8. Purse Seine Category Fishing Year Start Date

    NMFS considered two alternatives at the proposed rule stage. The No 
Action Alternative would have maintained the current practice: The 
purse seine fishery starts on the default start date of July 15 each 
year unless NMFS takes action to delay the season start date to as late 
as August 15. A second alternative, which

[[Page 71523]]

was preferred in the proposed rule and in the FEIS, would change the 
default start date to June 1 (instead of July 15), unless NMFS takes 
action to delay the start date to as late as August 15. In the final 
rule, after considering public comments after the FEIS was published, 
HMS is choosing a third option that removes the default start date 
altogether. Instead, NMFS will establish the purse season start date 
annually, within a range from June 1 to August 15, based on the 
already-existing criteria in the regulations, which are unchanged in 
the final rule text. Although the third option was not directly 
analyzed as an alternative in the FEIS, the range of dates for possible 
opening (June 1-August 15) remains within the range analyzed in the 
FEIS (June 1-August 15 between the two alternatives), and the regulated 
community was aware that this range was being considered and that NMFS 
intended to retain maximum flexibility under any option to adjust the 
date as necessary to be responsive to the public and the fishery under 
the regulatory provisions. By relieving the default date, the new 
approach will allow additional public input to the start-date-setting 
process annually, is responsive to public comment (particularly from 
the harpoon category fishermen), and substantively does not result in 
effects different from those already analyzed. The only change from the 
current practice is that the fishery can start earlier now (June 1 
instead of July 15), and the only change from the proposed rule is that 
there will be no default date.

9. Rules Regarding Permit Category Changes

    This final rule allows a vessel owner to modify the category of an 
Atlantic Tunas or HMS permit issued for up to 45 days from date of 
issuance, provided the vessel has not landed bluefin tuna as verified 
via landings data. The previous restriction (10 calendar days) was 
intended to preclude vessels from fishing in more than one category 
during a year and to discourage speculative use of fishing permits. 
However, based on feedback NMFS has received over a number of years 
from vessel owners affected by the 10 day restriction, NMFS has 
concluded that limiting the time period during which a vessel may 
change permit categories to 10 calendar days is overly restrictive, and 
does not allow the flexibility to resolve the problems of a permit 
issued by mistake. The 45 day restriction achieves a better balance of 
allowing flexibility for vessel owners, while still preventing fishing 
in more than one permit category during a fishing year.

10. Northern Albacore Tuna Quota

    This measure implements the U.S. annual quota of northern albacore 
tuna recommended by ICCAT and establishes provisions for the accounting 
of overharvest and underharvest of the quota via annual specifications. 
Specifically, the codified U.S. northern albacore tuna quota will be 
adjusted as appropriate for prior year catch (up or down), including 
delayed adjustment (that would skip a year) or adjustments over several 
years. Consistent with the ICCAT recommendation, carry-forward of 
unused quota from one year to the next will be limited to 25 percent of 
the initial quota. NMFS will adjust and implement the following via 
regulatory framework adjustments: Actions to implement ICCAT 
recommendations, as appropriate; allocating and refining domestic 
allocation of the U.S. quota; establishing retention limits; 
implementing effort restrictions, etc. Although an FMP amendment is not 
needed, framework adjustments still go through extensive public and 
analytical review and must be consistent with the MSA and other 
applicable law.

11. Adjustment of Management Measures

    This final rule adds to the list of management measures that NMFS 
may modify or establish in accordance with the framework procedures of 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, and provides examples of 
Amendment 7 measures that are within the scope of management measures 
currently listed in the regulations. With exceptions as noted under 
``Changes from Proposed Rule,'' these measures were contained within 
the proposed rule. The Amendment 7 measures not previously contained in 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP are as follows: The quota shares or 
allocations for bluefin tuna; electronic monitoring requirements; and 
administration of the IBQ Program (including requirements pertaining to 
leasing of IBQ allocations, regional or minimum quota share 
requirements, quota share caps (individual or by category), permanent 
sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.). The Amendment 7 measures that are 
within the scope of measures currently in the regulations are 
Performance metrics (within the scope of ``time/area restrictions'' in 
current regulations) and Angling category trophy south/north/Gulf of 
Mexico percentages (within the scope of ``allocations among user 
groups'' in current regulations).

12. Minor Regulatory Changes

    Amendment 7 is implementing minor regulatory changes (such as minor 
corrections and clarifications; the removal or modification of obsolete 
cross-references; and minor changes to definitions and prohibitions) to 
improve the administration and enforcement of HMS regulations. Several 
of these items have been identified by constituents over the past few 
years or were raised during scoping hearings. The corrections, 
clarifications, changes in definitions, and modifications to remove 
obsolete cross-references are consistent with the intent of previously 
analyzed and approved management measures. Under Sec.  635.5(c)(1), the 
relevant internet address will be updated. Under Sec.  635.20(a), the 
method of determining length of Atlantic tunas will apply regardless of 
permit type. Regulations at Sec.  635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B), will refer to a 
``gear restricted area,'' instead of a ``closed'' area. Under Sec.  
635.27(a)(7)(i), the reference to ``Fishery-independent research'' is 
changed to ``research.'' Under Sec.  635.27(a)(1)(iii), the descriptor 
``coastwide'' when referring to the General category fishery, is 
deleted. Under Sec.  635.71(b)(13), the prohibition is corrected to 
clarify that the relevant amount of bluefin tuna is the ``applicable 
limit'' instead of ``a'' bluefin tuna. These changes were not analyzed 
because they do not make substantive changes to the regulations.
    This final rule notifies the public that the collection-of-
information requirements contained in Sec. Sec.  635.5, 635.9, 635.14, 
635.15, and 635.69 have been approved by OMB and are effective. In 
addition this final rule will update the table on NOAA information 
collections approved by OMB that appears under 15 CFR part 902.

Response to Comments

    NMFS received over 188,000 written comments from fishermen, states, 
environmental groups, academia and scientists, and other interested 
parties. Comments included submissions of large numbers of identical or 
similar comments by organizations (or facilitated by organizations), as 
well as oral statements made at public hearings. All written comments 
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/. The comments received 
resulted in changes, as described below, and in the section of this 
final rule called ``Changes from Proposed Rule''. Significant comments 
are summarized below by major topic together with NMFS' responses. 
There are 29 major issues:

[[Page 71524]]

    1. General Support for Proposed Measures (Comment 1),
    2. General Concerns (Comments 2-7),
    3. Codified Reallocation (Comments 8-13),
    4. Annual Reallocation (Comments 14-17),
    5. Modification to Reserve Category (Comments 18-19),
    6. General Comments About Gear Restricted Areas (Comments 20-42),
    7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area (Comments 43-49),
    8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area (Comments 50-62),
    9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing Under General Category Rules 
(Comment 63),
    10. Pelagic Longline Limited Conditional Access to Closed Areas 
(Comment 64),
    11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline Transiting Closed Areas (Comment 
65),
    12. Gear-Based Measures (Comments 66-67),
    13. General Comments About Individual Bluefin Quotas (Comments 68-
75),
    14. IBQ Eligibility (Comments 76-85),
    15. IBQ Leasing (Comments 86-88),
    16. Measures Associated with the IBQ Program (Comments 89-90),
    17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline Fishery (Comment 91),
    18. VMS Requirements (Comment 92),
    19. Electronic Monitoring Requirements (Comment 93),
    20. Automated Catch Reporting (Comment 94),
    21. Expand the Scope of the Large Pelagics Survey (Comment 95),
    22. Deployment of Observers (Comment 96),
    23. General Category Subquota Management (Comments 97-98),
    24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit (Comment 99),
    25. Angling Category Trophy Sub-Quota (Comments 100-101),
    26. Purse Seine Start Date (Comments 102-103),
    27. Permit Category Changes (Comment 104),
    28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna Quota (Comment 105), and
    29. Other Concerns (Comments 106-107).

1. General Support for Proposed Measures

    Comment 1: NMFS received a wide range of comments expressing 
general support for the proposed conservation and management measures. 
Commenters stated that the proposed measures are a step in the correct 
direction for the future management of bluefin tuna, many noting 
support for Amendment 7 due to the inclusion of ``strong'' management 
measures, and others supporting the measures generally but urging NMFS 
to adopt stronger management measures than those proposed. Commenters' 
support was based upon their concerns about the current status of the 
bluefin stock and the desire to ensure long-term sustainability of 
bluefin for future generations of people. Some commenters urged NMFS to 
implement the preferred alternatives to ``Save the Bluefin,'' based on 
their perception that bluefin tuna are at imminent risk of going 
extinct. Commenters expressed concerns about the impacts of pelagic 
longline gear on bluefin tuna, noting the waste associated with 
discarding bluefin, especially in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), and 
supported changes to the management of the pelagic longline fishery to 
reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna, as well as other highly migratory 
species, marine mammals, sea turtles, and other species. Commenters 
noted that many coastal communities depend upon healthy stocks of fish 
to contribute to their economic well-being and to that of individuals 
supported by commercial and recreational fisheries.
    Response: The need for management action and the specific 
objectives of Amendment 7 are described in detail in Chapter 1 of the 
FEIS, and the proposed rule. This final rule implements a suite of 
management measures that will achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in a 
balanced manner. Amendment 7 enhances long-term sustainability of 
bluefin tuna through reduced dead discards; improved monitoring; 
increased flexibility in the quota system to both account for dead 
discards and optimize allocation of quota among the diverse bluefin 
fisheries; and increased accountability in the pelagic longline 
fishery.
    Based upon the advice of ICCAT's Standing Committee on Research and 
Statistics, continued management with catch levels that comport with 
ICCAT recommendations should support further stock growth of the 
Western Atlantic stock of bluefin and is consistent with the ICCAT 
rebuilding plan given the current state of the science regarding the 
stock status. The MSA requires consideration of both the biological and 
economic impacts of conservation and management measures, and NMFS has 
determined that Amendment 7 measures will achieve a balance that will 
support the broader objectives of both stock rebuilding and continued 
viability of the commercial and recreational fisheries that depend upon 
bluefin tuna.
    The GOM has an important function in the ecology of the Western 
Atlantic stock of bluefin. The responses to comments 50 through 62 
address measures specific to the GOM. NMFS acknowledges that pelagic 
longline gear affects other species in addition to bluefin tuna and 
therefore, Amendment 7 measures may indirectly affect other species. As 
described in the FEIS analyses, the cumulative impacts on other species 
are likely to be neutral or positive.

2. General Concerns

    Comment 2: Many commenters, particularly those with small 
businesses involved in the pelagic longline fishery expressed concern 
regarding the potential for negative economic impacts of Amendment 7 on 
jobs, families, and communities, and noted the importance of pelagic 
longline-caught fish in supplying high quality seafood to the nation. 
These commenters were concerned about the potential for the Amendment 7 
measures to put people out of business, and ``destroy the pelagic 
longline fishery.'' Commenters stated that vessels that are currently 
only marginally economically viable would be at particular risk of 
going out of business, but were also concerned about any secondary 
impacts on related businesses such seafood dealers, gear manufacturers, 
etc. They urged NMFS to use a balanced regulatory approach to address 
the Amendment 7 objectives, and stated that Amendment 7 measures would 
increase uncertainty in the pelagic longline fishery.
    Response: The seafood supplied to the Nation by the pelagic 
longline fleet is valuable as both a source of food, and for the 
generation of income supporting local jobs, communities, and the 
broader economy. NMFS designed management measures to minimize economic 
impacts by relying on the combined effects of multiple management tools 
and incorporating flexibility into the system. Amendment 7 measures 
will affect all permit/quota categories and reflect the balance of 
addressing the issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock and management 
of the fishery while maintaining the viability of the pelagic longline 
and other fisheries dependent upon bluefin tuna. For example, 
reductions in dead discards will be achieved through the use of 
multiple measures, including gear restricted areas, the IBQ system, and 
IBQ allocation measures. This final rule will modify the quota system 
to increase management flexibility to allocate quota among categories 
and maximize opportunities to catch available quota, account for dead 
discards, and respond to changing conditions in the fishery. As the 
pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to

[[Page 71525]]

the suite of new measures, NMFS will have the flexibility to allocate a 
limited amount of additional quota to the pelagic longline vessels if 
necessary to prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a result of the 
gear restricted areas, and IBQ system, reduce the net amount of bluefin 
catch from the levels recently caught. The Amendment 7 management 
measures work together to reduce dead discards and otherwise reduce 
bycatch to the extent practicable, increase accountability, enhance 
reporting and monitoring, and optimize quota allocation, in a 
predictable but flexible manner. The potential economic impacts of the 
measures affecting the pelagic longline fleet are analyzed in Chapters 
5 and 7, of the FEIS, and the economic rationale is summarized in the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Public comments that address 
specific measures are addressed below in the responses to more specific 
comments.
    Comment 3: Commenters stated that when determining whether the 
pelagic longline fleet should be subject to additional restrictions, 
NMFS should consider the current and past regulatory environment and 
other factors as context. Commenters stated the pelagic longline 
fishery is already heavily regulated to minimize its environmental 
impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g., closures, weak hook requirement, 
observer deployment, bait requirements), and that progress is being 
made. Furthermore, increases in fuel costs strain fishers' ability to 
make a living, and events such as the 2010 oil spill in the GOM 
continue to be relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin tuna is managed 
at the international level and believe that the United States manages 
its citizens in a more effective and responsible way than other 
countries, and that NMFS should not further regulate bluefin tuna and 
increase the management disparity between the United States and other 
countries.
    Response: The context in which vessels operate, including current 
regulations and other factors was a relevant factor NMFS considered in 
determining whether new regulations were needed. NMFS took into 
consideration many factors in selecting preferred measures which 
address the diverse objectives of Amendment 7 in a balanced manner. 
Chapter 6 of the FEIS contains a cumulative impacts analysis which is 
broad in scope and takes into consideration past, present, and 
reasonably foreseeable factors. In addition, Chapter 2 in the FEIS 
contains a description of measures and the rationale for the preferred 
measures. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis includes a 
description of the steps taken to minimize the economic impacts on 
small entities, and the reasons for the preferred measures.
    The United States manages its exclusive economic zone in accordance 
with applicable U.S. laws and in response to the unique characteristics 
of its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. regulations regarding bluefin 
tuna are different from the rules affecting citizens of other 
countries, which operate under different laws and circumstances. Where 
U.S. regulations are more restrictive than those abroad, NMFS believes 
that the corresponding ecological and socio-economic benefits that 
result from such restrictions are also likely to be greater than those 
abroad.
    Comment 4: Commenters stated that the Amendment 7 DEIS contained 
too much information, was too complex, and was difficult to understand. 
Others were concerned that the DEIS was developed too quickly, leaving 
out too many details such as those associated with implementation of 
measures.
    Response: The proposed rule clearly described the proposed 
management measures, and NMFS facilitated communication with the public 
via the internet and its Web site. The amount and complexity of 
information in the DEIS and the FEIS reflect primarily the scope of the 
objectives of Amendment 7 and the number of alternatives analyzed. The 
complexity of the DEIS and FEIS also is due to the diversity of the 
bluefin tuna fisheries, and the number of applicable laws and processes 
(both national and international). The DEIS and FEIS contain an 
Executive Summary which provides a condensed version of the relevant 
information including tables of important information. NMFS conducted 
public hearings (including a language interpreter for one hearing) that 
were designed to inform the public of the proposed measures in a 
readily understandable format, as well as provide opportunities for the 
public to comment and ask questions.
    Significant time and opportunity for public comment have gone into 
what has been a very thorough rulemaking process for this Amendment. 
The formal development of Amendment 7 began with the publication of the 
Notice of Intent (April 23, 2012; 78 FR 24161), which announced NMFS' 
intent to hold public scoping meetings to determine the scope and 
significance of issues to be analyzed in a DEIS and a potential 
amendment to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. However, the informal 
development began several years previously. On June 1, 2009, NMFS 
published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR; 74 FR 26174) 
requesting specific comments on regulatory changes that would 
potentially increase opportunities for U.S. bluefin tuna and swordfish 
fisheries to fully harvest the U.S. quotas recommended by ICCAT while 
balancing continuing efforts to end BFT overfishing by 2010 and rebuild 
the stock by 2019 as set out in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, 
consistent with the ICCAT rebuilding plan. The ANPR was in response to 
various public suggestions about bluefin tuna management during the 
previous two years, precipitated by declines in the total volume of 
bluefin tuna landings, which were well below the available U.S. quota, 
and a reduction in the overall allowable western Atlantic bluefin TAC 
recommended by ICCAT. In the ANPR, NMFS also requested public comment 
regarding the potential implementation of catch shares, LAPPs, and 
individual bycatch caps (IBCs) in highly migratory species fisheries. 
In response, NMFS received a wide range of suggestions for changes to 
the management of the U.S. bluefin tuna fisheries.
    While the DEIS and proposed regulations contained sufficient detail 
for the public to understand the measures and their potential impacts, 
including implementation, the FEIS and this final rule provide 
additional details to clarify certain aspects of implementation. These 
are not new measures but clarification of measures within the scope of 
the impacts analyzed by the DEIS. The regulatory process of proposed 
and final rulemaking allows for such flexibility to respond to public 
comments and implement regulations that address the regulatory 
objectives. The changes made from the proposed rule are summarized in 
the section of this final rule called ``Changes from Proposed Rule''. 
The comment period was extended to allow maximum public participation 
in this process.
    Comment 5: Some commenters asked why the focus of Amendment 7 is 
the pelagic longline fishery, perceived the Amendment as an ``unfair 
attack'' on this fishery, and asked why no additional restrictions were 
proposed for the General, Harpoon, or Angling categories. Other 
commenters did not want one user group in the fishery to bear the 
regulatory burden, but believed that all should sacrifice for the good 
of the fishery as a whole.
    Response: The focus of Amendment 7 is the list of stated 
objectives, including reducing and accounting for dead

[[Page 71526]]

discards, optimizing quota allocations, and enhancing reporting and 
monitoring. Although many of the measures being implemented will apply 
to vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear, all user groups will be 
subject to new regulations as appropriate and necessary, to contribute 
to the sustainability of the bluefin fisheries. Amendment 7 
fundamentally alters the pelagic longline bluefin tuna management 
structure in order to decrease dead discards and increase 
accountability, yet it also implements new restrictions for vessels 
fishing under the other permit categories. Although the components of 
the regulated bluefin fisheries are very different and therefore have 
been subject to different restrictions in the past, NMFS developed the 
Amendment 7 management measures based upon a common set of objectives.
    Comment 6: NMFS should exempt pelagic longline fishery participants 
that have never interacted with bluefin tuna from the programs proposed 
in Amendment 7.
    Response: Amendment 7 enhances long-term sustainability of bluefin 
tuna through reduced dead discards, improved monitoring, increased 
flexibility in the quota system to both account for dead discards and 
optimize allocation of quota among the diverse bluefin fisheries, and 
increased accountability in the pelagic longline fishery. NMFS 
acknowledges that some pelagic longline vessels may not encounter 
bluefin tuna as a function of where and how those individuals fish. 
However, the effective implementation of the management measures 
requires consistent treatment and participation of all of the 
participating vessels. NMFS cannot exclude individual HMS pelagic 
longline fishermen from the provisions of Amendment 7 given the 
mobility of the pelagic longline fleet and uncertainty about bluefin 
interactions by individual vessels in the future. Through this 
Amendment 7 final rule, NMFS is redesigning many operational aspects of 
the entire pelagic longline fleet. Exclusion of a small pool of 
individuals would create an inequitable management environment across 
the fleet. The measures implemented by this final rule do, however, 
include specific provisions that are based on the data that indicate 
that some participants have few or no interactions with bluefin. For 
example, under the IBQ program, eligible permitted vessels will receive 
a percentage share of the overall pelagic longline bluefin quota. The 
amount of quota share, either ``high'', ``medium'', or ``low'' will 
depend in part upon the vessel's historical rate of bluefin 
interactions. Vessels with a relatively low rate of bluefin 
interactions will qualify for a higher share of the total bluefin quota 
than vessels with a higher rate of interactions, and have access to the 
Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear Restricted Area.
    Comment 7: Several commenters stated that the solution to the 
challenge of how to account for all catch (landings and dead discards) 
in the context of a limited quota is to increase the amount of quota 
allocated to the United States through ICCAT (instead of the measures 
proposed under Amendment 7).
    Response: Although a larger U.S. quota would facilitate easier 
quota accounting (i.e., ensure that the total bluefin landings and dead 
discards do not exceed the total bluefin quota), a larger quota, 
without concurrent changes to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP is a short-
term solution and would not achieve the broader objectives of Amendment 
7 or the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. For example, a larger quota would 
not reduce the relative amount of dead discards of bluefin by the 
pelagic longline fishery, increase accountability for the pelagic 
longline fishery, optimize and provide additional flexibility to the 
quota system, or enhance reporting and monitoring. Furthermore, the 
United States does not independently set the quota at ICCAT and any 
quota established must be based on the best available scientific 
information ICCAT members (including U.S. delegates) vote to recommend 
an appropriate bluefin quota, based on the recommendation of the ICCAT 
scientists (which include U.S. scientists).

3. Codified Reallocation

    Comment 8: Many commenters did not support reallocation of 
additional quota to the Longline category as a means to achieve the 
Amendment 7 objectives. They stated that shifting quota would not 
reduce interactions with bluefin or dead discards and that providing 
additional quota would undercut the benefits of a ``catch cap'' (i.e., 
setting a strict maximum/cap on the amount of bluefin that could be 
caught, including dead discards and landings), would discourage the use 
of alternative gears, and would reward a ``destructive fishery'' by 
moving quota from quota categories that fish with more selective gear 
to the Longline category, which fishes with less selective gear and has 
more bycatch.
    Many commenters supported the codified reallocation for the reasons 
NMFS stated in the proposed rule, as well as other reasons including 
the statement that the Longline category may have a smaller `carbon 
footprint' than the other quota categories; the other categories are 
frequently under-harvested; the Longline category provides the U.S 
consumer access to important food sources; the General category exports 
much of the bluefin tuna it catches; and all user groups should bear 
the regulatory burden.
    Response: Amendment 7 implements systematic management and 
operational changes to reduce bluefin bycatch and maintain the pelagic 
longline directed fishery and the other bluefin tuna fisheries. The 
combined measures of this final rule, which include modified quota 
allocations, gear restricted areas, and individual bluefin quotas, will 
reduce bluefin catch and provide incentives to utilize alternative, 
more selective gear types. To achieve the Amendment 7 objectives of 
reducing dead discards while minimizing associated reductions in target 
catch, NMFS will allocate bluefin quota to the Longline category in 
amounts that exceed its current allocation of 8.1 percent, but will 
reduce levels of incidental bluefin catch by the Longline category. 
NMFS anticipates that the catch of bluefin by pelagic longline gear 
will be reduced by between 17 and 42 percent, depending upon the amount 
of quota allocated and leased, and fishery conditions. Some flexibility 
in the amount of quota allocated to the Longline and other quota 
categories is needed to accommodate the highly variable bluefin 
fisheries, as well as to mitigate some of the uncertainty and negative 
impacts associated with a brief transitional period in the pelagic 
longline fishery as it adjusts to the preferred Amendment measures.
    As explained in the FEIS, there are several reasons why additional 
quota should be provided to the Longline category, as one element of a 
more comprehensive strategy to resolve the challenge of accounting for 
bluefin catch and reducing dead discards. The pelagic longline fishery 
interacts with bluefin tuna when it targets swordfish, yellowfin tuna, 
bigeye tuna, and other species, because the occurrence of those species 
overlap as a result of their similar biology and ecology. The Longline 
category is required to account for dead discards and landings, yet the 
historical basis for the relative size of the Longline category's quota 
allocation (8.1 percent) was only landings, and did not consider the 
amount of quota that could be necessary to account for dead discards in 
addition to those landings within the total allowable catch.
    Based on the best available information, an allocation of 8.1 
percent has been inadequate to account for both

[[Page 71527]]

landings and dead discards since ICCAT adopted a requirement to account 
for dead discards within the existing quota. In recent years, NMFS has 
accounted for pelagic longline bluefin dead discards by relying in part 
upon under harvest of quota by other quota categories. The merits of 
allocating additional quota to the Longline category must be considered 
in the context of all of the other management measures being 
implemented by Amendment 7. Because the Amendment 7 measures 
implemented by this final rule will provide quota accountability on an 
individual vessel and category-wide basis for the Longline category, 
the amount of quota allocated to the category is of critical 
importance. Specifically, when the quota allocated to an individual 
vessel has been caught, the use of pelagic longline gear by that vessel 
will be prohibited. If the category-wide quota has been caught NMFS may 
prohibit all vessels in the fleet from fishing with pelagic longline 
gear. Based on current information regarding the range of bluefin tuna 
interactions that can be expected, continuing to limit the Longline 
category to a quota of 8.1 percent of the available quota would result 
in a shut-down in the fishery relatively early in the year. 
Notwithstanding the other measures being implemented by this final 
rule, which will result in reductions in dead discards by vessels 
fishing with pelagic longline gear, a quota allocation of 8.1 percent 
quota would result in a severely diminished or eliminated fishery, 
contrary to the objective of optimizing fishing opportunities.
    Comment 9: Commenters suggested that the amount of bluefin quota 
allocated to the Longline category should be reduced, or set at zero.
    Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 8 there are 
several reasons why the Longline category quota should be increased. 
Moreover, reducing the Longline category quota would not be consistent 
with the Amendment 7 objectives and would result in severe economic 
impacts that can be avoided through the use of other management tools. 
NMFS designed the quota allocation measures to minimize the economic 
impacts on the non-longline categories. The amount of quota being 
deducted from each of the categories (for allocation to the Pelagic 
Longline category under the ``Codified Reallocation Alternative'') is 
proportional to the size of each category's quota and is relatively 
small (approximately 7 percent). Secondly, the amount of quota that 
will be deducted from the categories is fixed, therefore, if the U.S. 
bluefin quota increases as a result of stock growth, the amount 
deducted from the various categories will not increase, but the total 
quota allocated to each category would increase. Furthermore, the other 
quota allocation measures implemented by this final rule (``Annual 
Reallocation'' and ``Modifications to Reserve Category'') provide 
mechanisms to reallocate quota back to these categories, if quota is 
available. The ``Annual Reallocation Alternative'' guarantees a minimum 
amount of quota to the participants in the Purse Seine fishery, and 
enables increases in quota allocations over time with increasing levels 
of bluefin catch. Providing an amount of bluefin quota to the pelagic 
longline fishery that both reduces dead discards, yet also accounts for 
a reasonable amount of incidental catch that can be anticipated (based 
on historical catch rates and the effect of Amendment 7 gear restricted 
areas) will enable the continued generation of revenue associated with 
the pelagic longline fishery's target catch.
    Comment 10: One commenter stated that providing 68 mt of 
``additional quota'' to the Longline category is not appropriate, and 
that the amount should be larger, because the discard estimation 
methodology that the amount was based on is no longer in use. Another 
commenter stated that the amount of additional quota should be smaller 
than 68 mt because the size of the U.S. quota has been reduced since 
the time the 68 mt set-aside was established.
    Response: Although the codified reallocation measure is intended to 
facilitate accounting for dead discards by the Longline category, the 
specific amount (68 mt) is not intended to serve as an estimate of 
current dead discards or establish a proportion of discards to 
landings. NMFS prefers 68 mt as the amount of quota to be contributed 
from all categories, resulting in augmenting the Longline category by 
62.5 mt, because the amount of additional quota achieves an appropriate 
balance of costs and benefits in the fishery and because of its 
historical relevance as a set-aside for dead discards, the inclusion of 
which was a critical factor in first establishing the formula under 
which all categories received their current allocations. No adjustment 
to those allocations was made when ICCAT first eliminated the dead 
discard allowance, and such an adjustment clearly is warranted given 
the resulting management challenges in accounting for both landings and 
dead discards within the available quota. Furthermore, providing a 
fixed amount of additional quota to the Longline category effectively 
limits the amount of reallocation into the future. In contrast, 
altering the base allocation percentages associated with each quota 
category would have had the potential effect of increasing the amount 
reallocation to the longline category if the total U.S. quota 
increases. Although increasing the amount of quota reallocated to the 
Pelagic Longline category in association with increases in total quota 
would facilitate accounting for incidental catch of bluefin and achieve 
one of the objectives of this Amendment, it would not effectively limit 
bycatch and reduce dead discards, which are also key objectives of 
Amendment 7.
    Comment 11: Commentors suggested that NMFS should, instead of the 
``Codified Reallocation'' of quota from all quota categories, 
reallocate quota from only the Purse Seine category; impose greater 
restrictions on the pelagic longline fishery to reduce their discards; 
or implement more restrictive gear restricted areas in the Gulf of 
Mexico and off Cape Hatteras in order to further reduce incidental 
bluefin tuna catch.
    Response: NMFS prefers that all quota categories contribute to 
addressing the challenge of accounting for dead discards, which, as 
explained in the response to Comment 8 is a problem which has multiple 
root causes, and is integrally related to the operation and management 
of the fishery as a whole. This Amendment 7 final rule addresses the 
issue of the recurring under-harvest associated with the Purse Seine 
fishery through the ``Annual Reallocation'' measure, which provides a 
predictable method to optimize the use of Purse Seine quota that might 
otherwise remain unharvested. This final rule implements new 
conservation and management measures applicable only to the Longline 
category, which will limit bycatch, reduce dead discards, increase 
incentives to avoid bluefin, and increase accountability. NMFS 
disagrees that greater restrictions on the Longline category--instead 
of reallocating a limited amount of quota-- would achieve the Amendment 
7 objectives in a manner that minimizes economic impacts to the extent 
practicable. As explained in the response to Comment 9 above, NMFS 
designed the quota allocation measures to minimize the economic impacts 
on the non-longline categories. The alternatives take into 
consideration the relative size of each category quota (in the case of 
the ``Codified Reallocation Alternative''), or the level of activity of 
vessels (``Annual Reallocation Alternative''), and are designed to 
consider changing levels of

[[Page 71528]]

quota or landings, respectively, in ways that reduce economic impacts.
    Comment 12: Many commenters strongly opposed reallocating quota to 
the Longline category because of concerns about the economic impacts on 
a particular geographic region (e.g., New England or mid-Atlantic), or 
quota category (e.g., the General category or the Angling category). 
Some commenters urged NMFS to respect the historical allocation 
percentages, and noted that reallocation would have the effect of 
pitting the different categories against each other. Some commenters 
suggested that NMFS consider other regulatory and economic 
circumstances facing vessels that may be impacted by a reduced quota.
    For example, Congressional representatives from Massachusetts, and 
the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) stated that the 
proposed reallocation would disadvantage the New England Fishery, the 
traditional Massachusetts fleet, and shore-side infrastructure, and 
would allow fleets from other regions to use a disproportionate amount 
of quota. They were concerned about the commercial fleet that is 
experiencing economic damage due to the decline in key stocks in the 
groundfish fishery. The Council suggested that NMFS assess the port-
specific impacts of reallocation. A commenter was concerned that 
recreational vessels in the mid-Atlantic region would be 
disproportionately affected by quota reallocation because the quota may 
not last until the time the bluefin are off the mid-Atlantic coast.
    Response: A reduction in quota may impact the revenue associated 
with a particular quota category or geographic region, or result in 
secondary economic impacts on a community. The FEIS analysis estimates 
that reallocation of quota to the Longline category could reduce 
revenue for individual vessels with a General category permit by $850 
and result in total reduction in maximum revenue of $542,000 for all 
General category vessels. Although thirty percent of the General 
category permits are associated with the State of Massachusetts (1,150 
permits as of October 2013), the total number of active vessels is 
substantially lower. Of the total number of General category permits 
issued throughout the Atlantic coast (3,783), the average number of 
General category vessels landing at least one bluefin between 2006 and 
2012 was 474 vessels (total). Thus, the number of active vessels in 
Massachusetts can be presumed to be substantial fewer than 1,150.
    When considering the social and economic impacts of actions, 
different communities and regions may be impacted to different degrees 
due to their unique regulatory and economic circumstances. The FEIS 
contains an analysis of the community impacts from the 2010 Deepwater 
Horizon/BP Oil Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents social 
indicators of vulnerability and resistance for 25 communities selected 
for having a greater than average number of HMS permits associated with 
them. Those communities with relatively higher dependence upon 
commercial fishing included Dulac, LA; Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; 
Gloucester, MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC; Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, 
NJ; Cape May, NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are principally at a 
fishery-wide, or permit category level. The bluefin tuna fisheries (and 
other HMS fisheries) are widely distributed and highly variable due to 
the diversity of participants (location, gear types, commercial, 
recreational), and because bluefin tuna are highly migratory over 
thousands of miles, with an annual distribution that is highly 
variable. The specific ports and communities that provide the goods and 
services to support the fishery may vary as well, as vessels travel 
over large distances to pursue their target species. Due to this 
variability, it is difficult to predict potential revenue and secondary 
impacts of preferred management measures by port or by state. Vessels 
fishing in any geographic area in the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are 
likely to have only limited access to bluefin tuna, unless they travel 
long distances within the bluefin's migratory range.
    It is important to note that the actual economic impacts of 
reallocation of quota depend upon the total amount of quota allocated 
to (and harvested from) each of the quota categories, as a result of 
the combined effect of all of the measures that affect quota. For 
example, in addition to the amount of quota available as a result of 
the percentage allocations, and deductions for the 68 mt Annual 
Reallocation, there may be quota available for redistribution to 
various quota categories. Specifically, pursuant to the preferred 
``Annual Reallocation'' measure, as described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, 
if the Purse Seine category has not caught 70 percent of its quota 
during the previous year, quota may be moved to the Reserve category 
and subsequently reallocated across multiple user groups. Furthermore, 
in recent years, many categories have not fully harvested their amount 
of quota available to them. Thus, the actual impacts of reallocation 
may be minor or may be mitigated by future reallocation when available.
    Reallocation of quota may result in frustration or negative 
attitudes among fishery participants of different quota categories, due 
to the changes to an historically accepted quota allocation system, or 
perceptions of unfairness. However, the modifications to the quota 
system are warranted for the reasons described in the response to 
comments 8 through 13 and fair due to the fact that all quota 
categories are affected in proportion to their quota percentage.
    As explained in the response to Comment # 9 above, NMFS designed 
the quota allocation measures to minimize the economic impacts on the 
non-longline categories. The management measures take into 
consideration the relative size of each category quota (in the case of 
the ``Codified Reallocation Alternative'', or the level of activity of 
vessels (``Annual Reallocation Alternative''), and are designed to 
consider changing levels of quota or landings, respectively, in ways 
that reduce negative economic impacts.
    Comment 13: Many recreational anglers wanted to insulate the 
Angling category from any potential effect of quota reallocation to the 
Longline category, citing the economic impacts and high value of the 
recreational bluefin fishery to the economy, as well as the economic 
investments of the participants and the current regulatory burden such 
vessels face. Vessel owners with General category commercial permits 
expressed concern about the potential impacts to the General category. 
Commenters requested additional quantitative analyses comparing the 
different quota categories, including primary and secondary impacts.
    Response: As stated above in the response to the previous comment, 
a reduction in quota may impact the revenue associated with a 
particular quota category or result in secondary economic impacts on a 
community. The objective of the allocation measures is not to 
reallocate quota based on economic optimization, but to: account for 
bluefin dead discards within the Longline category; reduce uncertainty 
in annual quota allocation and accounting; optimize fishing opportunity 
by increasing flexibility in the current bluefin quota allocation 
system; and ensure that the various quota categories are regulated 
fairly relative to one another.
    The reallocation measures of this final rule will minimize adverse 
economic impacts to the extent practicable because the relative amount 
of quota reallocated is small and proportional to the size of the 
category quota, and the overall quota system will be more

[[Page 71529]]

flexible and predictable and able to offset some or all of the negative 
economic impacts. This approach was developed consistent with our 
obligation under National Standard 6 (Conservation and management 
measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and 
contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches) and 
National Standard 8 (Conservation and management measures shall, 
consistent with the conservation requirements of this chapter 
(including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished 
stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to 
fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that meet the 
requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) provide for the 
sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent 
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.)
    Although the FEIS includes estimates of the value of bluefin tuna 
quota by quota category for comparative purposes, the codified 
reallocation measure was not based on a specific economic analysis, but 
the achievement of the stated objectives.
    An elaborate quantitative analysis that compares the economic value 
of the Angling, Longline, and General category fisheries was not 
conducted in the FEIS due to the different characteristics of the 
Angling, Longline and General category fisheries, the variable amount 
of data associated with these fisheries, and the large number of 
factors and assumptions that contribute to estimating the value of a 
fishery. For example, under the IBQ system implemented by Amendment 7, 
bluefin tuna quota may be a limiting factor for a pelagic longline 
vessel, and therefore the lack of adequate bluefin quota, by even a 
small amount, could result in a vessel being prohibited from fishing 
with pelagic longline gear. In that circumstance, the value of the 
bluefin quota to the vessel owner may be very high, and related to the 
value of the target catch (e.g., swordfish or yellowfin tuna). On the 
other hand, the value of a bluefin tuna to a recreational angler or to 
the recreational fishery at- large may include the value of the 
recreational experience to the angler, as well as the associated goods 
and service supporting the fishing trip. The FEIS indicates that the 
Angling category would potentially face unquantified reductions in 
economic and social activity associated with the 7.36 percent reduction 
in available quota.
    In contrast, for a vessel fishing commercially in the General 
category, a high quality bluefin tuna sold to Japan may be extremely 
valuable and other catch is far less important.

4. Annual Reallocation

    Comment 14: Some commenters supported the annual reallocation 
measure as proposed, based on the underlying concept of tying the Purse 
Seine category annual allocation to the level of fishing activity by 
Purse Seine vessels (i.e., ``use or lose''), and the strategy of making 
unused quota available for use by other quota categories.
    Response: The Amendment 7 annual reallocation measure represents an 
improvement to the quota system by implementing a predictable means to 
utilize quota that may otherwise remain unused. Because the 
reallocation of quota from the Purse Seine category to the Reserve will 
occur prior to the beginning of the calendar year and prior to the 
start of the Purse Seine fishery, there will be increased 
predictability in the quota system. In contrast, in the past, there was 
uncertainty that resulted from the fact that the amount of unharvested 
quota associated with the Purse Seine category which would be available 
for quota accounting was unknown until the end of the calendar year. 
Because of that timing problem, the ability for other users to catch 
any unharvested quota was markedly diminished.
    Comment 15: Commenters suggested various modifications to the 
proposed annual reallocation measure. One commenter suggested that the 
concept be applied to the individual vessel instead of at the scale of 
the whole Purse Seine category in order to prevent the situation where 
an individual vessel may be disadvantaged. One commenter suggested that 
only 25 percent of the Purse Seine quota should be available for 
reallocation, instead of 75 percent. A commenter suggested that more 
than one year of catch should be the basis of the allocation, instead 
of a single year. One commenter suggested that the annual reallocation 
alternative be combined with an alternative that was not proposed, 
which would have allocated 40 percent of the Purse Seine category to 
the Longline category.
    Response: In response to the comment that the annual reallocation 
measure should be implemented at the level of the individual vessel in 
order to prevent a situation where a vessel fishes its full allocation 
but, due to inactivity by other vessels, is only allocated a portion of 
its base allocation for the subsequent year, NMFS modified the 
preferred alternative, and is implementing the measure at a vessel 
level (as described in detail in the preamble above, and the FEIS). 
Under the measure implemented by this final rule, annual reallocation 
will be based on the previous year's individual purse seine 
participants catch rather than category-wide catch. This management 
measure will tie quota allocation more closely to individual Purse 
Seine participants catch and create incentive for fishery participants 
to remain active in the fishery. Thus, the individual allocation could 
either increase or decrease. Without this modification to the 
alternative (from that proposed), individual allocations would be tied 
to the catch of the other participants in the fishery, which could have 
unfair results if catch were to vary greatly among the vessels. For 
example, in a year where overall category landings were low, an 
individual purse seine participant could be allocated a relatively low 
amount of quota, even if they landed a substantial portion of their 
allocation the previous year. As such, the alternative would not tie 
the allocation to individual catch and thus would not encourage full 
use of the category quota, which would be inconsistent with the intent 
of this alternative.
    Regarding the comment that only 25 percent of the Purse Seine 
allocation be available for reallocation (instead of 75 percent), if 
only a relatively small percentage of the quota were available for 
reallocation (and a relatively large percentage of the quota guaranteed 
for the Purse Seine allocation), there would be the possibility that 
Purse Seine participants remain inactive, yet only a relatively small 
percentage of the quota is transferred to the Reserve category. Such a 
scenario, which increases the likelihood that the Purse Seine quota as 
a whole may not be utilized by any category, would be inefficient and 
would not optimize the quota system. Making up to 75 percent of the 
quota available to the Reserve category will maximize the amount of 
quota that may be reallocated, and will provide a reasonable minimum 
amount for the Purse Seine participants. The measure implemented by 
this final rule guarantees vessels 25 percent of their base allocation, 
but makes up to 75 percent available for reallocation to the Reserve 
category, while not precluding Purse Seine participants from increasing 
their catches over time (multiple years).
    Regarding the comment that more than one year of catch should be 
used as the basis of the Purse Seine allocation, a time scale of two 
years would reduce the relative importance of a single year's catch in 
determining subsequent quota allocations, but may also decrease the 
availability of quota. The method of annual reallocation being

[[Page 71530]]

implemented (i.e., based on one year) will provide a better balance 
between providing a fair allocation to the Purse Seine category and 
providing a predictable system for utilizing quota among all categories 
that may otherwise be unused, and is consistent with the annual time 
scale applicable to quota related management measures (i.e., the 
relevant time scale for most aspects of the quota system is annual).
    Regarding the comment that the annual reallocation alternative 
should be combined with an annual allocation of 40 percent of the Purse 
Seine category to the Longline category, NMFS determined that the 
annual reallocation measure better meets the objectives of reducing 
uncertainty in annual quota allocation and accounting; optimizing 
fishing opportunity by increasing flexibility in the current bluefin 
quota allocation system; and ensuring that the various quota categories 
are regulated fairly in relative to one another. Under the annual 
reallocation measure implemented by this final rule, the amount of 
quota allocated to Purse Seine participants and the Reserve category is 
responsive to the level of activity of Purse Seine participants, but 
will not reduce the size of the Purse Seine category percentage (18.6 
percent), which is the foundation upon which the allocations to Purse 
Seine participants are based. In contrast, combining this measure with 
an annual allocation of 40 percent of the Purse Seine category to the 
Longline category would substantially reduce the size of the Purse 
Seine allocation regardless of the level of activity by Purse Seine 
vessels. Such a reduction is not consistent with the objective of the 
measure. The objective of the management measure is not to reduce the 
size of the Purse Seine allocation, but to make Purse Seine quota 
available for use by other categories in a predictable manner 
(reflecting a Purse Seine vessel's previous year level of activity), as 
well as allow levels of fishing activity of Purse Seine vessels to 
increase within the scope of the category's allocation.
    Comment 16: One commenter supported annual reallocation, but stated 
that the implementation of the annual reallocation measure should be 
linked to a Purse Seine fishery start date of June 1, as well as 
elimination of the provision limiting the relative amount of 73 to 81 
inch bluefin Purse Seine vessels may retain. One commenter did not 
support annual reallocation due to the different retention rules 
applicable to the Longline and Purse Seine categories. One commenter 
did not support annual reallocation because of the perception that the 
Purse Seine category has not had the same fishing opportunities as the 
other categories due to low availability of giant (greater than 81 
inch) bluefin, and the restriction on retention of large medium 
bluefin.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the Annual Reallocation alternative 
should be evaluated in the context of other regulations applicable to 
the Purse Seine category and Longline category. Modification of the 
start date of the Purse Seine category to June 1 is one of the measures 
being implemented by this Amendment 7 final rule. NMFS considered but 
did not further analyze an alternative that would modify or relieve the 
tolerance limit for large-medium fish in the purse seine category. Such 
an alternative was not further considered for reasons explained in 
Chapter 2 of the FEIS, including because recent data was not available 
about fishery operations that reflected to what extent the purse seine 
fishery experienced regulatory dead discards as a result of the 
tolerance limit. In furtherance of gathering such data and in the 
interest of examining bycatch in the fishery, on August 1, 2014, NMFS 
issued an exempted fishing permit that will exempt a Purse Seine vessel 
from the annual incidental purse seine retention limit on the harvest 
of large medium Atlantic bluefin tuna, in order to investigate and 
gather such data. NMFS could consider changes to the Purse Seine 
category size restrictions in a future rulemaking after further data-
gathering and consideration. The Annual Reallocation measure will not 
result in a negative ecological impact due to the different size 
restrictions applicable to the Purse Seine category and the Longline 
category as explained in Chapter 4 of the FEIS (the potential change in 
the amount of bluefin caught of different size categories is relatively 
small compared with the overall stock size).
    Comment 17: Commenters did not support annual reallocation for a 
variety of reasons. One stated that the Purse Seine category should not 
have a fluctuating quota; one was concerned that the Longline category 
will take the entire Purse Seine quota in the future, and one was 
concerned that reallocation to the Longline category would increase 
discards.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the Purse Seine quota may 
fluctuate under the annual reallocation measure, and that a fluctuating 
quota may have some negative implications for the Purse Seine fishery, 
such as challenges to long-term business planning, and fluctuating 
levels of revenue from the Purse Seine fishery. However, in the context 
of the fishery as a whole, the benefits of the annual reallocation 
measure are expected to outweigh the negative aspects, and the amount 
of quota fluctuation may be reduced by a consistent level of Purse 
Seine catches. Under the annual reallocation measure implemented by 
this final rule, Purse Seine participants will have similar fishing 
opportunities as the other commercial categories that direct on bluefin 
tuna, but if substantial portions of the quota remain unused, there 
will be a fair system to relocate quota in a predictable and efficient 
way. The annual reallocation system will also be responsive to any 
future increased levels of catch by Purse Seine participants. If a 
Purse Seine participant is allocated the minimum amount of quota (25 
percent of its base quota), with increasing catch over time, the 
individual participant could be allocated 100 percent of their base 
quota three years after being allocated the minimum amount. For example 
if during the first year of fishing the participant caught 22 percent 
of their baseline quota, for year two they would be allocated 50 
percent. During year two if the participant caught 46 percent of their 
baseline quota, for year three they would be allocated 75 percent of 
its baseline quota. If during year three they caught 71 percent of 
their baseline quota for year four they would be allocated 100 percent 
of its baseline quota.
    Under the annual reallocation measure, quota will be reallocated to 
the Reserve category, and potentially then to any or all quota 
categories. Transfers of quota from the Reserve category may include 
transfers to the Longline category, but NMFS will consider and balance 
the needs of the fishery as a whole. Quota could also be allocated to 
the other fishery categories as appropriate, considering the relevant 
factors in that year. Specifically, NMFS will base such decisions on 
the criteria described under the ``Modifications to the Reserve 
Category'' measure, as well as other applicable regulations and laws 
(e.g., the MSA National Standards (NS) such as the NS 9 requirement to 
minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable).

5. Modification to Reserve Category

    Comment 18: Several commenters supported the modifications to the 
Reserve category regulations, which would increase the amount of quota 
that may be put into the Reserve category and increase the potential 
uses of Reserve category quota. One commenter stated that NMFS should 
be authorized to allocate from the Reserve category at any time. A 
commenter suggested

[[Page 71531]]

splitting the Reserve category into quota derived from under-harvest, 
and quota transferred from the Purse Seine category, to increase 
transparency. One commenter suggested redistribution of unused Reserve 
quota to active Longline category vessels during the last quarter of 
the year. A commenter stated that NMFS should make up to 50 percent of 
the Reserve quota available to the Longline category during the first 
three years of the IBQ Program.
    Response: The management measure regarding the Reserve category 
implemented by this final rule will provide additional management 
flexibility in the quota system and enable consideration of various 
quota strategies such as those suggested by the commenters. Although 
NMFS has the authority to allocate bluefin quota from the Reserve 
category at any time, the regulations implemented by Amendment 7 will 
enable NMFS to add underharvest from the previous year and any 
reallocated quota from the Purse Seine category to the Reserve category 
base allocation of 2.5 percent. Secondly, Amendment 7 adds new criteria 
to broaden and clarify the potential uses of the Reserve quota. It is 
not possible to evaluate the merits of the commenters' specific quota 
suggestions without any context. There are many potential uses of 
Reserve quota, including transfer to the Longline category in order to 
facilitate the transition to IBQs, or transfer to the General, Harpoon, 
Purse Seine, Angling, or Trap categories if warranted in order to 
increase fishing opportunity (while still preventing catch from 
exceeding the overall U.S. quota, and abiding by the other ICCAT 
restrictions). In order to facilitate transparency and full 
understanding of the quota system, NMFS will communicate clearly about 
how quota transfers are distributed among all quota categories, 
including descriptions of specific amount of quota derived from various 
sources.
    Comment 19: A commenter did not support the addition of new 
criteria to the existing criteria regarding in-season transfer of quota 
among categories because the criteria are long-standing and provide 
adequate flexibility. Commenters did not want to allow the Reserve 
category to be ``padded'' to cover Longline category dead discards, and 
did not want most of the Reserve quota to go to the Longline category.
    Response: The addition of the new criteria under Amendment 7 will 
not change the overall scope of NMFS authority to transfer quota among 
categories, but includes specific criteria that have the effect of 
clarifying potential uses of quota. NMFS agrees that an excessive 
amount of quota from the Reserve category should not be used to account 
for Longline category dead discards and has structured the alternatives 
to give management flexibility to move available quota to other 
categories as warranted. As stated in the response to Comment 8, under 
the Amendment 7 management measures, NMFS will allocate quota to the 
Longline category in amounts that exceed its current allocation of 8.1 
percent of the current annual quota, but will not allow historic levels 
of bluefin catch by the Longline category catch. In evaluating the 
amount of quota to reallocate to any category (including the Longline 
category), NMFS will consider the regulatory criteria for quota 
transfer, which include broad biological and economic considerations 
(e.g., ``effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of 
the fishery management plan''). For example, with respect to transfers 
of quota to the Longline category, some important considerations may 
include the amount of dead discards by pelagic longline gear relative 
to the size of the Longline category quota, the overall trend in the 
amount of dead discards and landings in the Longline category, the 
effectiveness of gear restricted areas, the status of the bluefin 
stock, trends in relevant data reporting, the amount of uncertainty 
regarding dead discard information, the level of accountability for 
bluefin dead discards by vessels in other quota categories, and the 
economic benefits of quota transfers. For transfers to other 
categories, important considerations may include effects of catch rates 
in one area precluding vessels in another area from having a reasonable 
opportunity to harvest a portion of the category's quota; the projected 
ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota to 
harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing 
year; the estimated amounts by which quotas for other gear categories 
of the fishery might be exceeded; effects of the adjustment on bluefin 
rebuilding and overfishing; and effects of the adjustment on 
accomplishing the objectives of the FMP.

6. General Comments About Gear Restricted Areas

    Comment 20: NMFS should avoid closures to the pelagic longline 
fishery. Any closure would disrupt markets.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that GRAs designed to reduce bluefin 
tuna interactions and regulatory discards and to thus decrease bycatch 
have costs associated with them, and may have disruptive effects on 
local markets. NMFS designed the gear restricted areas (i.e., their 
timing and configuration) after considering the amount of reduced 
fishing opportunity as well as the amount of reduced bluefin 
interactions, in order to minimize potential disruptions in markets. 
NMFS designed the Cape Hatteras GRA to provide access opportunities to 
fishermen that have a proven ability to avoid bluefin, and are 
compliant with the observer and logbook requirements. As described in 
the Response to Comments # 46 and 47, NMFS specifically modified the 
Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area that was preferred in the DEIS, to 
reduce disruption to ongoing fishing in an adjacent area and therefore 
reduce potential economic impacts of the alternative. Evaluation of all 
alternatives considered both economic and ecological considerations 
(i.e., the potential reductions in revenue associated with estimated 
reductions in bluefin interactions).
    Comment 21: NMFS should not implement GRAs. NMFS received comments 
indicating that, due to a variety of reasons, commercial fishermen may 
be limited to certain fishing locations by the size and configuration 
of their vessels, insurance requirements, or safety concerns, and that 
some participants in the fishing fleet have nowhere else to fish 
(except in the location of the GRA) and they would be ``shut out'' of 
the fishery.
    Response: The underlying concept of the Cape Hatteras GRA minimizes 
economic impacts by providing conditional access to the area, based on 
performance criteria. The majority of the pelagic longline fleet will 
be allowed to fish in the area upon implementation of this Amendment 7 
final rule, and in the future if conditions for access continue to be 
met. In estimating ecological and socio-economic impacts of the Cape 
Hatteras GRA (called the ``Modified'' Cape Hatteras GRA in the FEIS), 
NMFS determined that 14 vessels (of 135 vessels) would not have access 
to this GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels made over 75 percent of 
their sets in the Cape Hatteras GRA. Based upon the location of their 
historical catch, and to ensure that NMFS did not underestimate the 
potential economic impacts, the analysis assumes that these vessels 
would not redistribute effort outside of the GRA. Although these four 
vessels could redirect from fishing grounds off Oregon Inlet, NC to 
fishing grounds between Cape Fear and Cape Hatteras, such a change in 
fishing grounds may involve substantial costs (fuel, longer trips, 
possible transfer and dockage in a new port, etc.). However, NMFS 
modified the Cape Hatteras GRA

[[Page 71532]]

in a way that NMFS believes will achieve the reduction in bluefin 
discards, but will also allow fishermen to continue to deploy gear in 
regions south and west of the GRA and thereby reduce adverse impacts. 
With respect to the potential negative impacts of the Spring Gulf of 
Mexico GRA, approximately 61 vessels that fish in the Gulf of Mexico 
would be affected. Given the consistent pattern of historical catch of 
large numbers of bluefin tuna in certain times and locations by pelagic 
longline gear, NMFS determined that a GRA area in both the Gulf of 
Mexico and the Atlantic are necessary in order to achieve reductions in 
bluefin tuna dead discards, and that the potential economic impacts are 
unavoidable in order to achieve the necessary reductions. The potential 
negative socio-economic impacts were minimized by using an iterative 
process to design the gear restricted areas. The Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Pelagic Longline GRAs were designed in order to achieve a balance 
between a reduction in bluefin dead discards, protection of the Gulf of 
Mexico spawning stock, and continued operation of the pelagic longline 
fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The specific boundaries of the area were 
determined by an iterative process that included consideration of 
public comment and input, by selecting areas of historical pelagic 
longline interactions with bluefin, and comparing both the anticipated 
reduction in bluefin interactions, and the estimated reduction in 
revenue, of different configurations. In addition, the time period was 
selected due to its occurrence during the peak bluefin spawning period 
in the Gulf of Mexico.
    The magnitude of the potential economic impacts result from the 
specific location and duration of the GRA. The size of the Spring Gulf 
of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA is based upon the historical location 
and number of bluefin interactions, as well as the recent persistent 
trend in fishing effort shifting to the east of this area, and the 
known variability in the fishery in general. A smaller geographic area 
would be unlikely to achieve meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna 
interactions. The duration of the GRA encompasses the months with the 
highest number of interactions during the spawning period. An 
alternate, or shorter time period would coincide with neither the 
highest number of bluefin interactions, nor the bluefin spawning period 
peak.
    Comment 22: NMFS should evaluate the preferred alternatives for the 
Cape Hatteras GRA in light of the difficulties in implementing the 
Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan (a plan designed to reduce the 
incidental interactions of pelagic longline gear with marine mammals in 
order to reduce serious injury and mortality of long-finned and short-
finned pilot whales and Risso's dolphins in the Atlantic).
    Response: Several comments received suggested options similar to 
those currently employed under the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan 
(described below). One comment noted the importance of developing a 
communication protocol similar to what is encouraged by the Pelagic 
Longline Take Reduction Plan for marine mammals. NMFS also encourages 
captains to communicate the location of bluefin to each other to aid 
fleet-wide avoidance practices. However, NMFS believes that this 
approach is best employed on a voluntary basis, as is done for marine 
mammals, given potential confidentiality concerns.
    Mandatory aspects of the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan 
include a requirement to post the marine mammal safe handling and 
release placard in the wheelhouse and on the working deck, a 
restriction of mainline length to no more than 20 nmi when fishing 
within the Mid-Atlantic Bight, and special observer and research 
participation requirements for vessels operating in the Cape Hatteras 
Special Research Area (CHSRA). Unlike the requirements for operating in 
the CHSRA, Amendment 7 does not require fishermen fishing in the Cape 
Hatteras GRA to notify the agency between 48 to 96 hours prior to 
making a trip in order to arrange for observer coverage or research 
participation, in part because notifications of intent to fish are a 
standard requirement through VMS. Additionally, Amendment 7 does not 
require fishermen to retain or post any new placards, nor does it 
change the requirements regarding mainline length restrictions. It is 
important to note that the provisions of Amendment 7 do not replace the 
provisions of CHSRA or the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan; 
pelagic longline fishermen are still expected to fully comply with the 
requirements outlined in the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan while 
fishing with pelagic longline gear in any part of the CHSRA that may 
overlap with the Cape Hatteras GRA.
    Comment 23: A commenter stated that NOAA and ICCAT do not have 
sufficient scientific information to be able to predict where and when 
the distribution of bluefin may overlap with the pelagic longline fleet 
target species, and thus fishermen are also highly unlikely to be able 
to predictably avoid BFT while targeting other HMS species (swordfish, 
bigeye and yellowfin) except for certain times of year and in limited 
locations. Any rigid management framework that cannot adapt management 
to real-time distributions and availability of targeted and non-
targeted HMS species will be unlikely to optimize yield, support 
economic viability, and eliminate discards.
    Response: Bluefin tuna distribution is highly variable; however, 
the scientific literature as well as the data in the FEIS (Chapters 3 
and 4) support the conclusion that there is sufficient consistency in 
the patterns of distribution to make GRAs an effective management tool 
on a long-term basis. If warranted by changes in the characteristics of 
the fishery (e.g, long-term shifts in the distribution of bluefin tuna 
and target species), NMFS can re-evaluate whether GRAs continue to be 
an effective management tool that appropriately balances the associated 
costs and benefits.
    Comment 24: NMFS received suggestions to consider dynamic time-area 
closures because the distribution of bluefin is highly variable.
    Response: In the Predraft of Amendment 7, NMFS considered a real-
time monitoring system that would periodically close ``hot spots'' of 
bluefin interactions with the pelagic longline fleet. However, the 
Agency chose to not further analyze this alternative in the DEIS and 
the FEIS because a reporting and monitoring system to support this 
measure does not currently exist. Furthermore, the development and 
administration of such a system would be highly complex, and would 
require substantial resources to be able to fully monitor the entire 
region across which the pelagic longline fleet fishes, publish a rule 
quickly enough to respond to changing oceanic conditions, and provide 
adequate notice to the pelagic longline fleet. Instead of the dynamic 
measures supported by the commenter, which would respond to short-term 
aggregations of bluefin, the measures implemented by this final rule 
rely on a different strategy of reducing bluefin bycatch, based upon 
the long-term, consistent special and temporal patterns of bluefin 
distribution.
    Comment 25: NMFS received comments asserting that the Agency lacks 
sufficient data to make a reliable determination regarding true 
interaction rates of any given vessel. Some commenters felt that NMFS 
should prohibit fishing in areas of concern until more reliable data 
collection methods are in place, whereas others felt that NMFS should 
not prohibit fishing until more reliable data collection methods are in 
place. Several commenters cited

[[Page 71533]]

weaknesses in logbook data and asserted that logbook data are not 
sufficient to verify vessel behavior, count interactions, or monitor 
bycatch.
    Response: As indicated in the Response to Comment # 82 NMFS 
recognizes that some vessel operators may have under-reported in their 
logbooks the amount of bluefin tuna they have caught. NMFS conducted an 
analysis that compared logbook data to observer data to get an 
indication of how vessel-reported logbook data compares with observer 
data, because observer data can serve as a useful validation tool. 
Compared to the observer data, the logbook data showed both over-
reporting and under-reporting of bluefin tuna, with the average amount 
of under-reporting of bluefin discards of 28 percent at the aggregate 
level for all vessels. Individual vessel data varied substantially from 
being more than 90 percent accurate with observer data for that trip to 
more than 75 percent inaccurate compared to observer data for that 
trip. These data indicate a wide range in reporting accuracy at a 
vessel level. Specific information on this analysis is in the Appendix 
of the FEIS. Notwithstanding potential under-reporting by some vessels, 
logbook data are the most complete source of available data regarding 
vessel level interactions with bluefin tuna because 100 percent of 
pelagic longline vessels are required to submit logbook reports for 
every set.
    NMFS also analyzed observer data in order to verify the spatial and 
temporal patterns of bluefin interactions that were noted in the 
logbook data (Chapter 3 of FEIS). Although the observer data could not 
be compared directly to the logbook data because it is collected with 
lower frequency and at a different scale, the observer data indicated 
similar patterns of bluefin interactions as the logbook data. The 
logbook data represents the best available source of fine-scale 
information on bluefin interactions at this time. This final rule also 
implements enhanced monitoring and reporting requirements that will 
improve information on bluefin interactions in the pelagic longline 
fishery (i.e., VMS and electronic monitoring).
    Comment 26: NMFS received multiple comments regarding access to the 
GRAs based on performance. Comments 26-42 relate to specific 
performance criteria. A commenter stated that NMFS should include 2012 
data in the IBQ Allocation calculations and GRA area access 
calculations.
    Response: NMFS agrees that 2012 data should be included in these 
data calculations in order to reflect the characteristics of the 
fishery in the recent past. The 2012 data set represents the most 
recent calendar year for which complete data was available at the time 
the FIES analysis was begun. Therefore, in the FEIS NMFS included sets 
made in 2012 in the pool of data used to calculate the bluefin-to-
designated target species ratios for allocation and GRA access 
analyses. NMFS also included 2012 data from the Pelagic Observer 
Program and the Logbook program to calculate the Observer and Logbook 
Compliance scores. NMFS also adjusted the historical qualification 
period from 2006 to 2011, to 2006 to 2012, in order to better reflect 
the variability in the fishery and account for recent trends.
    Comment 27: Commenters expressed concern about access to the GRAs 
based on performance criteria based on logbook data, validity of which 
the commenter stated was questionable, given the possible incentives to 
misreport bluefin interactions through the logbook.
    Response: As explained in Response to Comments 25 and 82 NMFS 
acknowledges that there are issues with logbook data accuracy; however, 
it offers the most comprehensive data on the fishery and provides a 
means to analyze individual vessel behavior. HMS logbook data 
represents a census of the fishery.
    Comment 28: One commenter stated that there was no regulation that 
vessels must avoid bluefin tuna in the past, and vessels should not be 
singled out now for catching more bluefin by chance.
    Response: Directed fishing on bluefin tuna with pelagic gear is not 
permitted. Any interactions with pelagic longline are incidental to 
other directed fishing and regulations have been designed to discourage 
any such interactions and to minimize bycatch to the extent 
practicable. NMFS has managed the pelagic longline fishery as an 
incidental category for bluefin for many years and has implemented a 
number of regulations to limit the bluefin that can be retained and to 
discourage interactions with bluefin (e.g., limiting the number of 
bluefin that can be landed based on the weight of target species, 
implementing a time-area closure for bluefin in June in the northeast, 
requiring weak hooks in the Gulf of Mexico). The pelagic longline 
category as a whole has traditionally been allocated 8.1 percent of the 
total U.S. quota to cover incidental catch during directed fishing 
operations for other species, but those catches (including dead 
discards) have been significantly over that subquota in recent years.
    Through analysis of logbook data between 2006 and 2012, NMFS noted 
that a small number of vessels were responsible for the majority of 
reported bluefin interactions. In this and previous rulemakings, 
members of the pelagic longline fleet have repeatedly asked for 
increased individual accountability in the fishery. Amendment 7 is 
implementing management measures that will address this situation, and 
will hold individuals accountable for their bluefin interactions.
    Comment 29: NMFS should not penalize small vessels because of their 
inability of provide adequate space for observers.
    Response: NMFS designed the scoring system for the Pelagic Observer 
Program Performance metric being implemented by this final rule such 
that valid reasons for not carrying an observer will not be penalized. 
Observer coverage is integral to the management of the fishery as it 
contributes important, objective data in support of the management of 
protected species and provides important information on the pelagic 
longline fishery utilized in the management of bluefin and other HMS 
species. Due to the importance of having enough observed trips to meet 
the observer coverage targets required by national and international 
obligations, NMFS also evaluated vessels on the number of trips 
observed. The agency utilizes observer data to develop estimates of 
protected resources interactions and estimates of discards of other 
species including bluefin. These data are essential for stock 
assessments and are critical in meeting international management 
obligations. Under ATCA and as a contracting party of ICCAT, the United 
States is required to take part in the collection of biological, catch, 
and effort statistics for research and management purposes.
    Comment 30: NMFS received comments on the data used to calculate 
scores for performance metrics and IBQ allocations. NMFS received 
comments indicating that dolphinfish and wahoo from the HMS logbook 
needed to be included in the performance metric scoring. Several 
commenters requested the Agency include landings of designated target 
species (primarily dolphinfish and wahoo) reported in the coastal 
fisheries logbook in calculations used to assess IBQ and performance. 
Other commenters suggested that NMFS should use all pelagic longline 
logbooks in determining the Bluefin Avoidance Score.
    Response: Dolphinfish and wahoo reported in the HMS logbook were 
used to develop scores for performance

[[Page 71534]]

metrics. However, landings of these species reported in the Coastal 
Fisheries Logbook were not used in the performance metrics for several 
reasons. (1) The Coastal Fisheries Logbook would not contain landings 
of the primary target species of the HMS pelagic longline fishery 
(swordfish and BAYS tunas), and would not provide for the reporting of 
bluefin tuna interactions. Therefore, the actual ratio of landings of 
designated target species to bluefin interactions cannot be accurately 
calculated for sets reported in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook. (2) 
Fishermen in the southeast Atlantic that report in the Coastal 
Fisheries Logbook could have an advantage over fishermen in the Gulf of 
Mexico or New England that do not have the same type of reporting 
requirements and the same mechanism to report retention of dolphinfish. 
(3) The HMS logbook and the Coastal Fisheries Logbook require different 
types of data to be reported which creates a mismatch in how the data 
can be combined and collectively analyzed, which in turn could result 
in inconsistencies between the two data sets. (4) Specific geographic 
data (i.e., latitude and longitude for each set) that would were 
reported in the HMS logbook and used to identify and evaluate the 
ecological and economic effects of gear restricted areas are 
unavailable through the Coastal Fisheries Logbook. Rather, fishermen 
report location where the majority of all catches of each species were 
made through reference to a 1[deg] latitude x 1[deg] longitude grid 
cell. If NMFS were to incorporate data at the finest scale available 
(1[deg] latitude x 1[deg] longitude), NMFS would have to disregard the 
overwhelming number of requests for management (and visualization/
depiction of data) at a finer scale. (5) The Coastal Fisheries Logbook 
requires landings per trip to be reported by weight whereas the HMS 
Logbook requires all interactions per set to be reported by number. 
Also, fishermen reporting in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook may report 
gutted or whole weight. (6) A percentage (20%) of fishermen reporting 
through the Coastal Fisheries Logbook are selected to report discarded 
fish through a Supplemental Discard and Gear Trip Report form at the 
trip level, whereas all fishermen reporting in the HMS Logbook must 
provide this information for every set, which also creates a mismatch 
in how data can be combined and collectively analyzed. For these 
reasons NMFS used dolphinfish and wahoo catch data from the HMS 
logbooks to develop scores for performance metrics, but did not use the 
landings data reported in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook.
    Comment 31: NMFS should not base performance metrics on the 
Northeast Distant (NED) Area.
    Response: NMFS incorporated all data reported through the HMS 
logbook in the calculation of performance metrics, regardless of where 
vessels fished. Exclusion of the sets made in the NED area could result 
in certain vessels that had a lot of fishing effort in this region 
receiving a competitive advantage or a disadvantage in terms of 
performance metric scores. Further, vessels that fish in the NED are 
not exempt from observer (if selected) or logbook reporting 
requirements.
    Comment 32: NMFS should consider that, by allowing access based on 
the performance of a vessel, the new owner of a vessel may be evaluated 
based on prior poor vessel performance under a different owner.
    Response: As explained below, NMFS determined that the relevant 
historical activity should be that associated with the vessel (and not 
the permit), and therefore, the preferred IBQ Program would evaluate 
vessels based on all activity attributed to that vessel through the 
qualification time period (2006-2012). In general, the use of 
historical data as part of an individual quota share (or a performance 
criteria) can be complex due to historical transfers of the limited 
access permit from one vessel to another or changes in vessel 
ownership. The quota share formula implemented by Amendment 7 is based 
upon historical data associated with a permitted vessel. NMFS 
determined that the historical `platform' upon which to base the quota 
share should be the vessel history instead of the permit history for 
the following reasons: (1) Vessel history reflects current and 
historical participation in the fishery; (2) the regulations regarding 
the transfer of Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits do not address 
fishing history (i.e., do not specify whether when an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit is transferred from one vessel to another, 
whether the fishing history also transfers); and (3) the structure of 
the databases in which the logbook data resides uses the vessel as a 
key organizing feature, and therefore the compilation of data 
associated with a particular vessel is simpler and less prone to error 
(i.e., it is more complex to compile data based on an individual permit 
history). However, once the initial allocations are established, 
bluefin quota shares will be associated with the permit for future 
vessel transactions. For example, if a permitted vessel has quota 
shares, and the owner of the permitted vessel decides to sell the 
permit but keep the vessel, the seller of the permit will no longer 
have any privileges with respect to the IBQ Program (they would only 
have fishing both without a permit). In contrast, the buyer of the 
permit would have the eligibility for the IBQ associated with that 
permit (although the permit buyer would need to put that permit on a 
vessel in order to receive quota allocation).
    Comment 33: One commenter asked whether the public will know the 
identity of vessels excluded from the GRA.
    Response: NMFS does not intend to publicly release the identity of 
vessels without access to the GRA.
    Comment 34: NMFS received several suggestions concerning changes to 
the logbook performance metric, logbook reporting requirements, and 
requests for faster logbook submission methods. Some commenters felt 
that NMFS should not include a logbook performance metric. Commenters 
noted that logbook reports are usually late because it takes time to 
collect the required economic information, and sometimes fishermen are 
out for extended periods of time. Dealers sometime take 2 or more weeks 
to get a return done, which results in delays in submitting data to the 
Logbook Program. For offshore/distant water fishermen, it sometimes 
takes more than a week for the receipt of information from dealers, 
especially if the catch is offloaded in Canada. The commenters felt 
that if NMFS wants to retain this performance metric, the agency should 
require that dealer tally sheets be submitted separately from the 
logbooks. NMFS received suggestions to transition the logbook 
performance metric from the date of opening the letter to the date of 
receipt by the Agency to allow for contingencies such as a government 
shutdown (or other factors that may delay Agency officials from opening 
letters). A commenter felt that NMFS should establish a tolerance for 
the mailing of logbook reports from different parts of the country to 
Miami, FL, because fishermen in Florida have an advantage over 
fishermen based in more distant locations (e.g., Maine) due to the 
length of time it takes to deliver mail. NMFS was asked to establish a 
process whereby fishermen can submit logbooks by fax or online to 
minimize delays due to the distance a letter has to travel.
    Response: Current regulations require fishermen to submit logbooks 
within 7 days of offloading. Logbook reports must include weighout 
slips showing the dealer to whom fish were

[[Page 71535]]

transferred, the date of transferal, and the carcass weight of fish for 
which individual weights are recorded. Timely logbook reporting is a 
critical component of quota monitoring, particularly for species like 
HMS that have small annual or seasonal quotas. Many pelagic longline 
fishermen are able to comply with the requirement to submit logbooks 
within seven days. There are members of the fleet, however, that take 
months to a full year to submit logbook reports. These late reports, 
either late due to logistics or non-compliance, make quota management 
of HMS very difficult, especially if quotas are small. Amendment 7 will 
require catch reporting via VMS units to ensure timely report of 
bluefin catches. NMFS may pursue faster mechanisms to report logbooks 
in the future, such electronic logbooks.
    Comment 35: NMFS should have solicited feedback on performance 
criteria from the industry. The commenter felt that NMFS developed the 
performance criteria in a ``black box'' and did not provide ample 
notification that the agency would be evaluating individuals on these 
metrics.
    Response: Significant time and opportunity for public comment have 
gone into what has been a very thorough rulemaking process for this 
Amendment. NMFS repeatedly solicited public feedback and Advisory Panel 
input on the alternatives in Amendment 7, including the development of 
the performance criteria. NMFS has discussed the management of bluefin 
discards with the public and with the Advisory Panel since a 2009 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. NMFS indicated in both the 
Predraft and the DEIS that a small number of individuals were 
responsible for the majority of bluefin interactions. NMFS received 
numerous public comments in Amendment 5 to the Consolidated HMS FMP 
indicating that the pelagic longline fleet desired individual 
accountability measures, instead of holding the entire fleet 
responsible for high interactions of a few vessels with dusky sharks. 
NMFS developed the performance criteria as a means to evaluate 
fishermen and hold them individually accountable for reduction of 
bluefin discards and compliance with the reporting and monitoring 
regulations. These performance criteria offer an alternative to fleet-
wide time/area closures. Furthermore, the multiple criteria offer 
individuals who have moderate levels of bluefin interactions to still 
access GRAs provided that they comply with the reporting and monitoring 
requirements.
    Reporting and observer requirements have been in place for several 
years, and NMFS regularly communicates with constituents concerning the 
rules pertaining to these programs. NMFS notifies individuals selected 
for reporting annually with letters that detail reporting requirements. 
Furthermore, NMFS produces outreach materials, compliance guides, and a 
Web site that clearly state reporting requirements. With respect to the 
observer program, NMFS also clearly notifies individuals of vessel 
selection for observer coverage. The Pelagic Observer Program regularly 
communicates with the points of contact (captains and vessel owners) 
regarding the organization and scheduling of observed trips. Commercial 
fishermen are therefore provided ample notification of the regulations 
concerning observer and logbook reporting.
    Comment 36: NMFS should not deny access to individuals who are good 
bluefin avoiders. The intent of the rule is to reduce bluefin discards, 
not to penalize fishermen for being out of compliance with observer or 
reporting requirements. NMFS Office of Law Enforcement should be solely 
responsible for penalizing fishermen that are out of compliance.
    Response: NMFS regulations that require fishermen to submit 
logbooks or to carry observers are designed to collect information that 
NMFS uses to manage HMS fisheries. When fishermen do not comply with 
such regulations, they jeopardize NMFS' ability to develop sound 
management strategies, conduct stock assessments with the best 
scientific information available, estimate bycatch interactions and 
bluefin discards, and comply with international treaty requirements. As 
such, under the Amendment 7 regulations, NMFS will consider a 
fisherman's compliance with current logbook and observer requirements 
when evaluating whether or not NMFS will grant that fisherman access to 
the Cape Hatteras GRA--an area where interactions with bluefin tuna are 
likely. NMFS wants to ensure that fishermen allowed access to the Cape 
Hatteras GRA will abide by all relevant regulations to facilitate 
monitoring of fishing activities in these areas.
    Comment 37: NMFS should consider vessels that have no history or 
are new to the fishery as qualified to access the closed areas 
(``innocent until proven guilty''). Vessels should have a ``clean 
slate'' at the start of each year and access to the GRA. If they 
interact with too many BFT, then they should be closed out.
    Response: The GRAs are selected as locations with relatively high 
numbers of historical bluefin interactions. The Bluefin Avoidance Score 
was designed to evaluate a vessel's ability to avoid bluefin tuna, 
relative to its landings. New entrants to the fishery will have 
performance metrics associated with the permit that the entrant 
purchased. All vessels will have a new performance score at the start 
of each year, based upon the three most recent years of available data, 
and therefore performance scores may improve over time.
    Comment 38: Some commenters were concerned about the incentives 
that a conditional access program may provide.
    Response: The concept of providing conditional access to a GRA 
(i.e., the Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA) is based on the 
historical data, which indicate that a relatively small number of 
vessels are responsible for a large portion of the bluefin tuna 
interactions. Because conditional access will be based upon the rate of 
bluefin tuna interactions (as well as reporting metrics), the program 
rules provide incentives to all pelagic longline vessels with respect 
to bluefin tuna interactions. Specifically, vessels with historically 
high bluefin tuna interactions that are not allowed access will have an 
incentive to reduce their rate of bluefin interactions if they desire 
to fish in the GRA. Conversely, vessels with a relatively low rate of 
bluefin interactions that are allowed to fish in the GRA will have an 
incentive to continue to avoid bluefin in order to maintain a low rate 
of bluefin interactions. In contrast, if all vessels were precluded 
from the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount of a 
vessel's interactions with bluefin, there would be no incentives with 
respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and the scale of potential 
economic impacts would be disproportionate to the estimated amount of 
reduction in bluefin tuna interactions). No access to the Gulf of 
Mexico GRAs was proposed because the interactions with bluefin in the 
Gulf of Mexico are more evenly distributed among all of the vessels 
fishing there (and not concentrated among a few vessels as in the area 
off Cape Hatteras).
    Comment 39: NMFS should not count bluefin interactions from sets 
made while participating in NMFS programs (e.g., shark research 
fishery) towards the calculation of bluefin to designated target 
species ratios because fishermen fish differently on those trips.
    Response: NMFS did not exclude such trips because of the relatively 
few

[[Page 71536]]

vessels that might be affected; participation in research programs 
could have affected vessels in either a positive or negative manner. In 
most instances, minor differences in the amounts of catch of either 
target species or bluefin would not likely affect a vessel's allocation 
due to the three tiered allocation system (i.e., a range of catch 
values is designated to each of the three tiers), and the performance 
metric scoring system (based on a range of values). Fishermen that 
believe they have been disadvantaged through participation in research 
may appeal access and IBQ decisions through the two-stage appeal 
process.
    Comment 40: NMFS should calculate performance metrics only on the 
most recent data available. NMFS needs to revisit criteria for 
inclusion--some vessels have hardly fished over the last few years.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the inclusion of newer data is 
important. In the Predraft and the DEIS, NMFS analyzed and developed 
alternatives based on pelagic longline data from 2006 to 2011. NMFS 
included an additional year of logbook data (2012) in the FEIS analyses 
for each time-area alternative. In the FEIS, the 2006-2012 time period 
was chosen because the last significant bluefin fishery management 
action was the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, and therefore fishing 
behavior from prior to 2006 would have been based on previous 
management measures and may not be representative of the current 
fishery. The 2006 to 2012 time period is long enough to minimize the 
influence of one-time events such as natural or man-made disasters. 
NMFS intentionally designed the GRAs to be flexible and allow fishing 
vessels that have been affected by short-term events to participate in 
the pelagic longline fishery.
    The Agency will distribute letters indicating the final performance 
metrics and what members of the fishery could expect by the start of 
the fishing year. Initial performance metrics will be calculated on the 
entire historical time period considered for determining IBQ 
allocations. However, in subsequent years, the performance metrics will 
be calculated on the previous three years of available data.
    Comment 41: NMFS should not base access on history. High bluefin 
interactions in one year do not necessarily mean that there will be 
high bluefin interactions the following year.
    Response: As noted in the response to Comment # 44 NMFS 
acknowledges that past performance may not be a perfect indicator of 
future performance. However, one of the objectives of the use of 
Performance Metrics is to provide incentives for future fishing 
behavior that will result in reduced rates of interactions between 
pelagic longline gear and bluefin. Although there is variability in 
fish distribution and activity from one year to the next, there are 
certain vessels that consistently report high interactions with bluefin 
tuna through logbooks. As explained in Response to Comment # 38 
conditional access based on past performance provides continuing 
incentives to avoid bluefin tuna and to comply with relevant reporting 
and monitoring requirements.
    Comment 42: NMFS should evaluate vessels on the number of 
interactions with protected resources (e.g., pilot whales) as part of 
the criteria for accessing the Cape Hatteras GRA.
    Response: Although Amendment 7 management measures are consistent 
with the relevant laws and regulations regarding protected species, the 
objectives upon which it is based did not include any specific 
objective regarding protected species, and did not include any specific 
management measures regarding protected species. Therefore the 
commenter's suggestion to incorporate criteria relating to protected 
resources is outside of the scope of the Amendment 7. The impacts of 
the Amendment 7 measures on protected species are analyzed in this 
FEIS.

7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

    Comment 43: NMFS received a large number of comments supporting the 
five-month Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA as proposed (DEIS 
preferred Alternative). NMFS also received comments suggesting 
modifications to the scope and duration of the area, and commented on 
whether or not conditional access to the area is appropriate.
    Response: The Cape Hatteras area has consistently been a location 
where a high number of bluefin interactions with the pelagic longline 
fleet have occurred, and was initially identified in the Predraft to 
Amendment 7 as a geographic area where a GRA may be warranted. 
Responses to the specific suggestions regarding the Cape Hatteras GRA 
are below (see responses to comments 43-49. As described in comments 46 
and 47, NMFS modified the preferred alternative in the FEIS (the 
``Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA'').
    Comment 44: Some commenters supported the proposed GRA because 
access would be granted to some vessels, while other commenters stated 
that NMFS should implement GRAs without conditional access. Commenters 
noted that the Agency would be penalizing fishermen for bluefin 
interactions (specifically, discards) when there was not previously a 
regulation that required bluefin avoidance. Some commenters felt that 
the implementation of performance metrics is too severe a management 
measure, and fishermen that might be excluded from fishing in the Cape 
Hatteras GRA noted that the proposed measures would have severe 
economic implications for their businesses. Some commenters only 
supported the Cape Hatteras GRA if pelagic longline vessels are allowed 
to fish under General category rules in the area.
    Response: Analysis of logbook data from 2006 through 2012 indicated 
that a relatively low number of vessels were responsible for the 
majority of bluefin interactions in the Atlantic. NMFS developed the 
concept of conditional access to the GRA in light of this pattern, in 
order to incentivize individual fishermen to avoid bluefin tuna, and to 
reduce economic impacts to the extent practicable.
    A system of conditional access will hold fishermen individually 
accountable for their interactions, as opposed to holding the entire 
fleet responsible for high interactions by a small number of fishermen. 
Because conditional access will be based upon the rate of bluefin tuna 
interactions (as well as reporting metrics), the program rules will 
provide incentives to all pelagic longline vessels with respect to 
bluefin tuna interactions. Specifically, vessels with historically high 
bluefin tuna interactions that are not allowed access will have an 
incentive to reduce their rate of bluefin interactions if they desire 
to fish in the GRA. Conversely, vessels with a relatively low rate of 
bluefin interactions that are allowed to fish in the GRA will have an 
incentive to continue to avoid bluefin in order to maintain a low rate 
of bluefin interactions. In contrast, if all vessels were precluded 
from the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount of a 
vessel's interactions with bluefin, there would be no incentives with 
respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and the scale of potential 
economic impacts would be disproportionate to the estimated amount of 
reduction in bluefin tuna interactions). No access to the Gulf of 
Mexico GRAs was proposed or implemented because the interactions with 
bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are more evenly distributed among all of 
the vessels fishing there (and not concentrated among a few vessels as 
in the area off Cape Hatteras).
    Regarding the comment that it is unfair to use past interactions 
with

[[Page 71537]]

bluefin as part of the allocation formula because in the past it was 
lawful to interact with bluefin tuna: Pelagic longline regulations were 
designed to limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna (e.g., target 
catch requirements, weak hook requirements). Therefore, it is 
appropriate that the IBQ Program implemented by this final rule provide 
some benefit in the form of IBQ allocation for vessels that may have 
fished in a manner that reduced interactions with, or avoided bluefin 
tuna, consistent with the regulations.
    NMFS acknowledges that past performance may not be a perfect 
indicator of future performance. One of the objectives of the Cape 
Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA measure implemented by this final rule is 
to provide incentives for future fishing behavior that will result in 
reduced rates of interactions between pelagic longline gear and 
bluefin. As explained in response to comment # 63 NMFS proposed, but is 
not implementing a measure that would have allowed pelagic longline 
vessels to fish under the General category rules.
    NMFS acknowledges that some vessels could experience economic 
hardship due to not having access to the Cape Hatteras GRA. However the 
data indicate that there will also be substantial reductions in the 
number of bluefin tuna interactions associated with the changes in 
fishing behavior (i.e., 34 percent reduction in bluefin discarded, and 
6 percent reduction in bluefin kept, fishery-wide) as a result of this 
action. The performance metric system is designed to incentivize 
fishermen to avoid bluefin tuna and to comply with observer and 
reporting requirements. Based on the FEIS analysis, 14 vessels of 135 
would not have access to the Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented. NMFS 
determined that, after redistribution of effort, there was not a 
sizable difference in the number of bluefin kept and discarded between 
implementation of the Cape Hatteras GRA without access for any vessels 
(-389 fish per year), and implementation of the original Cape Hatteras 
GRA with Access Based on Performance (-401 fish per year). The total 
economic losses as a result of implementing the proposed Cape Hatteras 
GRA for all vessels, the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA with Access Based 
on Performance, and the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA with Access Based on 
Performance being implemented, after redistribution of effort are -
$893,562; -$301,651; and -$210,956, respectively. NMFS therefore is not 
implementing the GRA without access because the measure would result in 
a comparable reduction in bluefin interactions, but at nearly quadruple 
the cost in estimated economic losses for the pelagic longline fleet. 
The additional incentives that the performance metrics regarding 
compliance with logbook and observer requirements were also determined 
to be important to support the Amendment 7 objective regarding enhanced 
reporting and monitoring.
    Comment 45: Commenters suggested that NMFS should modify the 
proposed Cape Hatteras GRA to include the areas north and east, as well 
as southwest of the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, to address possible 
redistribution of fishing effort and other areas of moderate to high 
bluefin interactions. A commenter requested consideration of a specific 
extension of the proposed GRA northward to cover a region with moderate 
bluefin interaction in order to prevent increased fishing effort in the 
area as a result of redistribution by fishermen whose performance 
scores are not high enough to fish in the Cape Hatteras GRA. The 
commenter stated that the area could further act as a buffer to protect 
migrating bluefin tuna that aggregate there. NMFS also received a 
comment suggesting a GRA along the continental shelf between the 
Delmarva Peninsula and Georges Banks for the time periods of June 
through July, and November through December to complement the preferred 
alternatives.
    Response: NMFS analyzed the impact of the suggested GRA to the 
north of the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA (assuming redistribution of 
fishing effort). The suggested extension to the north would result in a 
reduction of only 3 bluefin tuna, after redistribution of effort. 
Reductions in other species would be minor. While the suggested GRA 
would be small in both time and space, it is not anticipated to 
contribute much to the goal of reducing bluefin discards. For these 
reasons, NMFS considered but did not further analyze or otherwise 
include this suggested modification as an alternative in the FEIS.
    NMFS also analyzed a GRA along the continental shelf between the 
Delmarva Peninsula and Georges Banks for the time periods of June 
through July and November through December and determined that the 
reduction in effort with redistribution would result in notable 
reduction in bluefin interactions (-48 fish/year kept; -310 fish/year 
discarded). However, the reductions in target catch would be 
substantial (bigeye tuna kept (-977 fish/year); yellowfin tuna kept (-
1,206 fish/year); and the numbers of swordfish kept (-1,118/year)). 
That configuration, combined with the Cape Hatteras GRA, would close 
the majority of the continental shelf to fishermen that do not meet 
performance objectives. These suggested modifications did not achieve 
as much reduction in bluefin interactions compared with the reduction 
in target catch. Therefore, NMFS but did not include the suggested GRAs 
as an alternatives in the FEIS.
    Comment 46: The North Carolina Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources and pelagic longline fishermen commented that NMFS 
should omit the southeast corner of the proposed GRA (preferred 
alternative in the DEIS) due to the prevailing direction of currents in 
this area, and the fact that gear set south or southwest of the Cape 
Hatteras GRA would drift into the GRA.
    Response: NMFS analyzed additional spatial and temporal 
configurations of the Cape Hatteras GRA and determined that little 
conservation benefit could be expected from limiting access to this 
area and that the associated economic costs were not warranted. NMFS 
agrees that the prevailing currents would have effectively closed 
productive fishing grounds southwest of the GRA in federal waters off 
the coast of central and southern North Carolina. As a result of these 
analyses, and considerations, NMFS modified the measure from the 
configuration which was proposed to a gear restricted area during the 
same months (December through April), but with a slightly different 
configuration.
    Comment 47: NMFS should consider the potential negative economic 
impact on fishermen in the area who do not have access to other fishing 
grounds.
    Response: The design of the Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented by 
this final rule was the result of an iterative process. NMFS analyzed 
multiple time periods and geographic areas in order to take into 
consideration both the potential reduction in the number of bluefin 
interactions and the potential reductions in target catch. The analysis 
considered relevant fisheries data, and also oceanographic trends. In 
the DEIS, due to current patterns in the Cape Hatteras area, the zone 
affected by the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was analyzed beyond 
itsexplicit boundaries. Analysis of a buffer region was needed because 
vessels to the south and west of the GRA would be prevented from 
fishing in these areas because their gear would drift into the GRA 
(having the effect of creating a larger affected geographic area that 
the boundary of the GRA). The DEIS analysis of impacts not only 
considered the reduced fishing effort within the GRA, but also the 
reduced fishing effort in a buffer region to the south and west of the 
area. NMFS included sets made in this buffer region

[[Page 71538]]

into the redistribution analyses. Based on public comment and 
additional analyses, NMFS decided to implement the Modified Cape 
Hatteras GRA, which will minimize the adverse impacts on fishing 
opportunities while still achieving comparable reductions of bluefin 
discards and almost identical conservation and management benefits as 
the original proposal.
    Comment 48: NMFS should implement a GRA and have various 
requirements including mandatory observer coverage, electronic 
monitoring, or the use of weak hooks in order to fish the area. Several 
commenters suggested that NMFS implement the GRA and only allow access 
with 100 percent observer coverage.
    Response: Observer coverage is an important tool in monitoring the 
pelagic longline fishery. Vessels with access to the Cape Hatteras GRA 
will be subject to the same level of observer coverage as the rest of 
the pelagic longline fleet. Electronic monitoring is an important 
aspect of the new IBQ Program, which includes the GRAs. Under Amendment 
7 regulations, any vessel fishing with pelagic longline gear will be 
required to have an operational electronic monitoring system onboard. 
NMFS did not consider an alternative that would implement new weak hook 
requirements for the Atlantic, because we do not presently have data 
indicating that such measures would be effective in meeting the 
objectives of Amendment 7, given size differentials between fish in the 
Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic and the current state of research on 
the subject.
    Comment 49: NMFS should establish communication protocols designed 
to help fishermen minimize interactions for the regions of concern 
instead of implementing GRAs. One commenter suggested the establishment 
of communication protocols, similar to those designed for the Pelagic 
Longline Take Reduction Plan, be required within the boundaries of the 
Cape Hatteras GRA.
    Response: Communication protocols can be valuable and could assist 
pelagic longline vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. Captains are already 
required to follow a communication protocol for pilot whales in this 
area. NMFS believes such a system would work best for bluefin avoidance 
if it were voluntary, and had the full support of those involved. 
However, in the interest of avoiding bluefin and minimizing the risk of 
shutting down the pelagic longline fishery, NMFS strongly encourages 
vessel captains to communicate the location of bluefin tuna with each 
other.

8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area

    Comment 50: A large number of commenters expressed general support 
for a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico, while others stated that NMFS should 
not implement a GOM GRA, due to the severe economic impact it would 
have on the fishery.
    Response: Implementation of a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico supports 
the achievement of the Amendment 7 objectives. A GRA will, in 
conjunction with the other management measures implemented by this 
final rule, result in the reduction of dead discards of bluefin tuna by 
the pelagic longline fishery. Although implementation of a GRA will 
have a negative economic impact on the pelagic longline fishery, the 
preferred alternative will have less of an impact than some of the 
other alternatives considered and analyzed. As described in more detail 
in the responses to comments below, NMFS analyzed a range of 
alternatives, and took into account the importance of fishery resources 
to fishing communities by analyzing economic and social data. Because 
GRAs may result in the reduction and/or redistribution of fishing 
effort by pelagic longline gear, the preferred alternative represents a 
balance between anticipated reductions in dead discards of bluefin, and 
potential negative economic impacts on the pelagic longline fishery. 
Furthermore, the preferred alternative will support the broader 
objectives of both stock rebuilding as well as the continued viability 
of the commercial and recreational fisheries that depend upon bluefin 
tuna.
    Comment 51: Some commenters supported the Amendment 7 alternative 
that would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear throughout the 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), year-round, in order to protect spawning 
bluefin, and aggregations of bluefin. Some commenters noted the 
potential for a gulf-wide closure to reduce injuries and deaths of 
protected species such as sea turtles.
    Response: NMFS analyzed the biological and socio-economic impacts 
of this Alternative, and although prohibition of pelagic longline gear 
would eliminate interactions between pelagic longline gear and bluefin 
in the Gulf of Mexico, such a prohibition would not minimize the 
reductions in target catch (e.g., yellowfin tuna, swordfish) in the 
pelagic longline fishery or the and negative economic impacts on the 
fishery, both goals consistent with Amendment objectives. The 
prohibition of pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ (year 
round) would be expected to only result in a 14 percent decrease in the 
numbers of bluefin tuna discarded, yet would reduce revenue from 
pelagic longline gear by approximately $7.63 million per year, and 
affect up to 75 vessels.
    NMFS also analyzed the possible effects of the GRA alternatives on 
multiple species, including sea turtles. The FEIS contains the results 
of the analyses that evaluated the GRA alternatives using 
redistribution analyses to ensure that the GRAs would not substantially 
increase interactions with sea turtles if fishermen were to 
redistribute their effort into open waters of the Atlantic Ocean. These 
analyses showed that there would be no net change in the average number 
of annual interactions with leatherback or loggerhead sea turtles for 
the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, and a reduction of 1 interaction for 
these turtles for the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA. NMFS expects 
Amendment 7 measures implemented will have a neutral or minor 
beneficial impact on protected species as a result of potential impacts 
on fishing effort, especially fishing effort associated with pelagic 
longline gear.
    The fisheries managed under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP 
and its amendments have undergone formal and/or informal Section 7 
consultation and collectively address the ongoing Atlantic HMS 
fisheries. On August 15, 2013, NMFS determined that the proposed 
measures in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP would not 
require reinitiation of formal consultation. The environmental effects 
of the preferred alternatives in this FEIS are substantially the same 
as those analyzed in the DEIS, although some different alternatives are 
now preferred and two of the alternatives have been slightly modified. 
No additional or substantively different effects on listed species are 
expected as a result of these changes. For detailed information on 
reinitiation of formal Section 7 consultation on HMS fisheries, see the 
Classification section.
    Comment 52: Some commenters supported the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA, 
which would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear from March 
through May, while others supported expanding the duration of the Gulf 
of Mexico EEZ GRA to include all the months during which bluefin tuna 
may be present in the Gulf of Mexico, or suggested specific ranges of 
months (e.g., December through June, March through May, March through 
August). A large number of commenters felt that a GRA that encompassed 
the entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ would better account for variability in 
bluefin distribution and areas of spawning

[[Page 71539]]

activity and changing fishing patterns within the fleet. Many 
commenters believed that a larger GRA should be implemented instead of 
any changes to quota allocations, or felt that the implementation of 
such a GRA would eliminate the need for IBQs.
    Response: In selecting the preferred alternative, NMFS analyzed the 
time and areas in which the highest number of bluefin interactions have 
occurred, in order to achieve meaningful reductions in bluefin catch by 
pelagic longline gear, but also to minimize the reductions in target 
catch. A Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA encompassing the entire Gulf of Mexico 
EEZ for the suggested range of months was not justified. First, there 
exists an historical pattern of relatively high number of interactions 
occurring in particular locations and months. Additionally, a GRA 
encompassing the whole of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would have included 
locations where there have been relatively few interactions. Similarly, 
inclusion of locations with relatively few historical interactions in 
the GRA would still preclude fishing with pelagic longline gear in such 
locations, increasing the likelihood of additional lost revenue, with 
relatively little reduction in bluefin interactions.
    Inclusion of months during which there have been relatively few 
interactions would preclude fishing opportunity, with relatively little 
reduction in bluefin interactions. In Chapter 3 of the FEIS, Table 3.29 
presents a breakdown of all bluefin tuna interactions reported in the 
HMS Logbook, by month, in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. Although bluefin tuna 
were noted year round in the Gulf of Mexico, the data indicated 
distinct spatial and temporal patterns. For example, between 2006 and 
2012, there were 13, 3, 13, 16, and 13 total bluefin tuna interactions 
reported in July, August, September, October, and November, 
respectively. In comparison, the months that some comments suggested 
for a GRA (March through May) had 266, 498, and 496 total bluefin 
interactions in March, April, and May, respectively. NMFS does not 
believe that a GRA is warranted at this time during the late summer or 
early fall based on the reported numbers of bluefin tuna that occurred 
in this area. There is variability in bluefin distribution, and fishing 
patterns may change over time. Due to this variability, any specific 
GRA that does not cover the whole EEZ year-round may be less effective, 
or more effective, at reducing dead discards than the historical data 
would indicate. Notwithstanding this variability, a specific GRA 
designed using historic information, and encompassing only a portion of 
the Gulf of Mexico for specific months is likely to reduce dead 
discards over a multi-year time scale. In other words over time there 
are consistent patterns in bluefin distribution that may not be 
exhibited to the same extent each year. Therefore, a GRA is not likely 
to achieve the same level of effectiveness each year, but over time is 
expected to achieve reductions in dead discards similar to that 
indicated by NMFS' analysis.
    In analyzing the Gulf of Mexico closure alternatives in the FEIS, 
NMFS also considered the need to gather scientific data from the Gulf 
of Mexico longline fishery data for the development of effective 
conservation and management measures. A larger GRA for the Gulf of 
Mexico EEZ would severely reduce the collection of important data from 
the pelagic longline fishery and would increase uncertainty in the 
western Atlantic bluefin stock assessment. Gulf of Mexico pelagic 
longline data are critical to the development of catch per unit effort 
(CPUE) information, which is used as the index of abundance for 
spawning bluefin tuna, an important element of the stock assessment for 
western Atlantic bluefin tuna. Such uncertainty would make it more 
difficult to assess the status of stocks, to set the appropriate 
optimum yield and define overfishing levels, and to ensure that optimum 
yield is attained and overfishing levels are not exceeded.
    NMFS conducted a ``power analysis'' to determine the number of 
pelagic longline sets that would be required to maintain the current 
level of precision for the CPUE and found that approximately 60 percent 
of the recent number of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico 
would be required. Although NMFS could transition from using this 
fishery dependent data to another data source (i.e., fishery 
independent data), it would require several years before a new fishery 
independent data source could be used for stock assessment purposes and 
an abrupt cessation of the current CPUE data would mean a break in the 
time series and increase uncertainty in stock assessment results. NMFS 
will continue to explore alternative methods for the collection of 
independent data. In contrast to a GRA applicable to the full EEZ, a 
GRA in the Gulf of Mexico with a smaller area and short duration will 
still be effective in reducing bycatch to the extent practicable and 
protecting spawning-sized bluefin while permitting allowable fishing 
and the collection of data needed for index of abundance. The size and 
duration of the GOM GRA being implemented by this final rule, will not 
preclude the collection of the necessary data in support of the stock 
assessments, and will reduce bycatch during the spawning season, as 
well as augment the IBQ Program in ensuring that catch does not exceed 
the quota.
    With respect to the relationship between the size of a GRA and 
other Amendment 7 alternatives (i.e., IBQs and quota allocation), the 
use of multiple management tools will reduce negative economic impacts 
on the pelagic longline fishery, as well as achieve the diverse 
Amendment 7 objectives in a balanced manner.
    Comment 53: Several commenters expressed support for the Small Gulf 
of Mexico GRA in the DEIS, which was proposed, but is not being 
implemented. A number of comments indicated the Small Gulf of Mexico 
GRA was the minimum acceptable size for a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico, 
while other commenters did not support the proposed Small Gulf of 
Mexico GRA, feeling that NMFS ought to do more to protect bluefin in 
the Gulf of Mexico. A large number of commenters requested that the 
agency re-evaluate the GRA and identify other alternatives. One 
commenter felt the DEIS lacked compelling justification for choosing an 
alternative that does not protect all spawners and increases fishing 
pressure in critical areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Other commenters felt 
that the boundaries encompassed by the Small Gulf of Mexico GRA did not 
reflect the best scientific knowledge available. Specific suggestions 
included modification of the duration (change, shorten, lengthen, or 
include specific months) to cover peak spawning periods or provide a 
buffer due to variability in the timing and area of bluefin spawning 
activity and longline fishing patterns from year to year. Some 
commenters believed the months of the GRA should cover the full bluefin 
spawning period. Other commenters suggested that the GRA be extended to 
the east or north to encompassed additional known spawning areas, or 
extended south to cover areas where large numbers of interactions have 
occurred.
    Response: As stated in the response to comments 50, 51, and 52, 
NMFS analyzed a range of GRA alternatives that encompass a range of 
biological and socio-economic impacts, and would achieve various 
amounts of reductions in bluefin interactions and result in different 
reductions in revenue. As explained above in the response to comments 
51 and 52, a complete Gulf of Mexico EEZ closure for a full year or 
portion of the year is not warranted

[[Page 71540]]

because a smaller GRA is sufficient to achieve the Amendment 7 
objectives and to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent 
practicable. Based on public comment, NMFS analyzed the impacts of 
additional areas and times in the Gulf of Mexico, not analyzed in the 
DEIS, and included 2012 data. As a result of these additional analysis, 
and careful consideration of both the biological and socio-economic 
impacts, NMFS is implementing the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico 
Pelagic Longline GRAs.
    The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs include 
most of the geographic area of the GRA that was originally proposed, 
but are larger, extending further to the east, and are slightly reduced 
in size on the western and northern borders. Additionally, the Spring 
Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs include a second area 
that is adjacent to the southern border of the Desoto Canyon Closed 
Area's northwestern `block.'
    The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs encompass 
additional areas of historic bluefin interaction in the eastern-central 
Gulf of Mexico, and address a recent shift in pelagic longline fishing 
activity eastward. Between 2009 and 2012, there was a 10 to 20 percent 
shift from the Mid-Gulf Louisiana region to the eastern Gulf of Mexico 
region. The area defined by the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic 
Longline GRAs includes a larger portion of the spawning areas 
documented in the peer-reviewed literature at this time, but does not 
include all of the known bluefin spawning areas in the GOM for reasons 
previously explained. The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic 
Longline GRAs will occur during the months of April and May, the same 
time period as proposed for the original Small Gulf of Mexico GRA.
    NMFS previously regulated large portions of the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico through implementation of the DeSoto Canyon closed area, 
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Sites, and the Edges closure. The 
pelagic longline fleet fishes the continental shelf along the west 
coast of Florida between the southern DeSoto Canyon box and the Florida 
Keys. However, bluefin interactions in this area are relatively few 
compared to the areas evaluated in the FEIS.
    Comment 54: One commenter noted that the size of the fishable area 
in the Gulf of Mexico is already small, given the constraints on the 
locations where they can fish, including existing pelagic longline 
closed areas, as well as the areas that must be avoided for other 
reasons (e.g., activity range of seismographic vessels, which can 
operate for up to six months, and oils rigs).
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico 
Pelagic Longline GRAs being implemented by this final rule will further 
reduce the amount of fishable areas in the Gulf of Mexico available for 
the use of pelagic longline gear, and that vessels choosing to fish in 
the Gulf of Mexico with pelagic longline gear will need to work around 
other industrial users of Gulf of Mexico resources. NMFS selected the 
boundaries of the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs with careful 
consideration of the associated benefits and costs. NMFS optimized the 
size of the GRAs being implemented to achieve a meaningful reduction in 
dead discards, and still leave fishing grounds open for the pelagic 
longline fleet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis in the FEIS (Chapter 6) 
considers the impacts of the preferred alternatives in the broader 
context of other historical and current activities.
    Comment 55: NMFS should consider the impact on the yellowfin tuna 
and swordfish fisheries, which are active in the Gulf of Mexico and in 
the areas covered by the GRAs. Specifically, the commenter questioned 
whether the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fleet would be able to 
remain active.
    Response: NMFS carefully considered the impact of the Spring 
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs on yellowfin and swordfish fisheries, both 
of which are robust and healthy fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. The 
Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs achieve a balance between 
conservation objectives and providing continuing opportunity for the 
swordfish and yellowfin tuna fisheries. The primary conservation 
objective of the GRAs is to reduce bluefin interactions, and reduce 
bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. NMFS compared 
among the alternatives the amount of `savings' of bluefin tuna and the 
reduction in target catch as part of its analysis of the GRAs. Under 
the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA being implemented, the annual 
reductions in revenue associated with the reduced catches of swordfish 
and yellowfin tuna are estimated at $41,504 and $207,110, respectively. 
The annual reduction in total revenue is estimated at $1,793,922. An 
example of how the data was compared and alternatives evaluated 
follows: Comparing the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA with the 
alternative that would restrict the full EEZ for the months of March 
through May, the reduction in the weight of bluefin catch would be a 
little more than twice as much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt versus 19.2 
mt under the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA), but the reduction in 
total revenue associated with the EEZ GRA would be more than six times 
larger than the reduction in total revenue associated with the Spring 
Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA ($1,793,922 versus $281,614 under the 
Preferred). In other words, compared to the Spring Modified Gulf of 
Mexico GRA, the amount of additional costs that would be associated 
with the EEZ GRA would be disproportionately greater than the 
additional conservation benefits associated with the EEZ GRA. The 
Amendment 7 measures are not designed to target a particular amount of 
reduction in dead discards, but rather to reduce dead discards in a 
meaningful way, provide strong incentives to avoid and reduce bycatch, 
and take into account the potential impacts on the pelagic longline 
fishery. The combined effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Pelagic Longline GRA and the Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline 
GRA will reduce the number of bluefin discarded by 40 percent, and the 
number of bluefin kept by 10 percent (fishery-wide).
    Comment 56: One commenter asked why NMFS did not propose 
conditional access to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs, based on performance 
metrics, in contrast to the Cape Hatteras GRA, for which access was 
proposed. The commenter suggested that performance metrics should be 
applied to all GRAs.
    Response: NMFS did not propose and is not implementing conditional 
access to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs (based on performance metrics) in 
part because they would not be as effective in reducing discards of 
bluefin tuna in the GOM as they would be in the Atlantic. The fact that 
a relatively small number of vessels are responsible for the majority 
of bluefin interactions in the Atlantic makes access to the Modified 
Cape Hatteras GRA based on performance metrics effective, in order to 
reduce dead discards, provide incentives for modifying fishing 
behavior, and acknowledge past performance. In contrast, the pattern of 
interactions with bluefin tuna in the GOM is different from that in the 
Atlantic, with the interactions more evenly distributed among all 
vessels (i.e., more vessels responsible for the interactions). NMFS 
evaluated the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA using performance 
metrics, and applying them, only three vessels out of the 61 that 
fished in the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would not have had 
access to the GRAs.

[[Page 71541]]

Therefore, the savings from implementing the performance metrics would 
be very small, and the resulting ecological impacts would have been 
similar to not implementing a GRA at all.
    Comment 57: Some commenters felt that NMFS should delineate a GRA 
using the same boundaries as the bluefin Habitat Area of Particular 
Concern (HAPC).
    Response: NMFS determined that the reductions in bluefin tuna 
interactions resulting from a Gulf of Mexico GRA that encompasses the 
boundaries of the bluefin HAPC would be very similar to the savings 
incurred from a GRA drawn encompassing the boundaries of the Gulf of 
Mexico EEZ. NMFS therefore did not further evaluate a GRA that was 
designed to encompass the boundaries of the HAPC or develop an 
alternative around this proposed boundary.
    Comment 58: A commenter indicated that he could support a Gulf of 
Mexico GRA alternative if the pelagic longline fleet is provided 
flexibility through some of the alternatives proposed such as access to 
current closed areas, and ability to fish under General Category rules.
    Response: As described under the Response to Comments #63, and #64, 
access to certain closed areas, and the ability to fish under General 
Category rules in certain closed area were proposed but are not being 
finalized in this final rule. The measures implemented by Amendment 7 
provide flexibility and balance the Amendment 7 objectives to reduce 
dead discards, yet also provide fishing opportunity.
    Comment 59: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council commented 
that NMFS should consider potential impacts on vessels using bottom 
longline gear. They were concerned about the synergistic effects of the 
pelagic longline and bottom longline regulations on vessels.
    Response: The Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs are designed for 
the pelagic longline fishery only. Vessels that exclusively use bottom 
longline gear would not be affected by the GRAs. Vessels that use both 
bottom longline gear and pelagic longline gear during the year would be 
impacted, and would likely modify their fishing behavior or business 
plan. Bottom longline gear is currently subject to regulations 
including time and area restrictions, and is not likely to capture 
bluefin tuna due its deployment near the bottom of the ocean.
    Comment 60: NMFS should compensate vessels for the time period the 
Gulf of Mexico GRAs are in place.
    Response: NMFS' authority to assist fishers in this way requires a 
determination of a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource 
disaster under section 312(a) of the MSA or section 308(b) of the 
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act, followed by an appropriation from 
Congress. Neither of these have occurred.
    Comment 61: NMFS should not distinguish between bluefin tuna in the 
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic as they are from the same breeding stock.
    Response: For the purposes of Amendment 7, NMFS differentiates 
between bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico and bluefin tuna in the 
Atlantic for the implementation of certain management measures for a 
number of reasons. As noted above, the distribution of interactions 
across vessels is different between the Gulf of Mexico and the 
Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna that interact with pelagic 
longline gear are often heavier and older than tuna that interact with 
pelagic longline gear in the Atlantic, and are found in spawning 
condition during certain months of the year. The pattern of discarding 
in the Gulf of Mexico is also very different from the discard pattern 
documented in the Atlantic (i.e., larger fish discarded in the Gulf of 
Mexico). NMFS does not make such a distinction between Gulf of Mexico 
and Atlantic bluefin in the assessment of the bluefin stock. Although 
Gulf of Mexico bluefin often migrate up the east coast to feeding 
grounds in the northwest Atlantic Ocean, data suggest that some 
proportion of fish in the Atlantic are individuals from the eastern 
Atlantic and Mediterranean stock, whereas bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico 
are predominantly from the western Atlantic stock.
    Comment 62: NMFS should examine observer data in addition to 
logbook data to estimate bluefin tuna savings; the estimate of savings 
in 2010 and 2011 is low because fishing effort was low in those years.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that estimates of savings might be low 
in 2010 and 2011 as a result of depressed effort due to the effects of 
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. However, estimated savings are 
presented as an average from a 7-year period. Interannual variability 
is therefore incorporated into the estimation of ecological impacts of 
different GRA alternatives. NMFS developed GRA alternatives from HMS 
Logbook data because every fisherman must submit logbooks detailing 
activity and interactions with all fish kept, discarded alive, and 
discarded dead. While extremely useful in estimating dead discards, the 
observer program is not a complete census survey of the fishery, and 
the extent of observer coverage is not necessarily useful in assessing 
ecological or economic effects of GRAs. Furthermore, there is a 
percentage of vessels that have not been observed and NMFS determined 
that some of these vessels contributed sizable numbers of bluefin 
interactions in the Cape Hatteras GRA. NMFS, therefore, decided to base 
the estimation of impacts on HMS logbook data.

9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing Under General Category Rules

    Comment 63: Some commenters supported the proposed measure to allow 
vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear that are not authorized 
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, to fish under General 
category rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this type of fishing 
opportunity as mitigation for the lost opportunity of fishing with 
pelagic longline gear in the Cape Hatteras GRA, from December through 
April. Some commenters did not support the proposed opportunity for 
such vessels to fish under the General category rules for various 
reasons. Some asserted that the activity would be a ``dangerous 
precedent,'' because limited access vessels would be allowed to fish 
under the rules applicable to an open access category, but General 
category vessels would not be allowed to fish as a pelagic longline 
vessel. Others were concerned about the expansion of a targeted bluefin 
fishery in the Cape Hatteras GRA, an area that already has large 
numbers of interactions with bluefin. A commenter found it ironic that 
vessels not allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear in the Cape 
Hatteras GRA (proposed in order to reduce bluefin interactions with 
pelagic longline gear) due to their low performance criteria score 
would be provided an opportunity to target bluefin tuna. Some noted 
concern about the potential impacts on the rate of harvest of the 
General category quota, which is limited, and the indirect impacts on 
General category vessels. Others noted that the replacement of pelagic 
longline gear with handgear (targeting bluefin) is not economically 
viable due to the size of the pelagic longline vessels and the 
associated trip expenses. A commenter stated that the proposed measure 
would facilitate trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline category to 
General category vessels. A commenter suggested that all pelagic 
longline vessels should be able to fish under the General category 
rules, and not only those affected by the GRA.
    Response: Based upon public comment and further consideration,

[[Page 71542]]

NMFS is not implementing the management measure that would have allowed 
vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear that are not authorized 
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras GRA to fish under General 
category rules. While this measure would have provided additional 
fishing opportunities to pelagic longline vessels without access to the 
Cape Hatteras GRA, the differences in fishing costs and productivity 
between pelagic longline gear and handgear are great enough that 
handgear fishing for bluefin tuna would not be economically viable for 
a pelagic longline vessel. Given the unlikely -economic benefits as 
well as public perceptions of unfairness, the potential benefits of 
allowing vessels to fish under the General category rules do not 
outweigh the potential costs and risks associated with this activity.

10. Pelagic Longline Limited Conditional Access to Closed Areas

    Comment 64: NMFS received a large number of comments that did not 
support the proposed limited conditional access to closed areas for 
vessels using pelagic longline gear, for a variety of reasons. 
Commenters, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission, were foremost concerned about potential negative biological 
impacts on swordfish, billfish, and other species, as well as the 
indirect negative socio-economic impacts on the recreational fishing 
community if there were negative biological impacts. Specifically, 
commenters cited the benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East Florida 
Coast closed areas contributing to the rebuilding of the swordfish 
stock, and the stabilization of the blue and white marlin stocks. 
Commenters stated that the biological analysis of the alternative was 
inadequate, and one commenter was concerned about the impacts on dusky 
sharks. Some commenters supported access, noting the importance of such 
access as a means to provide flexibility to pelagic longline vessels in 
the context of the IBQ Program restrictions, while others suggested 
modifications to the alternative such as allowing the use of electronic 
monitoring instead of human observers.
    Response: Based upon public comment and further consideration of 
potential administrative costs, NMFS is not implementing this 
management measure. The potential benefits of allowing pelagic longline 
vessels limited conditional access to the closed areas would not 
outweigh the potential costs and risks associated with this activity. 
The objectives of the proposed measure were to maintain the relevant 
conservation aspects of the closure, balance the objectives of the 
closures, provide commercial data from within the closures, and provide 
additional fishing opportunities for permitted longline vessels 
(mitigating the potential negative economic impacts of Amendment 7). 
The East Florida Coast, Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon Closed Area 
were implemented as part of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on 
three objectives: (1) Maximize the reduction in incidental catch of 
billfish and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed weight; (2) minimize 
the reduction in the target catch of larger swordfish and other 
marketable species; and (3) ensure that the incidental catch of other 
species (e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and turtles) either remains 
unchanged or is reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS recognized that all 
three objectives might not be met to the maximum extent and that 
conflicting outcomes would require some balancing of the objectives. 
There are data that supports the assertion that the closed areas have 
contributed to the achievement of their objectives, in concert with 
other management measures. NMFS provides an annual review of the 
potential effectiveness of the current suite of management measures, 
including closed areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual SAFE report 
for HMS. Although this review does not isolate and quantify the 
effectiveness of closed areas as a separate management tool, the 
estimated reductions in discards of swordfish, blue marlin, white 
marlin, sailfish, and spearfish, as a result of all management 
measures, have remained consistently high (-50 to -70 percent), 
suggesting that the current suite of international and domestic 
management measures have played a significant role in allowing the 
United States to reduce its bycatch interactions. Given the likely 
benefits of the closed areas, the difficulty in determining the precise 
magnitude of the benefits of the closed areas in the context of other 
management measures, as well as the difficulty predicting the potential 
impacts that access to closed areas would have, NMFS believes that 
there is uncertainty whether in fact the first objective of the 
alternative (maintain relevant conservation aspects of the closure) 
would be met. The access to closed areas alternative did not include 
defined bycatch limits, but would have relied upon the assumption that 
low levels of fishing effort is sufficient to prevent excessive 
bycatch. Furthermore, there would be administrative costs associated 
with the access program. Therefore, the benefits associated with 
providing additional fishing opportunities (by providing access) would 
not outweigh the costs in terms of the risk of undermining the 
conservation benefits of the closed areas. With respect to providing 
commercial data from within the closures, as stated previously, NMFS 
may obtain data from within the closures through the use of exempted 
fishing permits.

11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline Transiting Closed Areas

    Comment 65: The North Carolina Department of Environment and 
Natural Resources supported the preferred alternative (Alternative E8) 
to allow transiting of closed areas by vessels possessing bottom or 
pelagic longline gear.
    Response: Allowing HMS vessels that possess bottom or pelagic 
longline gear on board to transit closed areas provided they remove and 
stow the gangions, hooks (unbaited), and buoys from the mainline and 
drum would reduce potential economic costs associated with indirect 
routes of travel (more time at sea and more fuel, etc.) as well as 
reduce potential safety-at-sea issues.

12. Gear-Based Measures

    Comment 66: Authorizing buoy gear to be used by Swordfish 
Incidental permit holders to catch swordfish (Alternative B2b) and 
authorizing the harvest of bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack 
tunas (`BAYS') with buoy gear by Swordfish Directed and Incidental 
permit holders (Alternative B2c) would reduce dead discards in a direct 
manner and should be supported.
    Response: Buoy gear used in and near the Florida Straits has been 
shown to be efficient at catching swordfish with a relatively low 
bycatch rate. However, due to a lack of data, it is unknown what the 
catch and bycatch of buoy gear would be when used to target swordfish 
at night in other areas of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, U.S. 
Caribbean, and high seas or to target BAYS tunas in these areas during 
daylight hours. This lack of information makes assessing an expansion 
in the use of buoy gear for swordfish or tunas difficult, especially 
considering the potential to interact with adult bluefin tuna in the 
Gulf of Mexico, other HMS such as billfishes, or protected species in 
areas such as off the Outer Banks of North Carolina (as an example). 
NMFS is not implementing alternatives B2b or B2c because of the lack of 
available information needed to assess the ecological impacts of 
expanded buoy gear use when used to

[[Page 71543]]

target swordfish or BAYS tunas. NMFS will continue to assess additional 
information as it becomes available and may re-evaluate buoy gear 
fishery regulations in the future.
    Comment 67: Pelagic longline fishermen should use more selective 
fishing gears such as greenstick gear and buoy gear and part of the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill restoration funds should be used to help 
pelagic longline fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico make this transition. 
No financial hardship for fishing gear transition conducted as part of 
oil spill restoration efforts should fall upon affected fishers.
    Response: This final rule does not implement a management measure 
that would require vessels to transition from pelagic longline to 
greenstick gear or buoy gear. However, under specific fishing permits, 
greenstick gear is currently authorized to fish for Atlantic tunas and 
buoy gear is authorized to fish for swordfish. Fishermen may utilize 
any legal fishing gear as authorized under the valid permits that are 
on their vessel when used in accordance with applicable regulations. 
Fishermen may change fishing gears in accordance with applicable 
regulations. ``Prohibition of the Use of Pelagic Longline Gear in the 
HMS Fishery'' is an alternative in the FEIS characterized as 
``Considered but Not Analyzed Further'', because it would not provide a 
balanced approach to achieving the Amendment 7 objectives or be 
consistent with the provisions of the MSA. Amendment 7 management 
measures provide incentives for vessels to transition from pelagic 
longline gear to greenstick or buoy gear, but do not mandate such a 
transition.
    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorizes certain federal agencies, 
states, and Native American tribes, collectively known as the Natural 
Resource Trustees (trustees), to evaluate the impacts of oil spills on 
natural resources and recreation, and to plan restoration projects to 
fully offset those impacts. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon oil 
spill, NOAA is one of the nine trustees responsible for jointly 
conducting this process, which is known as a Natural Resource Damage 
Assessment (NRDA). Throughout the Deepwater Horizon oil spill NRDA 
process, the trustees have conducted multiple public comment periods 
and dozens of public meetings throughout the Gulf Coast states intended 
to gather input on the public's preferred approaches to natural 
resource restoration. The most recent public comment period related to 
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill restoration planning concluded on 
February 19, 2014. Throughout the NRDA process, the trustees have 
invited comments on broad types of restoration projects, as well as 
specific projects. In addition to accepting verbal comments at public 
meetings, the trustees have accepted comments and ideas by U.S. Mail, 
email to [email protected], and via the Internet via 
www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov. As part of their ongoing commitment 
to maximum transparency, the NRDA trustees have posted input gathered 
during these public comment periods online at 
http:[sol][sol]www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration/give-us-
your-ideas/view-submitted-projects/. The NRDA trustees also continue to 
accept project ideas from the public by mail and via 
http:[sol][sol]www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration/give-us-
your-ideas/suggest-a-restoration-project/. During the NRDA process, the 
trustees have received suggestions that restoration project funds help 
pelagic longline fishermen transition to greenstick and buoy gear.

13. General Comments About Individual Bluefin Quotas

    Comment 68: Commenters supported implementation of the IBQ system 
in order to hold vessels accountable and provide incentives to reduce 
discards. Commenters noted that NMFS should provide some flexibility in 
the IBQ system, particularly in the short-term, to ensure that vessels, 
and especially small vessels, are able to adapt to the new restrictions 
and the overall program is successful. Commenters urged NMFS to 
continue to support the pelagic longline swordfish fishery, which is 
important for multiple reasons.
    Response: Implementation of the IBQ system will increase the 
responsibility and accountability of individual vessels, and the 
pelagic longline fishery as a whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As 
explained in detail in the responses to more specific comments below, 
the IBQ system implemented by this final rule is designed to provide a 
reasonable and effective means of reducing dead discards, increasing 
accountability, and maintaining a viable pelagic longline fishery. The 
management measures are intended to provide flexibility at the level of 
the individual vessel, and in the quota system as a whole, so that the 
fishery can operate under the challenges of a substantially new 
regulatory structure. Furthermore, the fishery must be able to adapt on 
a continuing basis to the variability of highly migratory species, and 
changing ecological conditions.
    Individual pelagic longline vessels have the flexibility to change 
their fishing practices through modification of fishing behavior 
(including time, location and methods of fishing, and the use of non-
longline gear); increasing communication within the fishery to 
facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing of individual bluefin quota. 
Under Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide additional flexibility by 
allocating additional quota to the Longline category, as described in 
the response to Comments 18 and 19.
    Comment 69: Some commenters stated that NMFS should consider some 
of the broad questions such as what will happen when the bluefin stock 
grows, which may lead to more dead discards; what about unintended 
consequences of the IBQ system such as creating a directed fishery; and 
what will happen to a vessel if they have an atypically large BFT catch 
event (also known as a ``disaster set'')?
    Response: As the bluefin stock size continues to grow, the total 
number of interactions between the pelagic longline fleet and bluefin 
tuna may increase. However, the relative amount of dead discards by 
pelagic longline vessels (e.g., percentage of total catch) may be a 
better way to evaluate a trend in the amount of dead discards rather 
than the absolute number. A second important metric of success of the 
IBQ Program will be whether the catch of bluefin by the Longline 
category exceeds the Longline category quota. Amendment 7 management 
measures are expected to reduce the percentage of bluefin catch that is 
comprised of discards (which from 2006 to 2012, ranged from 61 to 75 
percent of the Longline bluefin catch), and prevent the catch of 
bluefin by pelagic longline vessels from exceeding the Longline 
category quota.
    The IBQ Program will not create a directed fishery for bluefin by 
the pelagic longline fleet. Although pelagic longline vessels will be 
allocated bluefin quota and be able to derive revenue from the sale of 
legal-sized bluefin tuna, the quota share of bluefin tuna for each 
vessel is a relatively small percentage of the Longline category quota. 
Based on the size of recent Longline category quotas, individual 
vessels will be allocated the equivalent of between 2 and 13 bluefin 
tuna per year (depending upon the specific quota share percentage and 
whether the bluefin is a Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic bluefin). Due to 
the relatively small bluefin quota allocation per vessel, the 
requirement to utilize quota to account for both dead discards and 
landings, the requirement to have a minimum amount of quota to depart 
on a fishing trip using pelagic longline gear, and the cost

[[Page 71544]]

associated with leasing additional quota, there will be strong economic 
disincentives to target bluefin.
    If a vessel catches an atypically large number of bluefin tuna 
(i.e., a ``disaster set''), Amendment 7 measures will allow the vessel 
to retain and sell all legal-sized bluefin, but prohibit the vessel 
from departing on a subsequent trip using pelagic longline gear until 
all the bluefin has been accounted for by leasing additional quota from 
another permitted vessel owner with quota allocation. This restriction 
will create a strong economic incentive to avoid bluefin tuna in order 
to not exceed individual bluefin quota. Furthermore, if the vessel in 
such circumstances holds quota share and at the end of the year would 
otherwise be eligible to receive quota share for the subsequent fishing 
year, the quota debt would be settled by deducting quota from the 
subsequent year's quota allocation. The quota debt would persist from 
one year to the next until settled.
    Under Amendment 7 measures, NMFS may also consider transferring 
quota from the Reserve category to the Longline category, to make quota 
available for the fishery as a whole. With the exception of quota in 
support of research (e.g., an Exempted Fishing Permit), NMFS may 
allocate additional quota to the Longline category as a whole via a 
disbursement of quota to eligible vessels via the IBQ Program for the 
purpose of accounting for bluefin catch. Under Amendment 7, NMFS' 
review of the IBQ Program after 3 years of operation will include 
anevaluation of the question of whether the IBQ system adequately 
addresses large catch events.
    Comment 70: Some commenters had concerns about the legality of the 
IBQ Program and argued that NMFS should consider the legality of 
``diminishing a vessel's opportunity to catch its quota.'' Commenters 
stated that NMFS should not give a public resource to individuals for 
their financial benefit, and that the pelagic longline fishery should 
not profit from bluefin, but proceeds should be used for other programs 
and research.
    Response: Allocation of fishery resources to individual entities 
under a catch share program is legal under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
The IBQ Program includes an allocated privilege of catching a specified 
portion of the total annual bluefin quota in the form of quota shares. 
IBQ shares are not property, but are a privilege to an amount of fish 
in a given year that can be renewed or revoked. Although pelagic 
longline vessel owners/operators may derive revenue from the sale of 
bluefin, bluefin is not expected to become a large proportion of their 
total revenue due to the low amount of bluefin quota and the other 
elements of the IBQ Program. Measures throughout the Amendment were 
specifically implemented to ensure that the pelagic longline BFT catch 
remains an incidental fishery, not a directed fishery. Although the 
management measures do not require a portion of the revenue from the 
sale of bluefin by Longline category vessels to fund research, NMFS may 
utilize bluefin quota from the Reserve category in support of relevant 
research.
    Comment 71: A commenter stated that, in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS 
should limit catch using gear restrictions and the use of alternative 
gears instead of IBQs. Some commenters noted that NMFS should separate 
Gulf of Mexico quota from Atlantic quota.
    Response: A discussion of alternative gears is provided in the 
response to Comments 66 and 67. Alternative gears alone are unlikely to 
provide the same benefits of the IBQ Program, which will limit total 
catch and provide accountability at the level of individual vessels. 
The IBQ management measures include a provision that designates quota 
share as either Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic, and prohibits the use of 
Atlantic quota in the Gulf of Mexico to prevent potential increases in 
the relative amount of bluefin caught in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Comment 72: Several commenters had concerns or made suggestions 
regarding some of the specific aspects of the design of the IBQ Program 
that are not among the principal design elements. These comments were 
as follows: NMFS should implement strict enforcement and fines 
associated with the IBQ system; the annual distribution of quota should 
take place in time for the January 1 start of the fishing year; NMFS 
should not allow quota to carryforward from year to year; NMFS should 
not allow vessels to land and sell bluefin without sufficient quota; 
money from the sale of bluefin should be put in escrow until quota is 
purchased to account for all catch, and; NMFS should not implement the 
IBQ system because it is too complex.
    Response: Enforcement is an important aspect of ensuring the 
effectiveness of any regulatory program. New management tools such as 
the preferred electronic monitoring will augment NMFS' ability to 
effectively enforce the regulations.
    On an annual basis, IBQ allocation will be distributed to eligible 
permit holders in time for vessels to begin fishing on January 1. 
Adjustments to the IBQ allocations may occur, but are not limited to 
changes in ICCAT recommendations, inseason actions, or NMFS' annual 
adjustment authority.
    Under this final rule, if an eligible permit holder has been 
awarded IBQ allocation and does not fully utilize that IBQ allocation 
(i.e., account for bluefin caught, or leases the IBQ allocation to 
another eligible participant) during the year, and has a balance of 
quota at the end of the year, the quota would not carry forward into 
the subsequent year as IBQ in association with a particular permit. 
However, based on the unused IBQ allocation associated with individual 
vessels, NMFS would calculate the total amount of unused IBQ allocation 
for the Longline category as a whole, and carry that quota forward (or 
a portion of that quota) as allowed under ICCAT into the subsequent 
fishing year. U.S. bluefin quota that is allowed to be carried forward 
from one year to the next will be placed in the Reserve category and 
may be reallocated to any/all domestic quota categories.
    Under Amendment 7, pelagic longline vessel operators will be able 
to land and sell any legal-sized retained bluefin, in order to maintain 
full accountability, retain flexibility to accommodate variable bluefin 
catches, and to provide incentives to retain rather than discard fish. 
Although a vessel operator may land and sell bluefin in excess of their 
quota, they may not depart on a subsequent trip using pelagic longline 
gear until the fish have been fully accounted for with quota 
allocation. The revenue derived from the sale of the bluefin will 
facilitate the ability of a vessel owner to lease additional quota. If, 
at the end of the year, they have not paid the `quota debt' with 
additional quota (obtained through leasing), the balance of quota owed 
will be `paid' for from the subsequent year's allocation or the vessel 
will be prohibited from fishing with pelagic longline gear. The vessel 
owner is fully accountable.
    In contrast, a system in which a vessel operator must place the 
revenue from the sale of a bluefin in escrow until they account for the 
fish with quota (as suggested by a commenter) is a more complex system 
that would provide a stronger incentive to discard bluefin, impose 
additional administrative burdens, and would not provide the 
flexibility a vessel operator may need. If while still at sea the 
vessel operator catches more bluefin than they have quota,, there would 
be more incentive to discard the fish because the vessel owner would 
face the uncertainty of whether they would be able to lease quota (and 
at what price) and the operator would be uncertain whether or not any 
revenue could be derived from

[[Page 71545]]

the sale of the bluefin. If the revenue were to be placed in escrow, 
the vessel operator may have insufficient revenue to lease additional 
quota allocation, and therefore the system itself would be an 
impediment to the operation of a leasing market. Additionally, there 
would be questions associated with an escrow requirement such as: If 
the vessel operator is unable to lease additional quota, and forfeited 
the revenue, would the vessel still be responsible for accounting for 
the bluefin, (i.e., would the `quota debt' remain with the vessel into 
the following year), even though the vessel owner never obtained any 
revenue from the fish?
    Although the IBQ Program will result in a more complex management 
system than currently exists, NMFS has minimized complexity in the 
design of the preferred management measures (including the IBQ 
Program), and has noted examples in the Response to Comments. While 
this is first catch share program for Atlantic HMS fisheries, the 
elements and approach of the Amendment 7 IBQ Program are similar to 
that of the many successful catch share programs currently in operation 
in the United States. NMFS will educate the public regarding the 
program, and provide the public with ongoing access to the information 
to facilitate the smooth operation of the preferred IBQ Program and 
enhance transparency.
    Comment 73: Commenters noted that NMFS did not provide adequate 
details in the proposed rule regarding the relationship of the 
Northeast Distant Area (NED) to the IBQ Program and suggested that the 
current bluefin possession limit be maintained in the NED, but when the 
limit is reached, the vessel should fish under their IBQ.
    Response: Under current ICCAT recommendations, the NED is a 
distinctly managed geographic area managed under a separate quota than 
the rest of the fishery. Therefore, the quota associated with the NED 
(25 mt) will not be part of the Amendment 7 quota allocation measures, 
or managed under the IBQ Program. However, there are provisions of the 
IBQ Program that will apply to vessels fishing with pelagic longline 
gear in the NED. For example, vessels will be required to have the 
minimum IBQ allocation to operate in the NED starting in 2016 and, when 
NED bluefin quota has been exhausted, permitted vessels must abide by 
all the requirements of the IBQ Program. Electronic monitoring systems, 
installed by June 1, 2015, will be required to fish with pelagic 
longline gear including in the NED, and data from the electronic 
monitoring system may be used to ensure that targeting fishing is not 
occurring. NMFs reminds the regulated community that the international 
separate allocation is only for bycatch in the NED, and there are 
domestic prohibitions against targeting bluefin tuna using pelagic 
longline gear. NMFS will re-visit this issue if necessary if subsequent 
years' data indicate that additional controls are needed.
    Comment 74: Several commenters made suggestions that the IBQ 
Program be split apart from the other major elements of Amendment 7 and 
implemented sequentially through separate regulatory actions 
(amendments). One commenter requested that the first amendment focus on 
the Longline category management measures (individual bluefin quotas 
and gear restricted areas), and that any quota reallocation among quota 
categories or enhanced reporting for non-Longline categories only be 
considered after additional information is obtained from the pelagic 
longline fishery operating under the IBQ system. The North Carolina 
Department of Natural Resources suggested that the GRAs and allocation 
measures should be implemented first, followed by the IBQs, and the 
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council suggested that the IBQs should 
follow in a separate action (with additional analyses and 
alternatives).
    Response: This final rule implements a wide range of regulatory 
measures through a single action, because comprehensive modifications 
to many aspects of the bluefin tuna fisheries are needed, and the 
management measures are highly inter-related. Amendment 7 utilizes a 
holistic approach to address the complex problems effectively, and 
minimizes potential negative economic impacts. For example, to first 
focus on management of the Longline category in isolation and delay 
consideration of other measures such as reallocation and enhanced 
reporting for non-Longline category vessels would ignore the current 
differences in reporting requirements among quota categories, continue 
a high level of uncertainty in the quota system, and would fail to 
minimize adverse economic impacts for the Longline category.
    Accountability for bluefin catch by the Longline category is a high 
priority, and the IBQ Program provides such accountability. It ensures 
that the fishery operates within the allowable quota established by 
ICCAT consistent with the rebuilding program, and minimizes bycatch to 
the extent practicable, in a manner that will have less adverse 
economic impacts than the other alternatives analyzed (Regional or 
Group Quota Controls). NMFS considered and analyzed multiple 
alternatives for all elements of the IBQ Program in the DEIS and FEIS, 
and will fully evaluate the IBQ Program after three years of operation.
    Comment 75: The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 
(Louisiana DNR) commented that Amendment 7 will have large negative 
socio-economic impacts on the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fishery. 
Louisiana DNR asserts the greatest negative impact will occur in 
Louisiana, with minimal benefits to the bluefin stock, and attributed 
the economic impacts mostly to the IBQ Program, which it feels is 
inconsistent with the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. Louisiana 
DNR noted that the potential benefits to the stock of bluefin tuna are 
minimal compared to the potentially large socio-economic impact to the 
targeted fisheries, and NMFS' consistency determination lacks 
sufficient data and information.
    Response: NMFS has concluded that Amendment 7 is fully consistent 
with the enforceable policies of the management program, though the 
State of Louisiana objects. The FEIS analysis demonstrates that NMFS 
utilized many of the factors cited by Louisiana DNR as lacking in NMFS' 
evaluation. NMFS also explored the availability of alternative methods 
of achieving the Amendment 7 objectives, and considered the economic 
impacts, as well as the long term benefits of the measures. The 
alternative methods to reduce dead discards of no action or group or 
regional quotas would have more adverse impacts and be less effective 
in achieving Amendment 7 objectives to reduce dead discards and 
maximize fishing opportunity. The design of the IBQ management measures 
and other aspects of Amendment 7 minimize the significant adverse 
economic impacts, disruption of social patterns, and adverse cumulative 
impacts, to the extent practicable, relative to other methods analyzed 
while also meeting Amendment 7 objectives. For detailed information on 
NMFS' response, see the Classification section.

 14. IBQ Eligibility

    Comment 76: Commenters suggested modifications to the proposed 
method of defining which vessels are eligible to receive quota share 
(i.e., ``active'' vessels, defined as those vessels that made at least 
one set using pelagic longline gear between 2006 and 2011, based on 
logbook data). Some stated that the criteria is too restrictive, and 
that

[[Page 71546]]

the criteria should instead be any vessel with a valid permit, while 
others believed the criteria is too lenient and results in an excessive 
number of vessels eligible to receive quota share. Some commenters 
suggested specific alternative criteria such as 50 sets within the 
previous 3 years.
    Response: The definition of a set of vessels that are eligible to 
receive bluefin quota share is a very important aspect of the design of 
the IBQ Program because the definition sets the boundary of which 
entities are eligible for the privilege of being granted quota shares, 
and the number of eligible entities has a large influence on the amount 
of quota share each entity will receive. Regarding the comment that the 
criteria should be any vessel with a valid permit, the bluefin quota 
allocation method implemented by Amendment 7 is intended to limit the 
catch of, and provide accountability and incentives for pelagic 
longline vessels that are fishing and interacting with, bluefin tuna, 
and therefore only vessels that are likely to go fishing should be 
eligible for quota share. Additionally, if vessels that have a Longline 
category permit that do not typically fish were eligible to receive 
quota share, they could utilize the quota solely for economic gain by 
leasing the quota or influencing the leasing market. Further, the set 
of eligible vessels would be substantially larger (and each eligible 
vessel would receive substantially smaller proportion of the Longline 
category quota), and result in such small IBQ allocations that the IBQ 
Program would not function well. Relatively small quota shares make it 
likely that most vessels will have insufficient IBQ allocation and be 
dependent upon leased quota to account for bluefin caught.
    Regarding the comment that the definition of ``active,'' which did 
not include 2012 data, was too restrictive, the initial allocation 
implemented by this final rule reflects a definition of active that 
based upon the years 2006 through 2012, instead of through 2011.
    Regarding the comment that the proposed definition of ``active'' is 
too lenient, the objectives of the preferred IBQ Program do not support 
further restricting the scope of eligible vessel to an arbitrary number 
of sets, and excluding vessels with a low level of fishing activity. 
Even vessels with low levels of fishing activity may need bluefin quota 
shares to account for bluefin catch. Instead, the objectives of the IBQ 
Program will be achieved using more flexible management tools, 
including incentives for vessels for avoid bluefin tuna and to fish 
with alternative gears.
    Because the intent of the program is to specify a pool of eligible 
vessels that excludes inactive vessels, the IBQ Program utilizes the 
secondary criteria that the vessel must have had a valid permit as of 
August 21, 2013. Therefore, a vessel is required to meet the definition 
of ``active,'' and also to have been issued a valid Longline category 
permit as of August 21, 2013 (the date of publication of the Amendment 
7 proposed rule). This second criterion addresses the situation in 
which a vessel met the criteria of having made at least one pelagic 
longline set during the years from 2006 through 2012, but, subsequent 
to the time of the qualifying set(s), became inactive, as evidenced by 
a lapsed (non-renewed) Longline category permit (which must be renewed 
on an annual basis), or as evidenced by a vessel that has been removed 
from association with a particular vessel.
    Comment 77: Commenters were concerned about the ability of new 
entrants to become active in the fishery, and some suggested that NMFS 
use an annual system to define eligible vessels, such as a minimum 
number of sets during the previous year. A commenter noted that 
businesses which supply new equipment to outfit pelagic longline 
vessels would be negatively impacted if new entrants are not able to 
enter the fishery.
    Response: The ability for people who are currently not involved in 
the pelagic longline fishery to become participants in the fishery (new 
entrants) is an important consideration, which is a required 
consideration under Section 303A(c)(5)(C) of the MSA. The Amendment 7 
IBQ Program will add a single additional prerequisite for participation 
in the pelagic longline fishery to the previously existing two 
prerequisites and associated monitoring and compliance requirements 
(e.g., VMS). Prior to this Amendment, the two principal elements for 
participation in the fishery were a vessel and limited access permit. 
The IBQ Program implements a requirement for a vessel to have the 
minimum amount of bluefin quota allocation in order to fish with 
pelagic longline gear, as well as electronic monitoring requirements 
associated with the IBQ Program.
    The Amendment 7 IBQ Program provides adequate opportunities for new 
entrants to the fishery, because there are multiple means by which a 
new entrant may satisfy the quota requirement. A person interested in 
participating in the fishery may purchase a permitted vessel with IBQ 
shares, and therefore be allocated quota annually (due to the IBQ share 
associated with the permit), or a person may purchase a permitted 
vessel without IBQ shares, but lease quota allocation from another 
permitted vessel. Under the IBQ Program, as in the past, participation 
in the pelagic longline fishery by new entrants will require 
substantial capital investment and potential new entrants will face 
costs which are similar to historical participants. However, the 
structure of the IBQ Program does not create any unreasonable barriers 
to new entry.
    NMFS considered the merits of setting aside a specified amount of 
quota for new entrants, but found several negative aspects of such a 
provision. For example, providing quota to new entrants would 
essentially create a second quota allocation system, which would 
complicate the overall preferred IBQ Program by creating a separate 
class of vessels with different allocations. A quota set aside for new 
entrants would result in less quota available for other participants in 
the fishery, and rather than the market controlling the quota, there 
would be many policy decision to be made (e.g., would the amount of set 
aside vary according to the number of new entrants, or be a fixed 
amount annually? Would the quota be divided equally among new entrants, 
be allocated in the minimum share amounts, or allocated based on 
fishing history). NMFS believes in simplifying the IBQ Program upon 
implementation where possible, in order to minimize regulatory burden 
and complexity. A system of rules regarding quota set aside would add 
additional complications to the IBQ Program. Therefore, NMFS determined 
that given the lack of information with which to base such 
restrictions, and the uncertainty whether there would be a pressing 
need for such restrictions, that additional restrictions or a quota set 
aside are not warranted. During the three year review of the IBQ 
Program NMFS will consider information from the fishery after 
implementation of the IBQ Program, and evaluate whether the IBQ Program 
provides adequate opportunities to new entrants. See FEIS at pages 70-
71 for additional analyses.
    As suggested by commenters, NMFS considered the concept of making 
an annual determination of which vessels are eligible to receive quota 
allocations based on a set of criteria (such as a certain number of 
longline sets during the previous year). NMFS found that there are 
negative aspects of such an annual system. If the vessels allocated 
quota shares vary on an annual basis, the IBQ Program would be more 
complex and difficult to administer; there would be greater uncertainty 
annually in the fishery; there would be

[[Page 71547]]

incentives to fish on an annual basis (due to criteria to fish in order 
to receive quota); and any value associated with a permit that would be 
derived from the associated IBQ share may be minimized if the IBQ share 
is only valid for a year. Although such a system could limit the number 
of years a vessel without quota share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease 
quota, the negative aspects of this approach would be substantial. For 
example, in order to have an IBQ system that includes strong 
accountability, any quota `debt' accrued must persist from one fishing 
year to the next. It would be difficult to implement persistent 
accountability if the vessels eligible for quota change on an annual 
basis.
    Comment 78: A commenter suggested that NMFS should address latent 
permits by eliminating the ability to reactivate such permits.
    Response: Neither Amendment 7 overall, nor the IBQ Program 
objectives include the reduction of latent effort. The likelihood of a 
meaningful increase in fishing effort is low because the number of 
vessels fishing has been fairly constant, and as stated in the response 
to comment number 77, although there are avenues for new entrants to 
the fishery, participation in the pelagic longline fishery by new 
entrants would require substantial capital investment. Although the 
number of Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits has averaged 
approximately 239 vessels (2006--2012), under Amendment 7 as finalized, 
only 135 vessels are eligible for initial bluefin quota shares. 
Furthermore, the risk associated with an increase in fishing effort 
(for either bluefin or the target stock of swordfish) is low, given the 
fact that Amendment 7 implements strict bluefin catch limits, one of 
the principal target stocks (swordfish) is rebuilt and another target 
stock (yellowfin tuna) is not overfished and overfishing is not 
occurring, and there has been unharvested swordfish quota on a regular 
basis.
    Comment 79: A commenter suggested that NMFS use criteria such as 
dependence upon commercial fishing for determining which vessels are 
eligible to receive quota shares.
    Response: NMFS generally considered dependence upon commercial 
fishing in establishing its approach for initial allocations. The 
amount of target species caught is a factor in the allocation formula. 
However, NMFS cannot at this time quantify fishery dependence in a 
uniform manner due to many issues relating to data availability and 
confidentiality. NMFS believes that the final rule, which takes into 
consideration best available information on current and historical 
harvests, participation, and other factors as well as public comment, 
ensures fair and equitable initial allocations.
    Comment 80: Commenters stated that NMFS should associate IBQ with a 
permit and not a vessel.
    Response: As explained in the FEIS, the use of historical data to 
evaluate whether a vessel meets certain criteria as part of the 
implementation of a limited access or catch share program (or a 
performance criteria) can be complex due to historical transfers of a 
limited access permit from one vessel to another, or changes in vessel 
owners. Over time, a single permit may be issued to multiple vessels, 
or a single vessel may have multiple owners. The IBQ Program as 
finalized uses the historical `platform' upon which to base the quota 
share as the vessel history instead of the permit history for the 
following reasons: (1) Vessel history reflects current and historical 
participation in the fishery; (2) the regulations regarding the 
transfer of Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits do not address 
fishing history (i.e., do not specify, when an Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit is transferred from one vessel to another, whether the 
fishing history also transfers; and (3) the structure of the databases 
in which the logbook data reside uses the vessel as a key organizing 
feature, and therefore the compilation of data associated with a 
particular vessel is simpler and less prone to error (it is more 
complex to compile data based on an individual permit history).
    Although, as noted above, the basis for the quota shares is the 
fishing history associated with a vessel, the IBQ Program associates 
the share with a permit. In other words, for the purpose of vessel, 
permit, and quota transactions, quota shares under the IBQ Program will 
be associated with the Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit, even 
though the initial eligibility for the quota share was determined on 
the basis of a particular vessel history.
    Comment 81: Many pelagic longline vessel owners expressed strong 
concerns that the amount of bluefin quota allocated to individual 
vessels would be inadequate to continue to fish, and that despite 
efforts to avoid bluefin, vessels would sooner or later encounter 
bluefin. The proposed allocations would make continuing fishing 
operations extremely difficult, because they would be forced to stop 
fishing, and therefore revenue would be cut off, but expenses would 
continue. Vessel owners stated that they would not be able to remain in 
business under such circumstances, and some estimated that a large 
vessel would need about 20 bluefin to account for the number of bluefin 
they catch, rather than the 2 to 13 fish they believe would be 
allocated under the IBQ system. Some highlighted the difference between 
the proposed IBQ allocations and the number of bluefin tuna that may be 
retained by a vessel with a General category commercial permit (up to 5 
bluefin a trip), as justification for having larger individual quota 
allocations.
    Response: Under the Amendment 7 IBQ Program, some vessels may not 
have enough quota share to continue to account for the same amount of 
bluefin they caught in the past. The FEIS analysis indicates that at a 
quota level of 137 mt, approximately 25 percent of vessels would need 
to lease additional bluefin quota in order to land their historical 
average amount of target species (if they do not change their behavior 
to reduce their historical rate of bluefin interactions). If no leasing 
of IBQ allocation were to occur, there could be a reduction in target 
species landings with an associated reduction in revenue of 
approximately $7,574,590 total, or $56,108 per vessel (135 vessels).
    The precise impacts of the IBQ Program are difficult to predict due 
to the variability of bluefin distribution as well as the potential 
range of fishing behaviors (and business strategies) of vessels in 
response to the new regulations. In order to reduce the likelihood of 
interactions, vessel operators may have to pursue new strategies 
including communication with other pelagic longline operators regarding 
the known locations of bluefin, modifications to fishing time, 
location, and technique, as well as use of alternative gears. In 
conjunction with these strategies, leasing additional quota may be 
necessary. The IBQ eligibility criteria include the requirement that 
the relevant vessel have a permit as of August 21, 2013, which limits 
the number of eligible vessels, and therefore slightly increases the 
amount of quota share per vessel. Due to the difficulty of predicting 
the precise impacts of the IBQ Program, NMFS may, as the fishery 
adjusts to the new system, need to consider providing additional quota 
to the Longline category as a whole in order to increase the amount of 
quota available to eligible vessels via the IBQ Program, thereby 
balancing the need to have an operational fishery with the need to 
reduce bluefin bycatch in the fishery. The Amendment 7 IBQ Program 
includes a three-year formal review of the IBQ system, at which time 
NMFS will consider whether any structural changes to the program are 
necessary.

[[Page 71548]]

    The pelagic longline fishery is an incidental bluefin fishery 
unlike the directed General category handgear fishery, and retention 
limits and other management measures are different. This final rule 
implements a regulatory system that would mitigate the effects of the 
different restrictions among the different permit categories.
    Comment 82: Some commenters did not want the bluefin quota share 
formula to include a criterion that relies upon logbook data on bluefin 
catch, due to the concern that such data may be inaccurate. The quota 
share formula that was proposed includes a metric that results in a 
higher score (and contributing in the formula to a higher allocation) 
for vessels that had fewer interactions with bluefin (relative to the 
``designated species,'' i.e., target catch). The commenters' specific 
concern was that if some vessels under-reported the amount of bluefin 
they caught in their logbook, such vessels may receive a higher score 
(and larger allocation) than vessels that had accurately reported 
higher numbers of bluefin catch. In other words, accurate reporters 
would be penalized relative to inaccurate reporters. Commenters noted 
that it is unfair to emphasize past bluefin catch in the quota 
allocation formula because in the past interactions with bluefin tuna 
were legal. Another commenter noted that past performance may not be a 
predictor of future performance.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that some vessel operators may have 
under-reported the amount of bluefin tuna caught in their logbooks. 
NMFS conducted an analysis that compared logbook data to observer data 
to get an indication of how vessel reported logbook data compares with 
observer data, because observer data can serve as a useful validation 
tool. Compared to the observer data, the logbook data showed both over-
reporting and under-reporting of bluefin tuna, with the average amount 
of under-reporting of bluefin discards of 28 percent at the aggregate 
level for all vessels. Individual vessel data varied substantially from 
being more than 90 percent accurate with observer data for that trip to 
more than 75 percent inaccurate compared to observer data for that 
trip. These data indicate a wide range in reporting accuracy at a 
vessel level. For additional information, see the Appendix in the FEIS 
(section 11.5).
    Notwithstanding potential under-reporting by some vessels, logbook 
data are the most complete source of available data regarding vessel 
level interactions with bluefin tuna because 100 percent of pelagic 
longline vessels are required to submit logbook reports for every set. 
It is important to note that the relative number of bluefin 
interactions is only one component of the IBQ allocation formula, which 
also considers the amount of target catch, resulting in a higher score 
(and contributing to more allocation) for vessels with larger amounts 
of target catch (``designated species catch''). Amendment 7 includes a 
requirement for pelagic longline vessels to have operational electronic 
monitoring systems, which will enhance the accuracy of vessel-reported 
information.
    Regarding the comment that it is unfair to use past interactions 
with bluefin as part of the allocation formula because in the past it 
was lawful to interact with bluefin tuna, pelagic longline regulations 
were designed to limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna (e.g., 
target catch requirements, weak hook requirements). Therefore, it is 
appropriate that the IBQ Program accrue some benefit in the form of IBQ 
allocation for vessels who may have fished in a manner that reduced 
interactions with, or avoided bluefin tuna, consistent with the 
regulations.
    NMFS acknowledges that past performance may not be an indicator of 
future performance. One of the objectives of the bluefin IBQ Program is 
to provide incentives for future fishing behavior that will result in 
reduced rates of interactions between pelagic longline gear and 
bluefin. The principal incentive of the IBQ Program results from the 
fact that vessels are required to account for all bluefin tuna dead 
discards and landings (with IBQ allocation), and the prohibition of the 
use of pelagic longline gear if a vessel does not have any (or 
sufficient) IBQ allocation. The future fishing behaviors may include 
avoiding or minimizing setting pelagic longline gear in areas or during 
time periods where there are known interactions with bluefin tuna; 
increasing communication with other vessels fishing with pelagic 
longline gear; incorporating the use of alternative gears into a 
vessel's fishing strategy and business plan; `test sets' to determine 
whether bluefin are present in an area; and pelagic longline gear 
modifications. In determining how to allocate bluefin quota, NMFS 
considered historical catches of both target species and bluefin tuna 
to consider both past performance and potential future needs.
    Comment 83: Some commenters urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of 
bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for multiple reasons. Equal 
shares would avoid the use of historical logbook data; would reduce 
potential negative feelings among permit holders with different amounts 
of allocation; and would provide higher quota allocations for some 
vessels than under the proposed method. Additionally, a commenter noted 
that it may not be necessary to consider the amount of target catch in 
the quota share formula (and provide more quota to vessels catching 
more target catch) because larger fishing operations are better 
equipped financially to adapt to new regulations. Another commenter 
supported basing the allocation on target species landings and fishing 
effort, because higher effort is likely to result in more bluefin 
catch.
    Response: NMFS carefully considered allocating quota shares on an 
equal basis, but decided to implement the method as proposed, which 
incorporates two metrics of equal weight: Designated species landings 
and the ratio of bluefin to designated species landings. While an equal 
share formula has some positive attributes, the overall merits of the 
method being implemented are greater. It is important to take into 
consideration the diversity of the pelagic longline fleet, maximize the 
potential for the success of the IBQ Program, and provide incentives 
for vessels to avoid bluefin tuna.
    NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline logbook data on target catch and 
bluefin interactions, and for most vessels, there is positive 
correlation between the amount of target catch, and the number of 
bluefin tuna interactions. In other words, for most vessels, the more 
swordfish, yellowfin tuna, or other target species a vessel catches, 
the more bluefin tuna it interacts with. However, a few vessels (those 
responsible for the largest number of interactions) interact with large 
numbers of bluefin, out of proportion with the amount of their target 
catch. Considering this historic pattern, basing one of the allocation 
formula elements on the amount of designated species landings would 
increase the likelihood that vessels would be allocated quota in 
relation to the amount of quota they may need to account for their 
catch of bluefin.
    The second of the two elements (the ratio of bluefin interactions 
to designated species landings) is useful because it takes into 
consideration the fact that relatively few vessels (i.e., about fifteen 
percent of the vessels) are responsible for about 80 percent of the 
interactions with bluefin tuna. Because this element of the allocation 
formula results in a lower allocation for vessels with a higher rate of 
historic interactions, it provides a strong incentive for such vessels 
to make changes in their fishing practices to reduce their number of 
bluefin interactions. Vessels with historically high catches of target 
species and a low

[[Page 71549]]

rate of interactions with bluefin receive a larger quota share than 
vessels with either higher rates of bluefin interactions or lower 
amounts of target species.
    Comment 84: Some commenters were concerned that either hurricanes, 
the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or specific regulations (such 
as a closed area) may have lowered the amount of catch a vessel had 
(during the 2006 through 2012 time period on which the IBQ share is 
based), and the resultant influence on the vessel's bluefin quota 
share.
    Response: There are many factors that may determine the amount of a 
particular vessel's catch, including regulatory and environmental 
factors and factors unique to the vessel. As noted in the response to 
comment # 40 the Amendment 7 quota share formula is based upon a seven-
year time period (2006 through 2012), which is long enough to reduce 
the influence of one-time events or short term environmental or 
regulatory conditions. Additionally, the quota share formula 
implemented by this final rule includes an additional year of data 
(2012), a longer duration than originally proposed.
    Comment 85: Commenters suggested other methods for allocating quota 
shares such as auctioning the quota, and basing quota shares in 
relation to the number of hooks, or the number of longline sets in the 
previous year.
    Response: NMFS considered an auction system, but decided that it 
would not result in distribution of limited access privilege shares in 
a way that met IBQ program objectives. Among other things, NMS wants to 
facilitate continued participation in the fishery by vessels that have 
made past investments in the fishery. An auction may not reflect recent 
or historical participation in the fishery and could increase 
uncertainty in fishery participation.

15. IBQ Leasing

    Comment 86: Some commenters supported the provision that would 
allow pelagic longline vessels to lease quota allocation to and from 
one another, but prohibit permanent sale of quota shares. A commenter 
said that NMFS should only allow leasing to active vessels with intent 
to fish, and a commenter suggested that NMFS should ensure that a fully 
functioning quota trading infrastructure is in place before 
implementing the IBQ system.
    Response: Quota leasing is an essential component of the IBQ 
Program because the amount of quota share a vessel has many not be 
aligned with the amount of quota they need, based on bluefin catch. 
Quota leasing provides the flexibility vessels may need to account for 
bluefin if they have insufficient quota, or obtain additional revenue 
if they are able to avoid bluefin and have quota they do not need. Only 
vessels that meet the eligibility criteria will be allocated quota 
shares; however, any vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit may lease quota. Allowing quota to be leased to any 
permitted vessel enables vessels that are not allocated quota to become 
active in the fishery (i.e., new entrants), but would not provide a 
lasting opportunity because leased quota would expire at the end of a 
year (and may not be carried over to the following year by an 
individual vessel). No sale of quota shares (in contrast to leasing of 
quota allocation) is allowed upon the implementation of Amendment 7. 
These quota restrictions provide a balanced approach to the types of 
transactions allowed, in order to provide flexibility to account for 
bluefin caught and enable participation of new entrants, but limit the 
potential for permanent shifts in ownership of quota shares and 
speculative activity by entities not active in the fishery. NMFS will 
conduct a full review of the IBQ Program after three years of 
operation, and may at that time consider allowing the permanent sale of 
quota shares or other modifications to the leasing program as 
warranted.
    NMFS acknowledges that a functioning infrastructure is required to 
support a quota leasing system, and is implementing the system 
necessary to enable the leasing of IBQ shares and accounting of bluefin 
quota shares and allocations.
    Comment 87: Commenters expressed concern about whether vessel 
owners would be willing to lease quota to other vessels, given the low 
amounts of quota allocated to vessels, and concern that the cost of 
leasing would be affordable, especially for owners of small vessels. 
Other commenters did not support leasing because access to additional 
quota could enable vessels to target bluefin.
    Response: The analysis of the preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS 
indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25 percent of vessels would need 
to lease additional quota in order to land their historical average 
amount of designated species (if they do not change their behavior to 
reduce their historical rate of bluefin interactions). Therefore, a 
majority of vessels may have quota in excess of what is needed to 
account for their bluefin catch, and may have incentive to lease quota 
to other vessels. Notwithstanding the analysis, there is uncertainty 
regarding both the amount and price of quota that may be leased. A 
well-functioning leasing market, which enables quota to be leased by 
those who need it will be a key factor in whether the preferred IBQ 
Program functions as intended.
    Comment 88: Some commenters did not support allowing pelagic 
longline vessels to lease quota from Purse Seine vessels. A commenter 
was concerned that the leasing program may disadvantage the Purse Seine 
vessels, and a commenter was concerned that Purse Seine businesses 
could consolidate or control quota. A commenter suggested that NMFS 
should set aside quota and lease it to pelagic longline vessels rather 
than allowing Purse Seine vessels to lease, and a commenter thought 
that the Purse Seine category should be allowed to lease to all other 
permit categories.
    Response: Leasing quota must be confined to permit categories that 
are limited access due to the different characteristics of limited 
access and open access fisheries, and the complexities of a leasing 
program. Therefore, Amendment 7 limits quota leasing to the Longline 
and Purse Seine permit categories. The provision for Longline category 
vessels to lease quota from Purse Seine category participants provides 
an additional opportunity for pelagic longline vessels to lease quota 
that may not otherwise be present, and will increase the chances that 
there will be a well-functioning leasing market. As previously stated, 
a well-functioning leasing market, which enables quota to be leased by 
those who need it at an affordable price, will be a key factor in 
whether the preferred IBQ Program functions as intended.
    With regard to the concern over Purse Seine control of quota, as 
noted in the Response to Comment 87, NMFS anticipates that only 25 
percent of vessels would need to lease additional quota, and this final 
rule allows such leasing from either the Longline or Purse Seine 
category. Further, the Annual Reallocation measure implemented by this 
final rule will have the effect of reducing the amount of quota that is 
available to the Purse Seine category if such participants do not catch 
the majority of their quota during the previous year. The net effect of 
the Annual Reallocation measure on the IBQ leasing program should be to 
reduce the amount of quota available for leasing to the Longline 
category, or leaving less quota available to the Purse Seine category 
with which to consolidate or otherwise influence the leasing market (by 
holding rather than leasing quota). However, the IBQ leasing measure 
will not disadvantage Purse

[[Page 71550]]

Seine participants due to its interaction with the Annual Reallocation 
measure. The amount of quota allocated to the Purse Seine category 
participants will depend upon the level of bluefin landings and dead 
discards during the previous year, but will not take into consideration 
whether or not unused Purse Seine quota (that is not used to account 
for catch) is leased.
    Regarding the comment that NMFS should be directly involved in the 
quota leasing market, NMFS did not analyze an alternative that would 
give a central role in the leasing market to NMFS. Although NMFS could 
indirectly influence the quota leasing market through quota 
adjustments, direct involvement in the quota leasing system would 
create many administrative concerns and is not preferred at this time. 
For example, if NMFS were a broker of IBQ leases, the leasing market 
would be more complicated, might function more slowly, and would add 
additional burden and costs to NMFS' support and oversight of the IBQ 
system.

16. Measures Associated With the IBQ Program

    Comment 89: Commenters supported elimination of the target catch 
requirements and mandatory retention of legal-sized bluefin that are 
dead at haul-back. Some commenters suggested that NMFS require 
retention of all dead bluefin regardless of size in order to address 
the problem of undersized juvenile bluefin discards.
    Response: Under Amendment 7 measures the target catch requirement 
(a strict bluefin retention limit based on the amount of target catch 
retained) will no longer be needed to restrict bluefin retention 
because catch will be limited by the IBQ Program restrictions. Dead 
discards are an important consideration with respect to the evaluation 
of minimum size restrictions, but are not the only consideration. The 
current bluefin size restriction for pelagic longline vessels reflects 
ICCAT recommendations, as well as consideration of other factors, 
including dead discards. In general, size restrictions have been 
instituted to protect the overall health and breeding viability of the 
species, as well as to distribute fishing opportunities among both 
recreational and commercial fishermen, year-round.
    Retention of all bluefin, regardless of size, would conflict with 
ICCAT recommendations in effect. The current ICCAT recommendation 
prohibits the harvest of Western bluefin measuring less than 115 cm 
(the equivalent of 27 inches). It also limits the amount of BFT 
measuring 27 to less than 47 inches, to 10 percent of the total U.S. 
quota.
    Reduction in minimum size to 47 or 59 inches for commercial 
categories was an alternative that was considered, but not further 
analyzed in the FEIS. As new information from the fishery becomes 
available in the future, or if new scientific information or ICCAT 
recommendations warrant, NMFS may consider modifications to the bluefin 
size restrictions in the future.
    Comment 90: A commenter stated that NMFS should not require 
retention of bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico because the bluefin are too 
big to bring on board.
    Response: Most vessels that fish with pelagic longline gear target 
large pelagic species and are capable of boarding very large fish. 
Approximately 82 percent of the vessels participating in the pelagic 
longline fishery are greater than 40 feet in length overall and either 
can already handle large fish, or should be able to modify their 
equipment to be able to handle large fish.

17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline Fishery

    Comment 91: Comments on NMFS' authority to close the pelagic 
longline fishery ranged from those who support closing the fishery in 
conjunction with a Longline category quota allocation of 8.1 percent, 
to those who said that the fishery should be closed only if there is 
unusually high catch of bluefin (and not when the quota is reached). 
Commenters noted the potential impacts of closures early in the year on 
the pelagic longline fishery, supporting business, consumers of the 
fish products, and future ICCAT recommendations.
    Response: A closure of the pelagic longline fishery may have 
adverse direct and secondary economic impacts, the severity of which 
would depend upon how early in the year the closure occurred. Under the 
IBQ Program implemented by this final rule, in which individual vessels 
may not fish with pelagic longline gear unless they have quota, it is 
not likely that NMFS will be required to close the fishery as a whole. 
However, individual vessels will be prohibited from fishing if they 
have not accounted for their catch or do not have the required minimum 
amount of quota allocation to depart on a pelagic longline trip.
    If, based on the best available data, NMFS estimates that the total 
amount of dead discards and landings are projected to reach, have 
reached, or exceed the Longline category quota, NMFS may prohibit 
fishing with pelagic longline gear. Similarly, if there is high 
uncertainty regarding the estimated or documented levels of bluefin 
catch, NMFS may close the fishery to prevent overharvest of the 
Longline category quota, or prevent further discarding of bluefin.
    As described in many of the responses to comments, NMFS designed 
Amendment 7 management measures not only to reduce dead discards and 
ensure accountability, but also to provide flexibility for pelagic 
longline vessels fishing under the IBQ Program restrictions, and 
flexibility in the quota system as a whole, to balance the needs of the 
pelagic longline fishery with the needs of the other quota categories.

18. VMS Requirements

    Comment 92: NMFS received comments on proposed VMS requirements for 
the Purse Seine and Longline categories (preferred Alternative D1b), 
expressing both support and opposition. Several commenters were 
concerned about the functionality of certain VMS models, particularly 
those used in the mid-Atlantic.
    Response: NMFS recently published a proposed rule regarding type-
approval of VMS units to ensure vendors and associated mobile 
communications providers are meeting fishing industry needs (79 FR 
53386; September 9, 2014). Specifically, the rule proposed NMFS 
procedures for EMTU/MTU and MCS type approval, type-approval renewal, 
and revocation; revision of latency standards; and methods to ensure 
compliance with type approval standards. By codifying requirements and 
processes, NMFS will be better able to ensure vendor compliance with 
the VMS type-approval requirements.

19. Electronic Monitoring Requirements

    Comment 93: NMFS received comments that supported electronic 
monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear sensors), while other comments 
either expressed concern or opposed it. Comments supporting electronic 
monitoring indicated that it is not cost prohibitive, that it would 
allow NMFS to ground-truth other data, and that it supports 
accountability and enforcement. Those opposed to electronic monitoring 
said that it is cost prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and is 
redundant with existing information. Some comments expressed concern 
about the functionality of a system, considering the issues experienced 
with some VMS functionality, and the ability to identify the difference 
between bigeye and bluefin tuna using video cameras. Implementation 
using a pilot scale was suggested, which would allow time to set up a 
functioning

[[Page 71551]]

infrastructure. Expansion of electronic monitoring to other categories 
with dead discards was also suggested.
    Response: Amendment 7 establishes requirements to monitor dead 
discards for all commercial user categories to better achieve the ICCAT 
requirement to account for sources of bluefin tuna fishing mortality 
and to better monitor the fishery for bluefin accounting purposes 
domestically. This final rule implements a requirement for Purse Seine 
category vessels to report dead discards via VMS, and for hand gear 
fisheries (General, Harpoon, and Charter/headboat categories) to report 
using an automated catch reporting system via the internet or phone. As 
described above, for all vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline 
permit that fish with pelagic longline gear, vessel owners (or their 
representatives) must coordinate with the NMFS-approved contractor to 
install and test electronic monitoring equipment, and the contractor 
will then provide certification that the equipment has been properly 
installed. Longline category vessels are required maintain an 
electronic monitoring system (including video recording and data 
sensors) that will record all catch and relevant data regarding pelagic 
longline gear deployment and retrieval. The purpose of video monitoring 
for the Longline category is to provide a cost effective and reliable 
source of information to verify the accuracy of bluefin tuna 
interactions reported via VMS and logbooks. In many instances, the FEIS 
analysis found discrepancies between logbook data and observer data 
(considered to be highly accurate) reported for the same trip. The 
Amendment 7 electronic monitoring requirement supports accurate catch 
data and bluefin tuna IBQ management measures, by providing a means to 
verify the accuracy of the counts and identification of bluefin 
reported by the vessel operator. In light of public comments expressing 
concern about ensuring the functionality of electronic monitoring 
systems and the costs of such systems, this final rule relieves certain 
purchase and installation requirements that were set out in the 
proposed rule. Rather than requiring vessel owners to buy and install 
equipment and make decisions about equipment specifications and 
functionality, this final rule instead requires the vessel owners to 
obtain certification from a NMFS-approved contractor stating that the 
contractor has properly installed and verified the functionality of the 
electronic monitoring system in accordance with more detailed equipment 
and system requirements provided in the final rule. As set out in the 
proposed rule, vessel owners would have been responsible for the costs 
of the equipment and for installation for the electronic monitoring 
systems, which are estimated to be approximately $19,175 for purchase 
and installation per vessel as well as variable costs of approximately 
$225 per trip for data retrieval, fishing activity interpretation, and 
catch data interpretation. These costs are lower than the cost of 
increased observer coverage. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center 
estimates that observer deployment costs approximately $1,075 per sea 
day, which equates to approximately $9,675 per average nine-day pelagic 
longline trip.
    Video monitoring is currently used in several fisheries, and NMFS 
has funded over 30 pilot projects to further research the use and 
effectiveness of electronic monitoring, including research on the 
accuracy of finfish identification. These studies provide evidence that 
properly deployed and maintained video monitoring camera systems can 
provide effective data for accurately identifying large pelagic 
species. NMFS acknowledges that identification of closely related 
species such as bluefin and bigeye tuna can be challenging, 
particularly with smaller fish. The size of tunas that are caught on 
pelagic longline vessels tend to be larger due to the size of the hooks 
used in commercial fisheries. To ensure accurate identification of all 
species, the NMFS-approved contractor will place cameras to ensure a 
clear view of the gear hauling location. NMFS white papers on 
electronic monitoring are available at the following Web address: 
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS will take into account the time 
required for owners to outfit their vessels with newly required 
equipment when establishing the timetable for requirement vessels to 
have fully operational electronic monitoring systems.

20. Automated Catch Reporting

    Comment 94: Several commenters supported electronic catch reporting 
for the General, Harpoon, and Charter/headboat categories, and one 
commenter suggested that electronic catch reporting be required for all 
categories. Two commenters questioned the effectiveness of this 
reporting methodology. One suggested that a catch card system be used, 
and another requested additional technical information on the reporting 
methodology including the data to be collected and techniques for 
verification.
    Response: Amendment 7 implements mandatory dead discard reporting 
for General, Harpoon, and Charter/Headboat category vessels. The 
reporting system will be an extension of the web-based landings 
reporting system, which must currently be used by fishermen in the 
Angling category to submit mandatory bluefin tuna landings reports. 
Although catch card systems have been shown to provide a more accurate 
accounting for landings in some geographic areas (i.e., Maryland and 
North Carolina), they are more costly to employ and are difficult to 
implement in regions with a large number of private docks. Further, 
catch cards may not be as effective in accounting for discarded fish 
that are not landed. The data fields NMFS will collect through a 
required form include information such as, the trip start and end date, 
trip departure and end time, port and state of departure and landing, 
fishing technique, bait type, hook type, approximate time hooked, 
approximate fight time, species, fish size, vessel name, registration 
number, permit holder's name, Atlantic HMS permit number, type of trip, 
and tournament name (if applicable).

21. Expand the Scope of the Large Pelagics Survey

    Comment 95: One commenter opposed taking no action on the Large 
Pelagics Survey (preferred Alternative D6a), stating that a change is 
needed from the status quo.
    Response: NMFS analyzed expanding the Large Pelagics Survey 
temporally to include the months of May, November, and December, and 
geographically to include the states south of Virginia, as a means to 
collect more data about the recreational bluefin tuna fishery, and 
further refine recreational bluefin tuna landings estimates. Although 
the expansion of the survey would likely provide some landings 
estimates in time periods and geographic regions that are currently not 
covered by the survey, the likelihood of the survey intercepting 
activity in what is considered to be a ``rare event'' fishery at the 
edges of its geographic and temporal range is low, and the resultant 
catch estimates would likely be imprecise. NMFS estimated the economic 
cost of these data is approximately $165,000 per year. Thus, the 
benefits of the data may not outweigh the cost. The NMFS Office of 
Science and Technology may consider future studies to enhance 
recreational bluefin tuna landings estimates under the Marine 
Recreational Information

[[Page 71552]]

Program (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/recreational-fisheries/index).

22. Deployment of Observers

    Comment 96: Several commenters supported the expansion of observer 
coverage for the Longline category, suggesting increases in coverage up 
to 100%. Another commenter suggested implementing industry-funded 
observer coverage. A commenter thought that NMFS should use observer 
data to monitor Longline category catch limits. Another commenter was 
concerned that observers might not be available to cover pelagic 
longline vessel trips into closed areas.
    Response: This Amendment 7 final rule makes no changes to current 
observer coverage requirements for commercial Atlantic tunas vessels. 
Catch data collected by observers is considered to be highly accurate 
and current levels of observer coverage are adequate to produce 
statistically sound estimates of bluefin catches, but the high cost of 
observer coverage can be prohibitive (see response to comment 93). 
Thus, NMFS is not implementing a requirement for industry to fund 
observers or requiring an increase in observer coverage at this time or 
exploring further the possibility of industry-funded observers. Under 
Amendment 7 measures, NMFS is requiring Longline category vessels to 
use electronic monitoring systems (i.e., video cameras and gear 
sensors) that will provide data to corroborate logbook reports and 
serve as a source of high quality data for use in monitoring Longline 
category catch. Amendment 7 does not include a measure that will allow 
access to previously closed areas, or require observer coverage for 
access to the Cape Hatteras GRA at this time.

23. General Category Subquota Management

    Comment 97: NMFS received a variety of comments on the proposed 
measure to allow transfer of General category quota from one or more 
the time periods that follow the January time-period to the January or 
other preceding sub-quota time periods. The comments included that NMFS 
should allow more flexibility in the General category; NMFS should 
provide more quota to the January subquota period; NMFS should provide 
half the subquota to the first half of the year and half the subquota 
to the second half of the year; NMFS should give a share of the 
subquota to North Carolina to fish from January to June, as the current 
5.5 percent of quota in January to June is caught in less than 14 days. 
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 
commented that NMFS should shift subquota for December to the January 
subquota period.
    Response: Under the quota regulations, the General category quota 
is divided into subquotas for each time period versus specific 
geographic areas. Under the measures implemented by this final rule, 
NMFS can transfer quota from one subquota period to another, earlier in 
the calendar year. For example, subquota could be transferred from the 
December subquota to the January subquota for that same calendar year. 
Although NMFS could transfer quota from one subquota period to any 
other subquota period, based on public comment NMFS will prioritize 
transfer from the winter fishery that occurs in December to the winter 
fishery that occurs in January within a fishing year (e.g., prioritize 
transfer of quota from December in Year A to January of Year A).
    Comment 98: NMFS received a comment that NMFS should consider the 
fact that transfers will have the effect of moving quota from the 
traditional Northeast fishery to the mid-Atlantic and South; 
Alternative E1c will negatively impact Northeast fishermen. One 
commenter stated that NMFS should take no action on General category 
subquotas (Alternative E1a). Another commenter stated that NMFS should 
establish 12 equal monthly subquotas (Alternative E1b).
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the concerns that quota distribution 
may impact historical geographic distribution and considered these 
factors in selecting which alternative to finalize. Note that current 
regulations do not preclude General category and HMS Charter/Headboat 
category vessels from traveling from one area to another. In fact, many 
vessels travel from the northeast and mid-Atlantic states to 
participate in the winter fishery that occurs largely off North 
Carolina. NMFS will continue to consider the regulatory determination 
criteria regarding inseason quota transfers in an attempt to balance 
reasonable opportunity to harvest quota with other considerations, 
including variations in bluefin distribution and availability, among 
others. The measure implemented by Amendment 7 will provide additional 
fishing opportunities within the General category quota while 
acknowledging the traditional fishery. Prioritizing transfer from one 
winter fishery subquota to another will minimize negative impacts of 
transferring quota that is traditionally used by Northeast fishermen in 
the summer and fall months. Division of the quota equally by month was 
not preferred because the potential negative social and economic 
impacts outweigh the positive impacts. The negative aspects of this 
alternative include the potential for gear conflicts and derby fishing, 
as well as the potential for the historical geographic distribution of 
the fishery to be dramatically altered. Although this alternative would 
provide some stability to the fishery by establishing a known amount of 
quota that would be available at the first of each month, if catch 
rates are high in the early portion of the month, these quotas could be 
harvested rapidly and may lead to derby style fisheries on the first of 
each month. Additionally, if catch rates are high and subquotas are 
reached quickly, NMFS may need to institute multiple closures notices 
throughout the year.

24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit

    Comment 99: NMFS received a comment supporting increased 
flexibility for the Harpoon category.
    Response: In 2011, NMFS increased the incidental retention limit of 
large medium bluefin after considering requests from Harpoon category 
participants to eliminate certain regulations perceived as 
unnecessarily restrictive (76 FR 74003, November 30, 2011). Since then, 
NMFS has received requests from Harpoon category participants to 
instead manage the large medium size class retention limit over a 
range, similar to how NMFS manages the daily General category retention 
limit, for increased flexibility in setting the limit based on 
consideration of applicable factors (i.e., the regulatory determination 
criteria applicable to retention limit adjustments). Under the 
Amendment 7 measure implemented by this final rule, NMFS will have the 
ability to increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large 
medium bluefin within a range of two to four fish, based on the former 
and current daily retention limits. This measure enhances NMFS' ability 
to more precisely manage the landing rate of large medium bluefin by 
the Harpoon category, thereby optimizing opportunities while preventing 
landings from exceeding the subquota.

25. Angling Category Trophy Sub-Quota

    Comment 100: NMFS received comments on allocating a portion of the 
trophy south subquota to the Gulf of Mexico (preferred Alternative 
E3b), including that NMFS should not reduce the trophy south subquota; 
the reduction would negatively affect charter captains in the mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic areas; and that the change in allocation 
would increase

[[Page 71553]]

landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico. Other commenters 
stated that NMFS should change the division of subquota, but not split 
the subquota equally between the southern area and the Gulf of Mexico; 
and that NMFS should allocate 10% or 17% of the trophy south subquota 
to the Gulf of Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
commented that NMFS should take no action on this issue (Alternative 
E3a) and that Alternative E3b would lead to an unreasonably small 
recreational bluefin trophy quota for the northern region.
    Response: Under the Amendment 7 measure implemented by this final 
rule, the trophy subquota will be divided to provide 33% each to the 
northern area, the southern area outside the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Gulf of Mexico. The objective of this measure is to provide a 
reasonable fishing opportunity for recreational vessels in the Atlantic 
and Gulf of Mexico, reduce discards, and account for incidentally 
caught bluefin. A separate subquota allocation for the Gulf of Mexico 
will improve the equity of the trophy-sized fish allocation by 
increasing the likelihood that there will be trophy quota available to 
account for incidental catch of bluefin in that area (while still 
providing incentives not to target bluefin). An equal 33% division 
among the three areas provides the most equitable trophy subquota 
allocation. This measure will not affect the amount of Trophy subquota 
available to the northern area.
    Comment 101: One commenter stated that NMFS should eliminate the 
trophy category because it is not possible to monitor the catch.
    Response: Currently, NMFS monitors trophy bluefin along with all 
other sizes of recreationally-caught bluefin through the Large Pelagics 
Survey, the Automated Catch Reporting System, and state catch card 
programs (for landings in Maryland and North Carolina). NMFS considers 
the combined methods of monitoring trophy bluefin catch to be adequate 
such that closure of the trophy bluefin fishery is not warranted at 
this time.

26. Purse Seine Category Start Date

    Comment 102: NMFS received comments on changing the start date of 
the Purse Seine category to June 1 (preferred Alternative E4b), 
including that NMFS should change the Purse Seine category start date 
to June 1 as fish have tended to be available on the fishing grounds 
earlier than July 15 in recent years; NMFS should give the Purse Seine 
category the same start date as other commercial categories; and NMFS 
should give the Purse Seine category a start date of June 15 if there 
is a need to compromise with other categories. Subsequent to the date 
the FEIS was published NMFS received many comments expressing concerns 
regarding the proposed June 1 start date. Specifically, commenters 
feared that the June 1 start date would flood the June and early July 
market for bluefin, depress the price, and cause a severe social and 
economic impact to small boat handgear fishermen. Other concerns were 
the increased potential for gear conflicts, and a concern that fish 
behavior would change and the fish may be dispersed by relatively early 
Purse Seine fishing activity .
    Response: We had proposed changing the default start date of the 
Purse Seine category fishery from July 15 to June 1, with the ability 
to delay the season start date from June 1 to no later than August 15, 
to help optimize fishing opportunity for Purse Seine category vessels, 
given the other measures affecting the Purse Seine category implemented 
by this Amendment 7 final rule. Based on public comments, however, in 
the final rule NMFS is removing the default start date of the Purse 
Seine fishery, and instead will establish by action (via Federal 
Register notice) the start date of the fishery, during a range from 
June 1 through July 15.
    Comment 103: One commenter stated that NMFS should not change the 
start date because the average value of bluefin is lower in June.
    Response: NMFS has received comments over recent years from 
commercial bluefin fishery participants and dealers that fish quality 
tends to be lower earlier in the year, with lower associated price per 
pound. However, providing purse seine operators the ability to start 
fishing on June 1 provides additional flexibility for deciding when to 
make sets. These decisions are based largely on the availability of 
bluefin and the size composition of schools. To the extent that this 
flexibility could allow the harvest of the Purse Seine category quota 
while minimizing dead discards, the management measure meets the 
Amendment 7 objectives.

27. Permit Category Changes

    Comment 104: One commenter did not support modifying the rules 
regarding permit category changes (preferred Alternative E5b), stating 
that the 10-day restriction is sufficient and changing the restriction 
would give people the chance to abuse the rules and fish in multiple 
categories.
    Response: Based on feedback NMFS has received over a number of 
years from vessel owners affected by the 10-day restriction, NMFS 
believes that limiting the time period during which a vessel may change 
permit categories to 10 calendar days is overly restrictive, and may 
not allow the flexibility to resolve the problems of a permit issued by 
mistake. This measure, which will allow permit category changes within 
45 days of permit issuance, provided the vessel has not fished (as 
verified via landings data), will achieve a better balance of allowing 
flexibility for vessel owners, while still preventing fishing in more 
than one permit category during a fishing year.

28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna Quota

    Comment 105: NMFS received a comment on implementing a U.S. North 
Atlantic albacore tuna quota (preferred Alternative E6b), stating that 
NMFS should be cautious with carrying forward multiple years of 
underharvest given the status of the northern albacore stock.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the concern about carrying forward 
large amounts of unused quota (often referred to as ``stockpiling''). 
The ICCAT Contracting Parties have discussed that issue in recent 
years, particularly regarding the potentially large adjusted quotas for 
the major harvesters of northern albacore (specifically the European 
Union, with 77 percent of the northern albacore quota). The current 
ICCAT northern albacore recommendation (Recommendation 13-05; 
Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the North Atlantic 
Albacore Rebuilding Program) allows for 25% of a country's quota to be 
carried forward, if unused, and to be used within the two years 
following the subject year of catch. Because the U.S. quota represents 
less than 2 percent of the northern albacore TAC, and the most the 
adjusted quota could be under the current recommendation is 658.75 mt 
(125% of the 527-mt quota), there is little risk of stock harm. 
Regarding stock status, based on the 2013 northern albacore stock 
assessment and the domestic thresholds for minimum stock size (i.e., 
the MSST) and maximum fishing mortality (i.e., the MFMT), the stock is 
not overfished (i.e., rebuilding), with overfishing not occurring. 
Carry-forward of unused quota would be limited to 25 percent of the 
initial quota, consistent with the current ICCAT recommendation.

29. Other Concerns

    Comment 106: Commenters expressed concerns and made suggestions 
about a variety of topics related to the management of bluefin tuna or

[[Page 71554]]

associated HMS fisheries, but not specific to one of the proposed 
management measures or alternatives analyzed. The underlying science 
was a concern, and commenters suggested that NMFS should reevaluate the 
methods and timing of stock assessments; should revise the method of 
dead discard estimates; should increase overall research; and should 
increase communication between scientists and managers. Other 
commenters questioned why some permit categories are open access and 
some are limited access; suggested that NMFS open the Florida East 
Closure or the DeSoto Canyon Closure; should modify the weak hook 
regulations; suggested that NMFS ban longlines; NMFS only cares about 
the commercial interests; the management of bluefin is unfair because 
the U.S. regulations are more restrictive than in other countries; and, 
observers should be required in all commercial categories. Commenters 
stated that greenstick gear and rod and reel cannot replace pelagic 
longline in regard to the amount of fish landed by the gears; expressed 
concern that pelagic longline vessels in the Gulf of Mexico are 
generally too large to effectively fish with greenstick gear; concern 
was expressed that tuna landed with greenstick gear are low in quality, 
bring a lower price than longline-caught tuna; and that greenstick-
caught tuna are not as acceptable in domestic or international markets. 
Commenters stated that other fishing practices should be used to reduce 
discards of fish including the use of shorter longlines, thinner 
monofilament on mainlines or gangions, increased floatation on 
mainlines, using mackerel for bait, and/or reducing soak time. A 
commentor stated that dehooking devices should be used to promote post-
release survival of organisms.
    Response: Although the comments are directly or indirectly related 
to the management of bluefin tuna, Amendment 7 considered (i.e., 
analyzed and proposed) a discrete range of management measures. In 
adopting any final measures, NMFS is restricted in scope to management 
measures closely related to those proposed, and within the range of 
impacts analyzed in the DEIS. Therefore, many of the management 
measures or ideas suggested by the public, regardless of potential 
merits, were not included in the FEIS (for analysis and consideration), 
but would have to be considered in the context of a future management 
action. In addition to the formal regulatory process of proposed and 
final rulemaking, NMFS considers issues, discusses management ideas, 
and obtains public input in the context of the HMS Advisory Panel, 
which typically convenes twice a year at meetings that are open to the 
public. Possession and use of dehooking devices are currently required 
onboard pelagic longline vessels.
    Comment 107: Commenters requested that NMFS modify the Purse Seine 
landings tolerance regulations that restrict the amount of large medium 
bluefin tuna relative to the amount of giant bluefin that can be 
landed. Specifically, they recommended that the tolerance be increased 
or eliminated in order to reduce dead discards. The current tolerance 
is no more than 15 percent of the total amount of giant bluefin (81 
inches or greater) per year, by weight. However, as the total number of 
future trips, and catch, is unknown, the vessel owner/operators have 
been self-imposing this regulation on a trip level basis to ensure 
compliance at the end of the year.
    Response: Although there has been past interest in altering this 
limit, the issue was raised in the comments on the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP--this alternative was not considered further in the DEIS 
because there was very little data available to determine whether such 
as change might be warranted and the impacts of such a change given 
recent low catch/landings from the Purse Seine category. Data are now 
available on dead discards by size relative to retained catch for the 
Purse Seine category from the 2013 fishing year. NMFS believes that 
additional analysis about the potential benefits of altering the limit, 
both by reducing dead discards and improving the Purse Seine category's 
opportunity to harvest its quota, is warranted and beneficial to the 
stock and the fishery. Additional data are needed to conduct such 
analyses and to make fishery management decisions. NMFS may take future 
action in a subsequent rulemaking, if warranted, but such changes are 
not supportable at this time in this Amendment.

Changes From the Proposed Rule (78 FR 52032; August 21, 2013)

    This section explains the changes in the regulatory text from the 
proposed rule to the final rule. Some changes were made in response to 
public comment, others clarify text for the final rule, and others 
provide more detail or specifications about the administration of the 
measures as proposed. The changes from the proposed rule text in the 
final rule are as follows:

IBQ Shares and Allocation Administration of the IBQ Program

    Program Requirements and Scope (635.15): The IBQ allocation shares 
in the proposed rule were based on eligibility criteria and a quota 
share formula based on the time period from 2006 through 2011. The 
final rule includes an additional year of data (2012) that became 
available after publication of the proposed rule. NMFS stated in the 
DEIS that analyses would be updated where 2012 data became available 
for the FEIS, and public comment on the DEIS also reflected the need to 
update these analyses. The range of seven years provides a reasonable 
representation of historical fishing activity, including recent years. 
Seven years is long enough to prevent short-term circumstances from 
disproportionately impacting a vessel, but recent enough to reflect 
current fishery participation. By including 2012 data, nine more 
vessels meet the criteria to be deemed ``active'' for the purposes of 
IBQ eligibility.
    The final rule also clarifies that there are two aspects to how the 
pool of eligible vessels is determined: A vessel must meet the 
definition of ``active,'' and also must have been issued a valid 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit as of August 21, 2013 (the date 
of the proposed rule). ``Active'' vessels are those vessels that made 
at least one set using pelagic longline gear from 2006 through 2012 
based on pelagic longline logbook data. At the DEIS stage, this 
criterion was based on logbook data for 2006-2011. Logbook data for 
2012 data became available after publication of the DEIS, however. NMFS 
stated in the DEIS that analyses would be updated where 2012 data 
became available for the FEIS, and public comment on the DEIS also 
reflected the need to update these analyses. Thus, the final action 
uses 2006 to 2012 data. In addition to being ``active,'' vessels must 
have a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit. NMFS clarifies 
here that, for purposes of IBQ share eligibility, a ``valid Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category permit'' is one held as of the date the 
proposed rule was published, which was August 21, 2013.
    In response to public comment that NMFS should provide additional 
administrative details about the appeals process, the final rule 
includes an initial administrative step regarding the appeals of 
initial quota shares, and specifies the documentation that may be used 
to appeal. In the proposed rule appeals were to be made directly to the 
NMFS National Appeal Office. The final rule includes a provision that 
vessel

[[Page 71555]]

owners may first submit a written request for review of initial IBQ 
shares to the HMS Management Division within 90 days of publication of 
this final rule. The written request to adjust their initial quota 
share, must indicate the reason for the requested change and provide 
supporting documentation (see below). HMS Management Division staff 
will evaluate all requests and accompanying documentation, then notify 
the requestor by letter signed by the HMS Division Chief, of NMFS' 
decision to approve or deny the request for adjustment. If the request 
is approved, NMFS will issue the appropriate adjustment to the initial 
quota share and resultant allocation by letter, identifying any 
alteration to the quota share percentage and associated allocation. If 
the HMS Management Division denies the request, the permit holder may 
appeal that decision within 90 days of receipt of the notice of denial 
by submitting a written petition of appeal to the NMFS National Appeals 
Office in accordance with regulations at 15 CFR part 906. This final 
rule specifies what will be considered ``documented legal landings'' in 
support of an appeal of a quota share determination because public 
comment indicated that additional guidance on this issue was necessary. 
Specifically, for the purposes of appeals, NMFS considers ``documented 
legal landings,'' to be official NMFS logbook records or weighout slips 
for landings between January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2012, that 
were submitted to NMFS prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the cutoff 
date for eligible landings), and verifiable sales slips, receipts from 
registered dealers, state landings records, and permit records. 
Landings data are required to be submitted within 7 days of landing 
under the applicable regulations. Recognizing that somewhat-late 
reporting could have occurred for a variety of reasons, however, NMFS 
is clarifying that it will consider ``documented'' landings for appeals 
purposes to be those reported within 60 days to include those that were 
slightly late.
    This final rule includes a provision that when NMFS determines that 
all requests for IBQ share adjustments and appeals have been resolved, 
NMFS may adjust all IBQ share percentages to accommodate permitted 
holders that have been deemed eligible or provided an increased IBQ 
quota share through the appeals process. NMFS will notify IBQ 
participants in writing with any resulting changes in their IBQ quota 
shares stemming from approved appeals.
    This rule provides additional details about and clarifies 
requirements regarding the IBQ System used to track IBQ shares and 
resultant allocation, usage and balances of IBQ allocation, and conduct 
leasing of IBQ allocation. The proposed rule stated that NMFS would 
implement an Internet based system to track leases of IBQ allocation, 
but did not specifically note that the IBQ system would also be used to 
track IBQ shares, or provide details regarding the associated 
requirements for IBQ Program participants to create an account. 
Therefore, the following administrative details are being added:
    Eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit holders must have 
an IBQ System accounts in order to be issued IBQ shares and resultant 
allocation or lease IBQ. NMFS will set up these accounts for initial 
IBQ System accounts for eligible IBQ participants. Similarly, a 
permitted dealer purchasing bluefin tuna caught from a vessel fishing 
with pelagic longline gear must also have an IBQ System account and 
access the system online to provide landings data at the end of pelagic 
longline trips where bluefin were purchased or received (i.e., data on 
the amount of bluefin landings and dead discards). NMFS will also set 
up accounts for those dealers who have historically purchased bluefin 
from pelagic longline vessels.
    This final rule provides additional details for two aspects of IBQ 
accounting as follows: If an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 
holder participating in the IBQ Program has a quota debt that remains 
unresolved at the time of such permits sale or transfer, then that 
quota debt remains associated with that permit. This is consistent with 
the IBQ share remaining linked to the eligible permit itself and 
further refines how IBQ shares, resultant allocation, and quota debt 
will be managed to ensure accountability under the IBQ Program, even if 
permits are sold or transferred. Secondly, for those permit holders who 
own or operate multiple vessels with IBQ allocation, if, at the end of 
the year, one or more of the vessels has an outstanding quota debt, yet 
the other vessels still have IBQ allocation, the IBQ system will apply 
any remaining unused regional IBQ allocation associated with the other 
vessels to account for the quota debt of the other. This functionality 
has been added since the proposed rule because unused IBQ allocation 
does not carry over from one year to the next, but quota debt does. 
This functionality facilitates the resolution of quota debt, and 
reduces the possibility that a permit holder of multiple vessels may 
inadvertently fail to manually resolve an existing quota debt with IBQ 
allocation associated with one of their other vessels at the end of the 
year.
    To ensure that all IBQ Program activity can be accounted for on an 
annual basis, the IBQ System will prohibit any and all online 
transactions, such as catch transactions and IBQ allocation leases, 
between December 31 at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m. (Eastern Time). 
IBQ System functions will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the 
following year. No IBQ System transactions will be allowed or available 
during this 20 hour time period to provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ 
accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the upcoming year, etc. If a vessel 
with the required minimal IBQ allocation departs on a trip prior to the 
end of a calendar year and returns to port after the start of the 
following year, any bluefin landings or dead discards will be counted 
against the new year's allocation.
    This final rule provides additional administrative detail and 
guidance about aspects of the annual process IBQ allocation. Annual IBQ 
allocations to eligible permit holders will occur January 1. For those 
permit holders awarded IBQ shares but are not eligible to receive the 
resultant IBQ allocation as of December 31 because they have begun--but 
not completed--the process of permit renewal or permit transfer, IBQ 
allocations will be made when the transaction regarding permit renewal 
and/or transfer has been completed. Subsequent to the annual IBQ 
allocation, additional IBQ allocation may be made available to eligible 
permit holders as a result of a U.S. quota increase or potential in-
season quota transfer from the Reserve category, pursuant to 
determination criteria associated with quota adjustments. Subsequent to 
the annual IBQ allocation, IBQ allocation may be reduced as a result of 
a decrease in the U.S. bluefin quota, or to account for accrued quota 
debt.

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area

    This final rule modifies the definition of the Gulf of Mexico GRA 
at Sec.  635.2 from the definition in the proposed rule. NMFS proposed 
a Gulf of Mexico GRA for the months of April and May, during which time 
vessels would be prohibited from fishing with pelagic longline gear in 
the defined area. Based on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed additional 
spatial and temporal configurations of GRAs in the Gulf of Mexico, and 
instead is implementing a GRA during the same months (April and May), 
but of a different configuration than proposed. However, the GRA 
remains within the

[[Page 71556]]

range of areas considered and analyzed in the FEIS and the range of 
alternatives. The total area of the Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs being 
implemented is larger than that of the proposed Small Gulf of Mexico 
GRA. This final rule implements a GRA comprised of two separate areas: 
An area based on that proposed, but extended to the east, and reduced 
in size on the western and northern borders, and a second area that is 
adjacent to the southern border of the Desoto Canyon Closed Area's 
northwestern `block.' A larger geographic area in the Gulf of Mexico 
that includes areas to the east of what was proposed is required to 
effectively reduce bluefin interactions, given the location of historic 
interactions between bluefin and pelagic longline gear, and the high 
variability of bluefin distribution in the Gulf of Mexico.

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area

    Under Sec.  635.2, the definition of the Cape Hatteras GRA was 
modified. NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA for the months of December 
through April during which time vessels would be prohibited from 
fishing with pelagic longline gear in the defined area, with the 
exception of vessels granted access based upon performance criteria. 
Based on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed spatial and temporal 
configurations of the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead is implementing a 
modified GRA during the same months (December through April), but of a 
slightly different configuration than proposed. The total area of the 
Modified Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented is smaller than that of 
the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, due to the modification of the 
southeastern region of the GRA. Specifically, the southeastern corner 
as proposed was a ninety degree angle, but this final rule connects the 
southwestern corner to a more northerly point on the eastern boundary 
of the Cape Hatteras GRA, eliminating a triangular shaped area from the 
southeast region of the GRA. The shape of the Modified Cape Hatteras 
GRA as implemented will minimize the likelihood that pelagic longline 
gear set south of the GRA will drift into the GRA (based upon the 
prevailing direction of currents).

Allow Pelagic Longline Vessels To Fish Under General Category Rules

    Under Sec.  635.21, paragraph (c)(3) was modified, however this 
measure is not being implemented by this final rule. In the proposed 
rule, NMFS proposed allowing pelagic longline vessels that are not 
allowed to fish in the Cape Hatteras GRA (based on the performance 
criteria) to instead fish for bluefin tuna under General category rule 
(in the time period and area associated with the GRA). Based upon 
public comment and further consideration, this alternative is not being 
implemented as part of the Amendment 7 final rule due to concerns about 
ecological impacts, and uncertain economic benefits. Other commenters 
were concerned about the expansion of a targeted bluefin fishery in the 
Cape Hatteras GRA, an area that already has large numbers of 
interactions with bluefin. Some noted concern about the potential 
impacts on the rate of harvest of the General category quota, which is 
limited, and the indirect impacts on General category vessels. Others 
noted that the replacement of pelagic longline gear with handgear 
(targeting bluefin) is not economically viable due to the size of the 
pelagic longline vessels and the associated trip expenses. Based on 
these public comments, NMFS determined that the potential benefits of 
allowing pelagic longline vessels, which are part of a limited access 
fishery, to fish under the open-access General category rules do not 
outweigh the potential costs and risks associated with this activity at 
this time.

Limited Conditional Access to Pelagic Longline Closed Areas

    Section Sec.  635.21 and paragraph Sec.  635.23(f)(2) were modified 
because this measure that would have provided vessels fishing with 
pelagic longline gear some access to the existing pelagic longline 
closed areas was not implemented. This measure was included in the 
proposed rule but based upon additional information, public comment, 
and further consideration of potential administrative costs, NMFS is 
not implementing this measure in the final rule. NMFS may obtain data 
from within the closures through the use of exempted fishing permits. 
As explained further in Response to Comment # 65, the potential 
benefits of allowing pelagic longline vessels limited conditional 
access to closed areas would not outweigh the potential costs and risks 
associated with this activity. The objectives of this alternative were 
to maintain the relevant conservation aspects of the closure, balance 
the objectives of the closures, provide commercial data from within the 
closures, and provide additional fishing opportunities for permitted 
longline vessels (mitigating the potential negative economic impacts of 
Amendment 7).

Vessel Monitoring System

    Paragraphs Sec.  635.69(a) and Sec.  635.69(e)(4) were modified 
from the proposed rule. The proposed rule included measures requiring 
the use of VMS units for Purse Seine vessels, as well as reporting 
requirements for the Purse Seine and Longline category vessels, but did 
not provide all the relevant details. The scope of the measures in this 
final rule are within the scope of the measures proposed. This final 
rule clarifies the scope of the VMS requirements applicable to Purse 
Seine category vessels by explaining that vessels fishing with purse 
seine gear are subject to the same requirements as pelagic longline 
vessels, including hardware and communications specifications, 
installation checklists, power down exemptions, hail in and hail out 
requirements, declaration out of the HMS fishery, interruption in 
position reports, repair and replacement requirements, NMFS access to 
data, etc. Secondly, the specific bluefin tuna reporting requirements 
in this final rule differ from the proposed rule. The proposed rule 
stated that vessels fishing with either pelagic longline gear or purse 
seine gear would be required to submit bluefin catch reports for each 
day on which gear is set, and that no report would be required for sets 
where there is no catch of bluefin. In contrast, this final rule 
requires submission of a bluefin tuna catch report for each pelagic 
longline or purse seine set, providing information on the date the haul 
was completed, the number of hooks (for pelagic longline gear) and the 
number and size range of bluefin caught (including reporting a catch of 
zero bluefin).

Electronic Monitoring

    The final rule provides details about the specific requirements of 
the electronic monitoring program that were not in the proposed rule. 
Section 635.9 was modified from the proposed rule. This final rule 
provides further clarification of the electronic monitoring program. In 
addition to those requirements in the proposed rule, this final rule 
implements the following requirements: The permit holder must make the 
pelagic longline vessel accessible to NMFS or a NMFS-approved 
contractor to allow for the installation and testing of the electronic 
monitoring system, which will include training for the captain and 
crew, and may be required to steam to a designated port for these 
activities. The NMFS-approved contractor will provide the vessel owner 
a certificate that the installed equipment is a fully functioning 
electronic monitoring system. The final rule contains more detailed 
info on video cameras; GPS receiver; hydraulic drum rotation

[[Page 71557]]

sensors; control box and monitor; and includes some requirements 
related to hydraulics, power, camera mounts and lighting. This final 
rule notes the requirement for a written Vessel Monitoring Plan, to be 
developed by the NMFS-approved contractor with the vessel owner; and 
includes a pre-trip electronic monitoring system test requirement.

Annual Reallocation

    Paragraph 635.27(a)(4) was modified from the proposed rule, based 
on public comment. In this final rule, the allocations for a particular 
year will be based on the previous year's individual purse seine 
participant catch rather than category-wide catch. This modified 
measure will tie quota allocation more closely to individual 
participant catch and create an incentive for fishery participants to 
remain active in the fishery. Without this modification to the 
alternative, individual allocations would be tied to the catch of the 
other participants in the fishery, which could have unfair results if 
catch were to vary greatly among the participants. Specifically, 
pursuant to this final rule, each Purse Seine fishery participant will 
initially be given a fifth of the quota available to the category for 
the year (159.1 mt divided by five participants equals 31.8 mt per 
participant under the current ICCAT quota). Next, NMFS will determine 
the annual quota available for use by each individual tuna Purse Seine 
participant that year based on the previous year's performance. Each 
participant will have available either 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 
percent, or 100 percent of its allocation share of the base Purse Seine 
quota, depending upon the level of that participant's bluefin catch the 
previous year.

Provide Additional Flexibility for General Category Quota-Adjustment

    Paragraph 635.27(a)(1)(ii) was modified to clarify the measure. 
This final rule clarifies that, based on public comments, NMFS will 
prioritize the transfer of quota from December sub-quota time period to 
the January subquota time period within a fishing year in order to 
address the unique characteristics of the January sub-quota period.

Adjustment of Management Measures

    Paragraph 635.34 was modified to clarify as follows: As a result of 
the implementation of new management tools via Amendment 7, the 
proposed rule added to the list of management measures that NMFS may 
modify or establish in accordance with the framework procedures of the 
FMP. This final rule adds two items to this list of management measures 
and provides examples of Amendment 7 measures that are within the scope 
of management measures currently listed in the regulations. The 
Amendment 7 measures not included in the proposed rule list are as 
follows: Electronic monitoring requirements and examples of measures 
under the purview of the administration of the IBQ Program (quota share 
caps by individual or by category, permanent sale of shares, and NED 
IBQ rules).

Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final 
rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.
    NMFS prepared an environmental impact statement that analyzes the 
impact on the environment of a range of alternatives that would achieve 
the objectives of Amendment 7, which are described in the background 
section of the preamble for this action. A copy of the FEIS is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). As further explained in the 
Background, in this action, NMFS is implementing measures to minimize 
bycatch to the extent practicable; optimize fishing opportunity and 
account for dead discards; reduce bluefin tuna dead discards; enhance 
reporting; and adjust other aspects of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as 
necessary and appropriate.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Agency has consulted, to the 
extent practicable, with appropriate state and local officials to 
address the principles, criteria, and requirements of Executive Order 
13132.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared for 
this rule. The FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the 
public comments in response to the IRFA, our responses to those 
comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the 
action. The full FRFA and analysis of economic and ecological impacts 
are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the FRFA follows.
    The purpose of this final rulemaking, consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, is 
to implement HMS management measures that: (1) Optimize the ability for 
all permit categories to harvest their full bluefin quota allocations, 
account for mortality associated with discarded bluefin in all 
categories; maintain flexibility of the regulations to account for the 
highly variable nature of the bluefin fisheries; and maintain fairness 
among permit/quota categories; (2) reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna 
and minimize reductions in target catch in both directed and incidental 
bluefin fisheries, to the extent practicable; (3) improve the scope and 
quality of catch data through enhanced reporting and monitoring to 
ensure that landings and dead discards do not exceed the quota and to 
improve accounting for all sources of fishing mortality; and (4) adjust 
other aspects of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary and 
appropriate. These objectives are intended to support the following 
goals: Prevent overfishing and rebuild bluefin tuna, achieve on a 
continuing basis optimum yield, and minimize bluefin bycatch to the 
extent practicable by ensuring that domestic bluefin tuna fisheries 
continue to operate within the overall TAC set by ICCAT consistent with 
the existing rebuilding plan.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments

    Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires a summary of the significant 
issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a summary 
of the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a statement of any 
changes made in the rule as a result of such comments. NMFS received 
many comments on the proposed rule and IRFA. Summarized public comments 
and the Agency's responses to them are included in this final rule, in 
the ``Responses to Comments'' section of this preamble, above. The 
specific economic concerns raised in the comments are also summarized 
and addressed here (the numbering of the excerpted comments reflects 
the numbering in the ``Responses to Comments'' section, above).
    Comment 2: Many commenters, particularly those with small 
businesses involved in the pelagic longline fishery, expressed concern 
regarding the potential for negative economic impacts of Amendment 7 on 
jobs, families, and communities, and noted the importance of pelagic 
longline-caught fish in supplying high quality seafood to the nation. 
These commenters were concerned about the potential for the Amendment 7 
measures to put people out of business, and ``destroy the pelagic 
longline fishery.'' Commenters stated that vessels that are currently 
only marginally economically viable would be at particular risk of 
going out of business, but were also concerned about

[[Page 71558]]

any secondary impacts on related businesses such seafood dealers, gear 
manufacturers, etc. They urged NMFS to use a balanced regulatory 
approach to address the Amendment 7 objectives, and stated that 
Amendment 7 measures would increase uncertainty in the pelagic longline 
fishery.
    Response: The seafood supplied to the Nation by the pelagic 
longline fleet is valuable as both a source of food, and for the 
generation of income supporting local jobs, communities, and the 
broader economy. NMFS designed management measures to minimize economic 
impacts by relying on the combined effects of multiple management tools 
and incorporating flexibility into the system. The preferred measures 
will affect all permit/quota categories, and reflect the balance of 
addressing the issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock and management 
of the fishery while maintaining the viability of the pelagic longline 
and other fisheries dependent upon bluefin tuna. For example, 
reductions in dead discards would be achieved through the use of 
multiple measures, including gear restricted areas, the IBQ system, and 
quota allocation measures. The preferred measures would modify the 
quota system to increase management flexibility in order to allocate 
quota among categories to maximize opportunities to catch available 
quota, account for dead discards, and respond to changing conditions in 
the fishery. As the pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to the suite of 
new measures, NMFS would have the flexibility to allocate a limited 
amount of additional quota to the pelagic longline vessels if necessary 
to prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a result of the gear 
restricted areas and IBQ system, reduce the net amount of bluefin catch 
from the levels recently caught. The management measures work together 
to reduce dead discards and otherwise reduce bycatch to the extent 
practicable, increase accountability, enhance reporting and monitoring, 
and optimize quota allocation, in a predictable but flexible manner. 
The potential economic impacts of the measures affecting the pelagic 
longline fleet are analyzed in Chapters 5 and 7, of the FEIS, and the 
economic rationale is summarized in this FRFA.
    Comment 3: Commenters stated that when determining whether the 
pelagic longline fleet should be subject to additional restrictions, 
NMFS should consider the current and past regulatory environment and 
other factors as context. Commenters stated the pelagic longline 
fishery is already heavily regulated to minimize its environmental 
impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g., closures, weak hook requirement, 
observer deployment, bait requirements), and that progress is being 
made. Furthermore, increases in fuel costs strain fishers' ability to 
make a living, and events such as the 2010 oil spill in the GOM 
continue to be relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin tuna is managed 
at the international level and believe that the United States manages 
its citizens in a more effective and responsible way than other 
countries, and that NMFS should not further regulate bluefin tuna and 
increase the management disparity between the United States and other 
countries.
    Response: The context in which vessels operate, including current 
regulations was a relevant factor NMFS considered in determining 
whether new regulations are justified. NMFS took into consideration 
many factors in selecting preferred measures that address the diverse 
objectives of Amendment 7 in a balanced manner. Chapter 6 of the FEIS 
contains a cumulative impacts analysis which is broad in scope and 
takes into consideration past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 
factors. In addition, Chapter 2 of the FEIS contains a description of 
measures and the rationale for the preferred measures. This FRFA 
includes a description of the steps taken to minimize the economic 
impacts on small entities, and the reasons for the preferred measures.
    The United States manages its exclusive economic zone in accordance 
with applicable U.S. laws and in response to the unique characteristics 
of its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. regulations regarding bluefin 
tuna are different from the rules affecting citizens of other 
countries, which operate under different laws and circumstances. Where 
U.S. regulations are more restrictive than those abroad, NMFS believes 
that the corresponding ecological and socio-economic benefits that 
result from such restrictions are also likely to be greater than those 
abroad.
    Comment 12: Many commenters strongly opposed reallocating quota to 
the Longline category because of concerns about the economic impacts on 
a particular geographic region (e.g., New England or mid-Atlantic), or 
quota category (e.g., the General category or the Angling category). 
Some commenters urged NMFS to respect the historical allocation 
percentages, and noted that reallocation would have the effect of 
pitting the different categories against each other. Some commenters 
suggested that NMFS consider other regulatory and economic 
circumstances facing vessels that may be impacted by a reduced quota. 
For example, Congressional representatives from Massachusetts and the 
New England Fishery Management Council (Council) stated that the 
proposed reallocation would disadvantage the New England Fishery, the 
traditional Massachusetts fleet, and shore-side infrastructure, and 
would allow fleets from other regions to use a disproportionate amount 
of quota. They were concerned about the commercial fleet, which is 
experiencing economic damage due to the decline in key stocks in the 
groundfish fishery. The Council suggested that NMFS assess the port-
specific impacts of reallocation. A commenter was concerned that 
recreational vessels in the mid-Atlantic region would be 
disproportionately affected by quota reallocation because the quota may 
not last until the time the bluefin are off the mid-Atlantic coast.
    Response: A reduction in quota may impact the revenue associated 
with a particular quota category or geographic region, or result in 
secondary economic impacts on a community. The FEIS analysis estimates 
that reallocation of quota to the Longline category could reduce 
revenue for individual vessels with a General category permit by $850 
and result in total reduction in maximum revenue of $542,000 for all 
General category vessels. Although thirty percent of the General 
category permits are associated with the State of Massachusetts (1,150 
permits as of October 2013), the total number of active vessels is 
substantially lower. Of the total number of General category permits 
issued throughout the Atlantic coast (3,783), the average number of 
General category vessels landing at least one bluefin between 2006 and 
2012 was 474 vessels. Thus, the number of active vessels in 
Massachusetts can be presumed to be substantially fewer than 1,150.
    When considering the social and economic impacts of actions, 
different communities and regions may be impacted to different degrees 
due to their unique regulatory and economic circumstances. The FEIS 
contains an analysis of the community impacts from the 2010 Deepwater 
Horizon/BP Oil Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents social 
indicators of vulnerability and resistance for 25 communities selected 
for having a greater than average number of HMS permits associated with 
them. Those communities with relatively higher dependence upon 
commercial fishing included Dulac, LA; Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; 
Gloucester, MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC; Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, 
NJ; Cape May,

[[Page 71559]]

NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are principally at a fishery-wide, or 
permit category level. The bluefin tuna fisheries (and other HMS 
fisheries) are widely distributed and highly variable due to the 
diversity of participants (location, gear types, commercial, 
recreational), and because bluefin tuna are highly migratory over 
thousands of miles, with an annual distribution that is highly 
variable. The specific ports and communities that provide the goods and 
services to support the fishery may vary as well, as vessels travel 
over large distances to pursue their target species. Due to this 
variability, it is difficult to predict potential revenue and secondary 
impacts of preferred management measures by port or by state. Vessels 
fishing in any geographic area in the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are 
likely to have only limited access to bluefin tuna, unless they travel 
long distances within the bluefin's migratory range.
    It is important to note that the actual economic impacts of 
reallocation of quota depend upon the total amount of quota allocated 
to (and harvested from) each of the quota categories, as a result of 
the combined effect of all of the measures that affect quota. For 
example, in addition to the amount of quota available as a result of 
the percentage allocations, and deductions for the 68 mt Annual 
Reallocation, there may be quota available for redistribution to 
various quota categories. Specifically, pursuant to the preferred 
``Annual Reallocation'' measure, as described in Chapter 2 of the FEIS, 
if the Purse Seine category has not caught 70 percent of its quota 
during the previous year, quota may be moved to the Reserve category 
and subsequently reallocated across multiple user groups. Furthermore, 
in recent years, many categories have not fully harvested their amount 
of quota available to them. Thus, the actual impacts of reallocation 
may be minor or may be mitigated by future reallocation when available.
    Reallocation of quota may result in frustration or negative 
attitudes among fishery participants of different quota categories, due 
to the changes to an historically accepted quota allocation system, or 
perceptions of unfairness. However, the modifications to the quota 
system are warranted for the reasons described in the response to 
comments 8 through 1. They are also fair due to the fact that all quota 
categories are affected in proportion to their quota percentage. As 
explained in the response to Comment# 9 above, NMFS designed the quota 
allocation alternatives to minimize the economic impacts on the non-
longline categories. The alternatives take into consideration the 
relative size of each category quota (in the case of the ``Codified 
Reallocation Alternative,'' or the level of activity of vessels 
(``Annual Reallocation Alternative''), and are designed to consider 
changing levels of quota or landings, respectively, in ways that reduce 
economic impacts.
    Comment 13: Many recreational anglers wanted to insulate the 
Angling category from any potential effect of quota reallocation to the 
Longline category, citing the economic impacts and high value of the 
recreational bluefin fishery to the economy, as well as the economic 
investments of the participants and the current regulatory burden such 
vessels face. Vessel owners with General category commercial permits 
expressed concern about the potential impacts to the General category. 
Commenters requested additional quantitative analyses comparing the 
different quota categories, including primary and secondary impacts.
    Response: As stated above in the response to the previous comment, 
a reduction in quota may impact the revenue associated with a 
particular quota category or result in secondary economic impacts on a 
community. The objective of the preferred allocation measures is not to 
reallocate quota based on economic optimization, but to: account for 
bluefin dead discards within the Longline category; reduce uncertainty 
in annual quota allocation and accounting; optimize fishing opportunity 
by increasing flexibility in the current bluefin quota allocation 
system; and ensure that the various quota categories are regulated 
fairly in relative to one another.
    The reallocation measures implemented by this final rule will 
minimize adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable because the 
relative amount of quota reallocated is small and proportional to the 
size of the category quota, and the overall quota system will be more 
flexible and predictable and able to offset some or all of the negative 
economic impacts. This approach was developed consistent with our 
obligation under National Standard 6 (Conservation and management 
measures shall take into account and allow for variations among, and 
contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches) and 
National Standard 8 (Conservation and management measures shall, 
consistent with the conservation requirements of this chapter 
(including the prevention of overfishing and rebuilding of overfished 
stocks), take into account the importance of fishery resources to 
fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data that meet the 
requirements of paragraph (2), in order to (A) provide for the 
sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent 
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.)
    Although the FEIS includes estimates of the value of bluefin tuna 
quota by quota category for comparative purposes, the preferred 
codified reallocation was not based on a specific economic analysis, 
but the achievement of the stated objectives. An elaborate quantitative 
analysis that compares the economic value of the Angling, Longline, and 
General category fisheries was not conducted due to the different 
characteristics of the Angling, Longline and General category 
fisheries, the variable amount of data associated with these fisheries, 
and the large number of factors and assumptions that contribute to 
estimating the value of a fishery. For example, under the preferred IBQ 
system, the availability of bluefin tuna quota may be a limiting factor 
for a pelagic longline vessel, and therefore the lack of adequate 
bluefin quota, by even a small amount, could result in a vessel being 
prohibited from fishing with pelagic longline gear. In that 
circumstance, the value of the bluefin quota to the vessel owner may be 
very high, and related to the value of the target catch (e.g., 
swordfish or yellowfin tuna). On the other hand, the value of a bluefin 
tuna to a recreational angler or to the recreational fishery at-large 
may include the value of the recreational experience to the angler, as 
well as the associated goods and service supporting the fishing trip. 
The FEIS indicates that the Angling category would potentially face 
unquantified reductions in economic and social activity associated with 
the 7.36 percent reduction in available quota. In contrast, for a 
vessel fishing commercially in the General category, a high quality 
bluefin tuna sold to Japan may be extremely valuable and other catchfar 
less important.
    Comment 20: NMFS should avoid closures to the pelagic longline 
fishery. Any closure would disrupt markets.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that GRAs designed to reduce bluefin 
tuna interactions and regulatory discards and to thus decrease bycatch 
have costs associated with them, and may have disruptive effects on 
local markets. NMFS designed the GRAs (i.e., their timing and 
configuration) after considering the amount of reduced fishing 
opportunity as well as the amount of reduced bluefin interactions, in 
order to minimize potential disruptions in markets. NMFS designed the 
Modified Cape Hatteras GRA to provide access opportunities to

[[Page 71560]]

fishermen that have a proven ability to avoid bluefin, and are 
compliant with the observer and logbook requirements. As described in 
the Response to Comment #47, NMFS specifically modified the Cape 
Hatteras GRA from what was proposed to reduce disruption to ongoing 
fishing in an adjacent area, and thereby reduce potentially negative 
economic impacts of the alternative. Evaluation of all alternatives 
considered both economic and ecological considerations (i.e., the 
potential reductions in revenue associated with estimated reductions in 
bluefin interactions).
    Comment 21: NMFS should not implement GRAs. NMFS received comments 
indicating that, due to a variety of reasons, commercial fishermen may 
be limited to certain fishing locations by the size and configuration 
of their vessels, insurance requirements, or safety concerns, and that 
some participants in the fishing fleet have nowhere else to fish 
(except in the location of the GRA) and they would be ``shut out'' of 
the fishery.
    Response: The underlying concept of the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA 
minimizes economic impacts by providing conditional access to the area, 
based on performance criteria. The majority of the pelagic longline 
fleet will be allowed to fish in the area upon implementation, and in 
the future if conditions for access continue to be met. In estimating 
ecological and socio-economic impacts of the Modified Cape Hatteras 
GRA, NMFS determined that 14 vessels will not have access to this GRA. 
Of these 14 vessels, four vessels made over 75 percent of their sets in 
the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA. Based upon the location of their 
historical catch, and to ensure that NMFS did not underestimate the 
potential economic impacts, the analysis assumes that these vessels 
would not redistribute effort outside of the gear restricted area. 
Although these four vessels could redirect from fishing grounds off 
Oregon Inlet, NC to fishing grounds between Cape Fear and Cape 
Hatteras, such a change in fishing grounds may involve substantial 
costs (fuel, longer trips, possible transfer and dockage in a new port, 
etc.). However, NMFS modified the Cape Hatteras GRA in a way that would 
achieve the reduction in bluefin discards, and would also allow 
fishermen to continue to deploy gear in regions south and west of the 
GRA, thereby reducing adverse impacts. With respect to the potential 
negative impacts of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA, 
approximately 61 vessels that fish in the Gulf of Mexico would be 
affected. Given the consistent pattern of historical catch of large 
numbers of bluefin tuna in certain times and locations by pelagic 
longline gear, NMFS determined that a GRA in both the Gulf of Mexico 
and the Atlantic are necessary in order to achieve reductions in 
bluefin tuna dead discards, and that the potential economic impacts are 
warranted in order to achieve such reductions. The potential negative 
socio-economic impacts were minimized by using an iterative process to 
design the gear restricted areas. The Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico 
Pelagic Longline GRAs were designed in order to achieve a balance 
between a reduction in bluefin dead discards, protection of the Gulf of 
Mexico spawning stock, and continued operation of the pelagic longline 
fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The specific boundaries of the area were 
determined by an iterative process, by selecting areas of historical 
pelagic longline interactions with bluefin, and comparing both the 
anticipated reduction in bluefin interactions with the estimated 
reduction in revenue, of different configurations. In addition, NMFS 
selected the time period due to its occurrence during the peak bluefin 
spawning period in the GOM.The magnitude of the potential economic 
impacts result from the specific location and duration of the GRA. The 
size of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA was 
based upon the historical location and number of bluefin interactions, 
as well as the recent persistent trend in fishing effort shifting to 
the east of this area, and the known variability in the fishery in 
general. A smaller geographic area would be unlikely to achieve 
meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna interactions. The duration of the 
GRA encompasses the months with the highest number of interactions 
during the spawning period. An alternate, or shorter time period would 
coincide with neither the highest number of bluefin interactions nor 
the bluefin spawning period peak.
    Comment 29: NMFS should not penalize small vessels because of their 
inability of provide adequate space for observers.
    Response: NMFS designed the scoring system for the Pelagic Observer 
Program Performance metric in the preferred alternative such that valid 
reasons for not carrying an observer will not be penalized. Observer 
coverage is integral to the management of the fishery as it contributes 
important, objective data in support of the management of protected 
species and provides important information on the pelagic longline 
fishery utilized in the management of bluefin and other HMS species. 
Due to the importance of having enough observed trips to meet the 
observer coverage targets required by national and international law, 
NMFS also evaluated vessels on the number of trips observed. The agency 
utilizes observer data to develop estimates of protected resources 
interactions and estimates of discards of other species including 
bluefin. These data are essential for stock assessments and are 
critical in meeting international management obligations. Under ATCA 
and as a contracting party of ICCAT, the United States is required to 
take part in the collection of biological, catch, and effort statistics 
for research and management purposes.
    Comment 48: NMFS should consider the potential negative economic 
impact on fishermen in the area who do not have access to other fishing 
grounds.
    Response: The preferred design of the Cape Hatteras GRA was the 
result of an iterative process. NMFS analyzed multiple time periods and 
geographic areas in order to take into consideration both the potential 
reduction in the number of bluefin interactions and the potential 
reductions in target catch. The analysis considered relevant fisheries 
data and oceanographic trends. In the DEIS, due to current patterns in 
the Cape Hatteras area, the zone affected by the proposed Cape Hatteras 
GRA was analyzed beyond the explicit boundaries of the GRA. Analysis of 
a buffer region was needed because vessels to the south and west of the 
GRA would be prevented from fishing in these areas due to their gear 
drifting into the GRA (having the effort of creating a larger affected 
geographic area that the boundary of the GRA). The DEIS analysis of 
impacts not only considered the reduced fishing effort within the GRA, 
but also the reduced fishing effort in a buffer region to the south and 
west of the area. Therefore, NMFS included sets made in this buffer 
region into the redistribution analyses. In the FEIS, based on public 
comment and additional analyses, NMFS now prefers the Modified Cape 
Hatteras GRA which would minimize the adverse impacts on fishing 
opportunities while still achieving comparable reductions of bluefin 
discards and almost identical conservation and management benefits as 
the original proposal.
    Comment 50: A large number of commenters expressed general support 
for a GRA in the GOM, while others stated that NMFS should not 
implement a GOM GRA, due to the severe economic impact it would have on 
the fishery.

[[Page 71561]]

    Response: Implementation of a GRA in the GOM supports the 
achievement of the Amendment 7 objectives. A GRA will, in conjunction 
with the other management measures implemented by this final rule, 
result in the reduction of dead discards of bluefin tuna by the pelagic 
longline fishery. Although implementation of a GRA would have a 
negative economic impact on the pelagic longline fishery, the preferred 
alternative would have less of an impact than some of the other 
alternatives considered and analyzed. As described in more detail in 
the responses to comments below, NMFS analyzed a range of alternatives, 
and took into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
communities by analyzing economic and social data. Because GRAs may 
result in the reduction and/or redistribution of fishing effort by 
pelagic longline gear, the preferred alternative represents a balance 
between anticipated reductions in dead discards of bluefin, and 
potential negative economic impacts on the pelagic longline fishery. 
Furthermore, the preferred alternative will support the broader 
objectives of both stock rebuilding as well as the continued viability 
of the commercial and recreational fisheries that depend upon bluefin 
tuna.
    Comment 55: One commenter noted that the size of the fishable area 
in the GOM is already small, given the constraints on the locations 
where they can fish, including existing pelagic longline closed areas, 
as well as the areas that must be avoided for other reasons (e.g., 
activity range of seismographic vessels, which can operate for up to 
six months, and oils rigs).
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the preferred Spring Modified GOMo 
Pelagic Longline GRAs would further reduce the amount of fishable areas 
in the GOM available for the use of pelagic longline gear, and that 
vessels choosing to fish in the GOM with pelagic longline gear must 
work around other industrial users of Gulf of Mexico resources. NMFS 
selected the boundaries of the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs with 
careful consideration of the associated benefits and costs. NMFS 
optimized the size of the preferred GRAs to achieve a meaningful 
reduction in dead discards, and still leave fishing grounds open for 
the pelagic longline fleet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis in the FEIS 
(Chapter 6) considers the impacts of the preferred alternatives in the 
broader context of other historical and current activities.
    Comment 56: NMFS should consider the impact on the yellowfin tuna 
and swordfish fisheries, which are active in the GOM and in the areas 
covered by the GRAs. Specifically, the commenter questioned whether the 
GOM pelagic longline fleet would be able to remain active.
    Response: NMFS carefully considered the impact of the preferred 
Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs on yellowfin and swordfish 
fisheries, both of which are robust and healthy fisheries in the GOM. 
The estimated reductions in revenue totals of the preferred GRAs 
(assuming effort is redistributed) were calculated for the alternatives 
for both swordfish (ranged from $11,583 to $2,089,885 on average per 
year) and for yellowfin tuna (ranged from $59,500 to $3,964,682, on 
average per year) fisheries. The preferred Spring Modified Gulf of 
Mexico GRAs would achieve a balance between conservation objectives and 
providing continuing opportunity for the GOM swordfish and yellowfin 
tuna fisheries. The primary conservation objectives of the GRAs is to 
reduce bluefin interactions, and reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality 
to the extent practicable. NMFS compared among the alternatives the 
amount of `savings' of bluefin tuna and the reduction in target catch 
as part of its analysis of the gear restricted areas. Under the 
Preferred Alternative, the annual reductions in revenue associated with 
the reduced catches of swordfish and yellowfin tuna are estimated at 
$41,504 and $207,110, respectively. The annual reduction in total 
revenue is estimated at $1,793,922. An example of how the data was 
compared and alternatives evaluated follows: Comparing the Preferred 
Alternative with the alternative that would restrict the full EEZ from 
March through May, the reduction in the weight of bluefin catch would 
be a little more than twice as much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt versus 
19.2 mt under the Preferred), but the reduction in total revenue 
associated with the EEZ GRA would be more than six times larger than 
the reduction in total revenue associated with the Preferred 
Alternative ($1,793,922 versus $281,614 under the Preferred). In other 
words, compared to the Preferred Alternative, the amount of additional 
costs that would be associated with the EEZ GRA would be 
disproportionately greater than the additional conservation benefits 
associated with the EEZ GRA. The Amendment 7 measures are not designed 
to target a particular amount of reduction in dead discards, but rather 
reduce dead discards in a meaningful way, provide strong incentives to 
avoid and reduce bycatch, and take into account the potential impacts 
on the pelagic longline fishery. The combined effect of the Modified 
Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA and the Modified Cape 
Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA, would reduce the number of bluefin 
discarded by 40 percent and the number of bluefin kept by 10 percent 
(fishery-wide).
    Comment 63: Some commenters supported the proposed measure to allow 
vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear that are not authorized 
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, to fish under General 
category rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this type of fishing 
opportunity as mitigation for the lost opportunity of fishing with 
pelagic longline gear in the Cape Hatteras GRA, between December 
through April. Some commenters did not support the proposed opportunity 
for such vessels to fish under the General category rules for various 
reasons. Some noted that the activity would be a ``dangerous 
precedent,'' because limited access vessels would be allowed to fish 
under the rules applicable to an open access category, General category 
vessels would not be allowed to fish as a pelagic longline vessel. 
Others were concerned about the expansion of a targeted bluefin fishery 
in the Cape Hatteras GRA, an area that already has large numbers of 
interactions with bluefin. A commenter found it ironic that vessels not 
allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear in the Cape Hatteras GRA 
(proposed in order to reduce bluefin interactions with pelagic longline 
gear) due to their low performance criteria score would be provided an 
opportunity to target bluefin tuna. Some noted concern about the 
potential impacts on the rate of harvest of the General category quota, 
which is limited, and the indirect impacts on General category vessels. 
Others noted that the replacement of pelagic longline gear with 
handgear (targeting bluefin) is not economically viable due to the size 
of the pelagic longline vessels and the associated trip expenses. A 
commenter stated that the proposed measure would facilitate trans-
shipment of bluefin from Longline category to General category vessels. 
A commenter suggested that all pelagic longline vessels should be able 
to fish under the General category rules, and not only those affected 
by the GRA.
    Response: Based upon public comment and further consideration, NMFS 
is not implementing the management measure that would have allowed 
vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear that are not authorized 
conditional access to the Cape Hatteras GRA to fish under General 
category rules. While this measure would have

[[Page 71562]]

provided additional fishing opportunities to pelagic longline vessels 
without access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, the differences in fishing 
costs and productivity between pelagic longline gear and handgear are 
great enough that handgear fishing for bluefin tuna would not be 
economically viable for a pelagic longline vessel. Given the unlikely -
economic benefits as well as public perceptions of unfairness, the 
potential benefits of allowing vessels to fish under the General 
category rules do not outweigh the potential costs and risks associated 
with this activity.
    Comment 64: NMFS received a large number of comments that did not 
support the proposed limited conditional access to closed areas for 
vessels using pelagic longline gear, for a variety of reasons. 
Commenters, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission, were foremost concerned about potential negative biological 
impacts on swordfish, billfish, and other species, as well as the 
indirect negative socio-economic impacts on the recreational fishing 
community if there were negative biological impacts. Specifically, 
commenters cited the benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East Florida 
Coast closed areas contributing to the rebuilding of the swordfish 
stock, and the stabilization of the blue and white marlin stocks. 
Commenters stated that the biological analysis of the alternative was 
inadequate, and one commenter was concerned about the impacts on dusky 
sharks. Some commenters supported access, noting the importance of such 
access as a means to provide flexibility to pelagic longline vessels in 
the context of the IBQ Program restrictions, while others suggested 
modifications to the alternative such as allowing the use of electronic 
monitoring instead of human observers.
    Response: Based upon public comment and further consideration of 
potential administrative costs, NMFS is not implementing this 
management measure. The potential benefits of allowing pelagic longline 
vessels limited conditional access to the closed areas would not 
outweigh the potential costs and risks associated with this activity. 
The objectives of the proposed measure were to maintain the relevant 
conservation aspects of the closure, balance the objectives of the 
closures, provide commercial data from within the closures, and provide 
additional fishing opportunities for permitted longline vessels 
(mitigating the potential negative economic impacts of Amendment 7). 
The East Florida Coast, Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon Closed Area 
were implemented as part of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on 
three objectives: (1) Maximize the reduction in incidental catch of 
billfish and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed weight; (2) minimize 
the reduction in the target catch of larger swordfish and other 
marketable species; and (3) ensure that the incidental catch of other 
species (e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and turtles) either remains 
unchanged or is reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS recognized that all 
three objectives might not be met to the maximum extent, and that 
conflicting outcomes would require some balancing of the objectives. 
There are data that supports the assertion that the closed areas have 
contributed to the achievement of their objectives, in concert with 
other management measures. NMFS provides an annual review of the 
potential effectiveness of the current suite of management measures, 
including closed areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual SAFE report 
for HMS. Although the SAFE report does not isolate and quantify the 
effectiveness of closed areas as a separate management tool, the 
estimated reductions in discards of swordfish, blue marlin, white 
marlin, sailfish, and spearfish, as a result of all management measures 
have remained consistently high (-50 to -70 percent), suggesting that 
the current suite of international and domestic management measures 
have played a significant role in allowing the United States to reduce 
its bycatch interactions. Given the likely benefits of the closed 
areas, the difficulty in determining the precise magnitude of the 
benefits of the closed areas in the context of other management 
measures, as well as the difficulty predicting the potential impacts 
that access to closed areas would have, NMFS believes that there is 
uncertainty whether in fact the first objective of the alternative 
(maintain relevant conservation aspects of the closure) would be met. 
The access to closed areas alternative did not include defined bycatch 
limits, but would have relied upon the assumption that low levels of 
fishing effort is sufficient to prevent excessive bycatch. Furthermore, 
there would be administrative costs associated with the access program. 
Therefore, the benefits associated with providing additional fishing 
opportunities (by providing access) would not outweigh the costs in 
terms of the risk of undermining the conservation benefits of the 
closed areas. With respect to providing commercial data from within the 
closures, as stated previously, NMFS may obtain data from within the 
closures through the use of exempted fishing permits.
    Comment 68: Commenters supported implementation of the IBQ system 
in order to hold vessels accountable and provide incentives to reduce 
discards. Commenters noted that NMFS should provide some flexibility in 
the IBQ system, particularly in the short-term, to ensure that vessels, 
especially small vessels, are able to adapt to the new restrictions and 
the overall program is successful. Commenters urged NMFS to continue to 
support the pelagic longline swordfish fishery, which is important for 
multiple reasons.
    Response: Implementation of the IBQ system will increase the 
responsibility and accountability of individual vessels and the pelagic 
longline fishery as a whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As 
explained in detail in the responses to more specific comments, the 
individual bluefin quota system implemented by this final rule is 
designed to provide a reasonable and effective means of reducing dead 
discards, increasing accountability, and maintaining a viable pelagic 
longline fishery. The management measures are intended to provide 
flexibility at the level of the individual vessel, and in the quota 
system as a whole, so that the fishery can operate under the challenges 
of a substantially new regulatory structure. Furthermore, the fishery 
must be able to adapt on a continuing basis to the variability of 
highly migratory species, and changing ecological conditions.
    Individual pelagic longline vessels have the flexibility to change 
their fishing practices through modification of fishing behavior 
(including time, location and methods of fishing, and the use of non-
longline gear); increasing communication within the fishery to 
facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing of individual bluefin quota. 
Under Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide additional flexibility by 
allocating additional quota to the Longline category, as described in 
the response to Comments 18 and 19.
    Comment 76: The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources 
(Louisiana DNR) commented that Amendment 7 will have large negative 
socio-economic impacts on the GOM pelagic longline fishery, with 
greatest impacts in Louisiana. The Louisiana DNR also asserted the rule 
will have minimal benefits to the bluefin stock, and attributed the 
economic impacts mostly to the IBQ Program, which it feels is 
inconsistent with the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. Louisiana 
DNR noted that the potential benefits to the stock of bluefin tuna are 
minimal compared to the potentially large socio-

[[Page 71563]]

economic impact to the targeted fisheries, and NMFS' consistency 
determination lacks sufficient data and information.
    Response: Pelagic longline vessels may be negatively impacted by 
the preferred IBQ Program, and such impacts would likely be felt in the 
ports and communities associated with the fishery, including those in 
Louisiana, which is home to approximately 27 percent of the active 
pelagic longline vessels. Florida, New York, and New Jersey would also 
be impacted due to the distribution of active pelagic longline vessels 
(31 percent, 16 percent, and 16 percent of the active vessels, 
respectively). Bluefin dead discards in the GOM by pelagic longline 
vessels have typically ranged from 36 to 86 mt per year. The benefits 
of the preferred IBQ Program include strictly limiting bluefin catch in 
the pelagic longline fishery, reduction of dead discards and waste, and 
promotion of economic efficiency, all of which will contribute to stock 
growth and a sustainable bluefin tuna fishery in the long term. The 
fact that the GOM is a critically important spawning area for bluefin 
contributes to the biological importance of having a quota system that 
effectively limits bluefin catch and provides incentives for pelagic 
longline vessels to minimize interactions with bluefin.
    The IBQ Program was analyzed by home port state, and the impacts by 
state vary, depending upon the specific measurement (i.e., number of 
vessels with quota share, number of vessels that may need more quota 
than allocated; amount of quota that each vessel would need; and total 
amount of quota that each state would need). The states with the 
highest number of vessels with quota shares would be Florida (43 
vessels with quota shares), Louisiana (25 vessels), New Jersey (18 
vessels), North Carolina (14 vessels) and New York (11 vessels). Under 
the regulatory conditions of the Preferred Alternatives, within those 
home port states, the number of vessels that would need to lease 
additional quota (above their initial allocation) to continue fishing 
at their historic rates are as follows: Florida (5 vessels), Louisiana 
(13 vessels), New Jersey (4 vessels), North Carolina (2 vessels) and 
New York (3 vessels). Although the proportion of vessels in a 
particular state that would need to lease additional quota is highest 
in New Orleans, the average amount of quota that the vessels would need 
to lease is almost identical similar among vessels from the ports of 
Louisiana, Florida, and New Jersey. Vessels with the homeport state of 
New York would need to lease about four times more quota per vessel to 
continue fishing at their historic rates. The estimate of the total 
amount of quota that vessels with a home port of New York would need to 
lease is 13.4 mt (11 vessels), and the total amount of quota that 
vessels with a home port in Louisiana would need to lease is 17.4 mt 
(25 vessels). NMFS has concluded that this action is fully consistent 
with the enforceable policies of the management program, though the 
State of Louisiana objects. The FEIS analysis demonstrates that NMFS 
utilized many of the factors cited by Louisiana as lacking in NMFS' 
evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the best available logbook, dealer, 
and observer data, conducted vessel-specific analyses for preferred 
alternatives on GRAs and IBQ measures, and relevant recent scientific 
information. NMFS also explored the availability of alternative methods 
of achieving the Amendment 7 objectives, and considered the economic 
impacts, and the long-term benefits of the measures. The alternative 
methods to reduce dead discards--no action or group or regional 
quotas--would have more adverse impacts and be less effective in 
achieving Amendment 7 objectives to reduce dead discards and maximize 
fishing opportunity. The design of the IBQ management measures and 
other aspects of Amendment 7 minimize the significant adverse economic 
impacts, disruption of social patterns, and adverse cumulative impacts, 
to the extent practicable, relative to other methods analyzed while 
also meeting Amendment 7 objectives.
    The preferred IBQ Program was designed to provide flexibility for 
vessels to be able to continue to maintain viable businesses, through 
initial allocations, potential allocation of quota from the Reserve 
category, quota leasing, elimination of the target species requirement, 
and, as described above, the flexibility for vessels to fully account 
for their catch at the end of a trip, after sale of the bluefin.
    Comment 78: Commenters were concerned about the ability of new 
entrants to become active in the fishery, and some suggested that NMFS 
use an annual system to define eligible vessels, such as a minimum 
number of sets during the previous year. A commenter noted that 
businesses which supply new equipment to outfit pelagic longline 
vessels would be negatively impacted if new entrants were not able to 
enter the fishery.
    Response: The ability for people who are currently not involved in 
the pelagic longline fishery to become participants in the fishery (new 
entrants) is an important consideration, and is a required 
consideration under the MSA. The preferred Amendment 7 IBQ Program 
would add a single additional prerequisite for participation in the 
pelagic longline fishery to the previously existing two prerequisites 
and associated monitoring and compliance requirements (e.g., VMS). 
Prior to this Amendment, the two principal elements for participation 
in the fishery were a vessel and limited access permit. The preferred 
IBQ Program would implement a requirement for a vessel to have the 
minimum amount of bluefin quota allocation to fish with pelagic 
longline gear, as well as electronic monitoring requirements associated 
with preferred IBQ Program.
    The preferred IBQ Program would provide adequate opportunities to 
new entrants to the fishery because there would be multiple means by 
which a new entrant may satisfy the quota requirement. The structure of 
the preferred IBQ Program would not create any unreasonable barriers to 
new entry. A person interested in participating in the fishery may 
purchase a permitted vessel with IBQ shares, and therefore be allocated 
quota annually (due to the IBQ share associated with the permit), or a 
person may purchase a permitted vessel without IBQ shares, and lease 
quota allocation from another permitted vessel. Under the preferred IBQ 
Program, as in the past, participation in the pelagic longline fishery 
by new entrants would require substantial capital investment and 
potential new entrants will face costs which are similar to historical 
participants.
    NMFS considered the merits of setting aside a specified amount of 
quota for new entrants, but found several negative aspects of such a 
provision. For example, providing quota to new entrants would 
essentially create a second quota allocation system, which would 
complicate the overall preferred IBQ Program by creating separate class 
of vessels, with different allocations. A quota set aside for new 
entrants would result in less quota available for other participants in 
the fishery, and rather than the market controlling the quota, there 
would be many policy decisions to be made (e.g., would the amount of 
set aside vary according to the number of new entrants, or be a fixed 
amount annually? Would the quota be divided equally among new entrants, 
be allocated in the minimum share amounts, or allocated based on 
fishing history?). NMFS believes in simplifying the IBQ Program upon 
implementation where possible, to minimize regulatory burden and 
complexity. A system of rules regarding quota set aside would

[[Page 71564]]

add additional complications to the IBQ Program. Therefore, when 
considering whether additional restrictions to facilitate new entrants 
to the fishery are warranted, NMFS determined that given the lack of 
information with which to base such restrictions, and the uncertainty 
whether there would be a pressing need for such restrictions, a quota 
set aside was not warranted. During the three year review of the IBQ 
Program NMFS will consider information from the fishery after 
implementation of the IBQ Program, and evaluate whether the IBQ Program 
provides adequate opportunities to new entrants.
    As suggested by commenters, NMFS considered the concept of making 
an annual determination of which vessels are eligible to receive quota 
allocations based on a set of criteria (such as a certain number of 
longline sets during the previous year). NMFS found that there are 
negative aspects of such an annual system. If the vessels allocated 
quota shares varied on an annual basis, the IBQ Program would be more 
complex and difficult to administer; there would be greater uncertainty 
annually in the fishery; there would be incentives to fish on an annual 
basis (due to criteria to fish in order to receive quota); and any 
value associated with a permit that would be derived from the 
associated IBQ share may be minimized (if the IBQ share is only valid 
for a year). Although such a system could limit the number of years a 
vessel without quota share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease quota, the 
negative aspects of this approach would be substantial. For example, in 
order to have an IBQ system that includes strong accountability, any 
quota `debt' accrued must persist from one fishing year to the next. It 
would be difficult to implement persistent accountability if the 
vessels eligible for quota changed on an annual basis.
    Comment 82: Many pelagic longline vessel owners expressed strong 
concerns that the amount of bluefin quota allocated to individual 
vessels would be inadequate to continue to fish, and that despite 
efforts to avoid bluefin, vessels would sooner or later encounter 
bluefin. The proposed allocations would make continuing fishing 
operations extremely difficult, because they would be forced to stop 
fishing, and therefore revenue would be cut off, but expenses would 
continue. Vessel owners stated that they would not be able to remain in 
business under such circumstances, and some estimated that a large 
vessel would need about 20 bluefin to account for the anticipated 
amount of bluefin catch (instead 2 to 13 fish). Some highlighted the 
difference between the proposed IBQ allocations and the number of 
bluefin tuna that may be retained by a vessel with a General category 
commercial permit (up to 5 bluefin a trip), as justification for having 
larger individual quota allocations.
    Response: Under the preferred IBQ Program, some vessels will not 
have enough quota share to continue to account for the same amount of 
bluefin they caught in the past. The FEIS analysis indicates that at a 
quota level of 137 mt approximately 25 percent of vessels will need to 
lease additional bluefin quota in order to land their historical 
average amount of target species if they do not change their behavior 
to reduce their historical rate of bluefin interactions. If no leasing 
of IBQ allocation occurs, there could be a reduction in target species 
landings with an associated reduction in revenue of approximately 
$7,574,590 total, or $56,108 per vessel (135 vessels).
    The precise impacts of the IBQ Program are difficult to predict due 
to the variability of bluefin distribution as well as the potential 
range of fishing behaviors (and business strategies) of vessels in 
response to the new regulations. In order to reduce the likelihood of 
interactions, vessel operators may have to pursue new strategies 
including communication with other pelagic longline operators regarding 
the known locations of bluefin, modifications to fishing time, 
location, and technique, and use of alternative gears. In conjunction 
with these strategies, leasing additional quota may be necessary. The 
preferred IBQ Program includes the requirement that the relevant vessel 
have a permit as of August 21, 2013, which reduced the number of 
eligible vessels, and therefore will slightly increase the amount of 
quota share per vessel. Due to the difficulty of predicting the precise 
impacts of the preferred IBQ Program, NMFS may, as the fishery adjusts 
to the new system, need to consider providing additional quota to the 
Longline category in order to increase the amount of quota available to 
individual vessels, thereby balancing the need to have an operational 
fishery with the need to reduce bluefin bycatch in the fishery. During 
the preferred alternative's three-year formal review of the IBQ system, 
NMFS will consider any structural changes to the program necessary.
    The pelagic longline fishery is an incidental bluefin fishery 
unlike the directed General category handgear fishery, and retention 
limits and other management measures are different. The preferred 
alternatives in Amendment 7 would implement a regulatory system that 
would mitigate the effects of the different restrictions among the 
different permit categories.
    Comment 84: Some commenters urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of 
bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for multiple reasons. Equal 
shares would avoid the use of historical logbook data; would reduce 
potential negative feelings among permit holders with different amounts 
of allocation; and would provide higher quota allocations for some 
vessels than under the proposed method. Additionally, a commenter noted 
that it may not be necessary to consider the amount of target catch in 
the quota share formula (and provide more quota to vessels catching 
more target catch) because larger fishing operations are better 
equipped financially to adapt to new regulations. Another commenter 
supported basing the allocation on target species landings and fishing 
effort, because higher effort is likely to result in more bluefin 
catch.
    Response: NMFS carefully considered allocating quota shares on an 
equal basis, but prefers to implement the method as proposed, which 
will incorporate two metrics of equal weight: Designated species 
landings and the ratio of bluefin to designated species landings. While 
an equal share formula has some positive attributes, the overall merits 
of the preferred method would be greater. It is important to take into 
consideration the diversity of the pelagic longline fleet, maximize the 
potential for the success of the IBQ Program, and provide incentives 
for vessels to avoid bluefin tuna.
    NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline logbook data on target catch and 
bluefin interactions, and for most vessels, there is positive 
correlation between the amount of target catch, and the number of 
bluefin tuna interactions. For most vessels, the more swordfish, 
yellowfin tuna, or other target species a vessel catches, the more 
bluefin tuna it interacts with. However, a few vessels (those 
responsible for the largest number of interactions) interact with large 
numbers of bluefin out of proportion with the amount of their target 
catch. Considering this historic pattern, basing one of the allocation 
formula elements on the amount of designated species landings would 
increase the likelihood that vessels would be allocated quota in 
relation to the amount of quota they may need to account for their 
catch of bluefin.
    The second of the two elements (the ratio of bluefin interactions 
to designated species landings) is useful because it takes into 
consideration the fact that relatively few vessels (i.e., about fifteen 
percent of the vessels) are responsible for about 80 percent of the

[[Page 71565]]

interactions with bluefin tuna. Because the preferred allocation 
formula would result in a lower allocation for vessels with a higher 
rate of historic interactions, it will provide a strong incentive for 
such vessels to make changes in their fishing practices to reduce their 
number of bluefin interactions. Vessels with historically high catches 
of target species and a low rate of interactions with bluefin will 
receive a larger quota share than vessels with either higher rates of 
bluefin interactions or lower amounts of target species.
    Comment 87: Commenters expressed concern about whether vessel 
owners would be willing to lease quota to other vessels, given the low 
amounts of quota allocated to vessels, and concern about whether the 
cost of leasing will be affordable, especially for owners of small 
vessels. Other commenters did not support leasing because access to 
additional quota could enable vessels to target bluefin.
    Response: The analysis of the preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS 
indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25 percent of vessels will need to 
lease additional quota in order to land their historical average amount 
of designated species if they do not change their behavior to reduce 
their historical rate of bluefin interactions. Therefore, a majority of 
vessels may have quota in excess of what is needed to account for their 
bluefin catch, and may have incentive to lease quota to other vessels. 
Notwithstanding the analysis, there is uncertainty regarding both the 
amount and price of quota that may be leased. A well-functioning 
leasing market, which enables quota to be leased by those who need it, 
will be a key factor in whether the preferred IBQ Program functions as 
intended.
    Comment 92: Comments on NMFS' authority to close the pelagic 
longline fishery ranged from those who support closing the fishery in 
conjunction with a Longline category quota allocation of 8.1 percent, 
to those who said that the fishery should be closed only if there is 
unusually high catch of bluefin (and not when the quota is reached. 
Commenters noted the potential impacts of closures early in the year on 
the pelagic longline fishery, supporting businesses, consumers of the 
fish products, and future ICCAT recommendations.
    Response: A closure of the pelagic longline fishery may have 
adverse direct and secondary economic impacts, the severity of which 
will depend upon how early in the year the closure occurred. Under the 
preferred IBQ Program, in which individual vessels may not fish with 
pelagic longline gear unless they have quota, it is not likely that 
NMFS will be required to close the fishery as a whole. However, 
individual vessels will be prohibited from fishing if they have not 
accounted for their catch or do not have the required minimum amount of 
quota allocation to depart on a pelagic longline trip. If, based on the 
best available data, NMFS estimates that the total amount of dead 
discards and landings are projected to reach, have reached, or exceed 
the Longline category quota, NMFS may prohibit fishing with pelagic 
longline gear. Similarly, if there is high uncertainty regarding the 
estimated or documented levels of bluefin catch, NMFS may close the 
fishery to prevent overharvest of the Longline category quota, or 
prevent further discarding of bluefin.
    As described in many of the responses to comments, NMFS has 
designed Amendment 7 not only reduce dead discards and implement 
accountability, but also to provide flexibility for pelagic longline 
vessels fishing under the preferred IBQ Program restrictions, and 
flexibility in the quota system as a whole, to balance the needs of the 
pelagic longline fishery with the needs of the other quota categories.
    Comment 94: NMFS received comments that supported electronic 
monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear sensors), while other comments 
either expressed concern or opposed it. Comments supporting electronic 
monitoring indicated that it is not cost prohibitive, that it would 
allow NMFS to ground-truth other data, and that it supports 
accountability and enforcement. Those opposed to electronic monitoring 
said that it is cost prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and is 
redundant with existing information. Some comments expressed concern 
about the functionality of a system, considering the issues experienced 
with some VMS functionality, and the ability to identify the difference 
between bigeye and bluefin tuna using video cameras. Implementation 
using a pilot scale was suggested, which would allow time to set up a 
functioning infrastructure. Expansion of electronic monitoring to other 
categories with dead discards was also suggested.
    Response: The preferred measures would establish requirements to 
monitor dead discards for all commercial user categories to better 
achieve the ICCAT requirement to account for sources of bluefin tuna 
fishing mortality and to better monitor the fishery for bluefin 
accounting purposes domestically. The Purse seine category would be 
required to report dead discards via VMS, and hand gear fisheries 
(General, Harpoon, and Charter/headboat categories) would be required 
to report using an automated catch reporting system via internet or 
phone. Longline category vessels would be required to coordinate 
installation and maintain a video and gear electronic monitoring system 
that would record all catch and relevant data regarding pelagic 
longline gear deployment and retrieval. The purpose of video monitoring 
for the Longline category would be to provide a cost effective and 
reliable source of information to verify the accuracy of bluefin tuna 
interactions reported via VMS and logbooks. In many instances, the FEIS 
analysis found discrepancies between logbook data and observer data 
(considered to be highly accurate) reported for the same trip. The 
preferred electronic monitoring measure would support accurate catch 
data and the preferred bluefin tuna IBQ management measures, by 
providing a means to verify the accuracy of the counts and 
identification of bluefin reported by the vessel operator. The per-
vessel cost of this gear is expected to be approximately $19,175 for 
purchase and installation (including maintenance costs and loan 
interest), or $3,835 per year over the five-year life of the equipment. 
NMFS has been able to procure funding for the initial installation of 
these systems. Variable costs are approximately $225 per trip, 
including data retrieval, fishing activity interpretation, and catch 
data interpretation. These costs are lower than the cost of increased 
observer coverage. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center estimates 
that observer deployment costs approximately $1,075 per sea day, which 
equates to approximately $9,675 per average nine day pelagic longline 
trip.
    Video monitoring is currently used in several fisheries, and NMFS 
has funded over 30 pilot projects to further research on the use and 
effectiveness of electronic monitoring, including research on the 
accuracy of finfish identification. These studies provide evidence that 
properly deployed and maintained video monitoring camera systems 
provide effective data for accurately identifying large pelagic 
species. NMFS white papers on electronic monitoring are available at 
the following Web address: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS would take into 
account the time required for owners to outfit their vessels with newly 
required equipment when establishing the dates

[[Page 71566]]

of required effectiveness for electronic monitoring.
    Comment 99: NMFS received a comment that NMFS should consider the 
fact that transfers of quota under the measure that would provide more 
flexibility for General category quota transfers will have the effect 
of moving quota from the traditional Northeast fishery to the mid-
Atlantic and South; in other words that Alternative E1c will negatively 
impact Northeast fishermen. One commenter stated that NMFS should take 
no action on General category subquotas (Alternative E1a). Another 
commenter stated that NMFS should establish 12 equal monthly subquotas 
(Alternative E1b).
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the concerns that quota distribution 
may impact temporal fishing opportunities and considered these factors 
in selecting preferred alternatives. Note that current regulations do 
not preclude General category and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessels 
from traveling from one area to another. In fact, many vessels travel 
from the northeast and mid-Atlantic states to participate in the winter 
fishery that occurs largely off North Carolina. NMFS would continue to 
consider the regulatory determination criteria regarding inseason quota 
transfers in an attempt to balance reasonable opportunity to harvest 
quota with other considerations, including variations in bluefin 
distribution and availability, among others. The preferred alternative 
would provide additional fishing opportunities within the General 
category quota while acknowledging the traditional fishery. Division of 
the quota equally by month was not preferred because the potential 
negative social and economic impacts outweigh the positive impacts. The 
negative aspects of this alternative include the potential for gear 
conflicts and a derby fishery, as well as the potential for the 
historical geographic distribution of the fishery to be dramatically 
altered. Although this alternative would provide some stability to the 
fishery by establishing a known amount of quota that would be available 
at the first of each month, if catch rates are high in the early 
portion of the month, these quotas could be harvested rapidly and may 
lead to derby style fisheries on the first of each month. Additionally, 
if catch rates are high and subquotas are reached quickly, NMFS under 
this alternative may have to implement multiple closures notices 
throughout the year.
    Comment 101: NMFS received comments on allocating a portion of the 
trophy south subquota to the Gulf of Mexico (preferred Alternative 
E3b), including that NMFS should not reduce the trophy south subquota; 
the reduction would negatively affect charter captains in the mid-
Atlantic and South Atlantic areas; and that the change in allocation 
would increase landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Other commenters stated that NMFS should change the division of 
subquota, but not split the subquota equally between the southern area 
and the Gulf of Mexico; or that NMFS should allocate 10% or 17% of the 
trophy south subquota to the Gulf of Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council commented that NMFS should take no action on this 
issue (Alternative E3a) and that Alternative E3b would lead to an 
unreasonably small recreational bluefin trophy quota for the northern 
region.
    Response: Under the preferred alternative, the trophy subquota 
would be divided to provide 33 percent each to the northern area, the 
southern area outside the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. The 
objective of this alternative is to provide reasonable fishing 
opportunities for recreational vessels in the Atlantic and GOM, reduce 
discards, and account for incidentally caught bluefin. A separate 
subquota allocation for the GOM would improve the equity of the trophy-
sized fish allocation by increasing the likelihood that there would be 
trophy quota available to account for incidental catch of bluefin in 
that area (while still providing incentives not to target bluefin). An 
equal 33 percent division among the three areas would provide the most 
equitable trophy subquota allocation. This preferred measure would not 
affect the amount of Trophy subquota available to the northern area.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the 
Final Rule Will Apply

    Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires a description and estimate of 
the number of small entities to which the final rule would apply. This 
final rule is expected to directly affect commercial and for-hire 
fishing vessels that possess an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic HMS 
Charter/Headboat permit. In general, the HMS Charter/Headboat category 
permit holders can be regarded as small entities for RFA purposes. HMS 
Angling (Recreational) category permit holders are typically obtained 
by individuals who are not considered small entities for purposes of 
the RFA. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size 
criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish 
harvesters. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified as a 
``small business'' if it is independently owned and operated, is not 
dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has 
combined annual receipts (revenue) not in excess of $20.5 million for 
all its affiliated operations worldwide (NAICS code 114111, finfish 
fishing). NAICS is the North American Industry Classification System, a 
standard system used by business and government to classify business 
establishments into industries, according to their economic activity. 
The United States government developed NAICS to collect, analyze, and 
publish data about the economy. In addition, the SBA has defined a 
small charter/party boat entity (NAICS code 487210, for-hire) as one 
with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $7.5 million. The 
SBA recently modified its definitions of small businesses, and 
therefore the definitions were slightly different between the proposed 
and final rules (79 FR 33647; June 12, 2014).
    The average annual revenue per active pelagic longline vessel is 
estimated to be $187,000 based on the 170 active vessels between 2006 
and 2012 that produced an estimated $31.8 million in revenue annually. 
The maximum annual revenue for any pelagic longline vessel during that 
time period was less than $1.4 million, well below the SBA size 
threshold of $20.5 million in combined annual receipts. Therefore, NMFS 
considers all Tuna Longline category permit holders to be small 
entities. NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic Tunas category permit 
holders that potentially could earn more than $20.5 million in revenue 
annually. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas permit holders 
subject to this action to be considered small entities. NMFS is also 
unaware of any charter/headboat businesses that could exceed the SBA 
receipt/revenue thresholds for small entities.
    The preferred alternatives would apply to the 4,059 Atlantic Tunas 
permit holders based on an analysis of permit holders in October 2013 
(NMFS 2014). Of these permit holders, 252 have Longline category 
permits, 14 have Harpoon category permits, 7 have Trap category 
permits, 5 have Purse Seine category participants, and 3,783 have 
General category permits. The preferred alternatives would also impact 
HMS Angling category and HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders. 
In 2013, 3,968 vessel owners obtained HMS Charter/Headboat category 
permits. It is unknown what portion of these permit holders actively 
participate in Atlantic HMS fishing or fishing services for 
recreational anglers. NMFS

[[Page 71567]]

has determined that the preferred alternatives would not likely 
directly affect any small government jurisdictions defined under RFA. 
More information regarding the description of the fisheries affected, 
and the categories and number of permit holders, can be found in 
Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Description of Projected Reporting and Record-Keeping Requirements

    Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires a description of the 
projected reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements 
of the final rule, including an estimate of the classes of small 
entities which would be subject to the requirements of the report or 
record. Several Amendment 7 measures include reporting, record-keeping, 
and compliance requirements that require a new Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) filing, and some of the preferred alternatives would modify 
existing reporting and record-keeping requirements, and add compliance 
requirements. NMFS estimates that the number small entities that would 
be subject to these requirements would include the Longline category 
(252), Charter/Headboat category (3,968), General category (3,783), 
Harpoon category (14) and Purse Seine category (3), based on the number 
of permit holders in commercial bluefin tuna fishing categories in 
2013. The following section describes the projected reporting, record-
keeping and other compliance requirements of the final rule as 
required.

Area-Based Alternatives

    Currently, pelagic longline vessels must have agency approved E-MTU 
VMS units installed and must use them to hail in and out of port prior 
to and at the end of a fishing trip. The Area-based preferred 
alternative that would grant conditional access (based on performance 
metric criteria) to the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA (Alternative B 1d) 
would require that pelagic longline vessels authorized to fish in the 
area also submit daily reports to NMFS via E-MTU VMS summarizing their 
fishing effort and bluefin tuna catch and harvest. This is a slightly 
modification of the preferred alternative in the DEIS and in the 
proposed rule, but it has the same additional reporting burden, which 
is expected to take five minutes per report/day at a cost of $0.12 per 
report. This data will allow NMFS to determine whether continued access 
to the areas is warranted based on bluefin tuna interaction rates, 
among other things.
    NMFS would calculate performance metrics for each pelagic longline 
vessel to determine whether they qualify to gain access to the Cape 
Hatteras GRA. These metrics would be based on the vessel's historical 
catch and reporting compliance. Pelagic longline permit holders would 
be permitted to appeal their performance metrics by submitting a 
written request, indicating the reason for the appeal, and providing 
supporting documentation (e.g., copies of landings records, permit 
ownership, etc.). Each appeal request is expected to take approximately 
two hours to compile.

Quota Control Alternatives

    The preferred alternatives for bluefin tuna quota controls include 
several reporting requirements necessary to implement IBQs for pelagic 
longline vessels. Some of these requirements are also addressed under 
the alternatives in other sections of this document.
    The alternatives in this section include options for assigning IBQ 
shares. Preferred alternative C2j would implement a process for 
individuals to appeal their IBQ share. Individuals would be required to 
submit a written request for an appeal, and include the reason for 
appeal and supporting documentation. The reporting burden associated 
with each appeal, those submitted to the HMS Management Division or to 
the National Appeals Office, are expected to be approximately two 
hours.
    Preferred alternative C2c2 would authorize transfer of quota among 
eligible Atlantic tunas Longline permit holders and Purse Seine 
category participants. To support tracking of IBQ transfers among IBQ 
participants and establish a tracking system for purchase of bluefin 
tuna under the IBQ System, preferred alternative C2e1 would require IBQ 
participants to track and execute transfers of IBQ allocation via the 
IBQ System. To access the IBQ System eligible users must be able to 
access the system electronically. IBQ System users will need some basic 
computer and Internet skills to input information for bluefin tuna 
trade into the IBQ System. The record-keeping and reporting burden for 
permit holders is expected to be approximately 15 minutes per trade. 
The IBQ System will also require interaction with federal bluefin tuna 
dealer permit holders that purchase bluefin from pelagic long line 
vessels; however, electronic dealer reporting for bluefin tuna 
purchases was previously analyzed and approved by NMFS in the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP rulemaking (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) and thus 
the rule effectively does not impose a new requirement for dealers in 
this category. An IBQ System for bluefin demands a high degree of 
accountability for providing accurate data on catch and harvest. 
Preferred alternative C2g2 (same as D2b) would require pelagic longline 
vessels to install an electronic monitoring system, including video 
cameras and associated recording and monitoring equipment, in order to 
record all longline catch and relevant data regarding pelagic longline 
gear deployment and retrieval. Data collected during each fishing trip 
would be required to be provided to NMFS, within a specified time frame 
after each trip. This alternative would require both fixed and variable 
costs over the service life of each camera installed onboard. The per-
vessel cost of this gear is expected to be approximately $19,175 for 
purchase and installation (including maintenance costs and loan 
interest), or $3,835 per year over the five-year life of the equipment. 
NMFS has been able to procure funding for the initial installation of 
these systems. Variable costs are approximately $225 per trip, 
including data retrieval, fishing activity interpretation, and catch 
data interpretation.
    Preferred alternative C2g1 (same as D1b) would require pelagic 
longline vessels to use their E-MTU VMS to submit daily reports of 
bluefin tuna catch and harvest and fishing effort. Purse seine vessels 
would be required to purchase and install E-MTU VMS units, and submit 
daily reports of catch, harvest, and effort as well. This alternative 
would provide more timely data as required by the IBQ system than the 
current pelagic longline logbook program and dealer reporting 
requirements. As noted above, the additional reporting burden for the 
VMS reports is 5 minutes per report/day and $0.12 per report. The cost 
of installing E-MTU VMS is $3,300 per vessel and daily position reports 
cost approximately $1.44 per day.
    Several alternatives include additional compliance requirements 
without additional reporting. Preferred alternative C21.2b would 
require mandatory retention of all legal-sized dead bluefin tuna caught 
on pelagic longline gear. Preferred alternative C4b would allow NMFS to 
prohibit fishing using pelagic longline gear once the bluefin tuna 
quota is reached. Conversely, preferred alternative C21.1b would 
relieve certain compliance requirements by repealing target catch 
requirements for pelagic longline vessels.
    Lastly, one of the preferred alternatives would have an additional 
reporting requirement, but would occur via a future action under 
separate rulemaking. As required by the MSA, a cost recovery program 
for management

[[Page 71568]]

and enforcement costs associated with the preferred IBQ Program 
(Preferred alternative C2i) will be addressed via a subsequent 
regulatory action, at which time NMFS will update/modify current 
record-keeping and compliance requirements. This action may require new 
PRA filings, but does not at this time.

Enhanced Reporting Measures

    Several preferred alternatives are identified as measures to 
enhance reporting for bluefin tuna. Three of these include the VMS 
requirements (C2g1 and D1b), and electronic monitoring of the Longline 
category (C2g2 and D2b), discussed above. The last is the preferred 
alternative to require automated catch reporting for General, Harpoon, 
and Charter/Headboat permit categories (D3b). This alternative would 
require individuals with those vessel permits to report their catch 
(i.e., landings and discards) after each trip using an automated system 
such as a Web site or phone recording system. NMFS estimates that each 
report will take approximately 5 minutes. Based on previous years' 
landings, NMFS estimates that the total annual reporting burden will be 
approximately 607 hours and could affect approximately 8,226 permit 
holders.

Other Measures

    The other measures implemented by this rule would not increase 
reporting or compliance requirements.

Description of Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impacts of 
This Action

    Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires a description of the steps 
NMFS has taken to minimize the significant economic impacts on small 
entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, 
including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for 
selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and the reason that 
each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered 
by the Agency which affected small entities was rejected. The impacts 
NMFS has identified and the steps NMFS has taken to minimize them are 
discussed below and in the FEIS. One of the requirements of an FRFA is 
to describe any alternatives to the preferred alternatives which 
accomplish the stated objectives and which minimize any significant 
economic impacts. These impacts and the steps taken to minimize them 
are discussed below and in Chapters 4 and 5 of the FEIS. Additionally, 
the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four general categories of 
``significant'' alternatives that would assist an agency in the 
development of significant alternatives. These categories of 
alternatives 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 of the rule for small entities.
    In order to meet the objectives of this Amendment, consistent with 
all legal requirements, NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the 
reporting requirements only for small entities because all the entities 
affected are considered small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives 
discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described 
above. Under the third category, ``use of performance rather than 
design standards,'' NMFS considers Alternative B 1c ``Cape Hatteras 
Gear Restricted Area with Access based on Performance'', Alternative B 
1d ``Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear Restricted Area with 
Access Based on Performance'', Alternative C 2 ``IBQs Based on 
Designated Species Landings and the Ratio of Bluefin Catch to 
Designated Species Landings'', and B 3b ``Limited Conditional Access to 
Closed Areas using Pelagic Longline Gear Based on Performance 
Criteria'' to all be alternatives that use performance standards. As 
described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives and 
provides the rationale for identifying the preferred alternatives to 
achieve the desired objective.
    NMFS considered five different categories of potential bluefin 
management measures, each with its own range of alternatives that would 
meet the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP. The first category, allocation alternatives, 
covers four main alternatives that address various quota reallocation 
strategies. The second category of alternatives, area based 
alternatives, explores various gear restricted areas, gear measures, 
and access to closed areas using pelagic longline gear. The third 
category of alternatives, bluefin tuna quota controls, covers four main 
alternatives, which include IBQs, regional and group quotas, and 
closure of the pelagic longline fishery. The fourth category of 
alternatives, enhanced reporting measures, covers six main 
alternatives, which include VMS requirements, electronic monitoring of 
the Longline category, automated catch reporting, deployment of 
observers, logbook requirements, and expanding the scope of the Large 
Pelagics Survey. The fifth category of alternatives, other measures, 
covers seven main alternatives that address other Tunas permit 
categories besides Longline and other tuna quotas. The expected 
economic impacts of the different alternatives considered and analyzed 
are discussed below.
    The potential impacts that these alternatives may have on small 
entities have been analyzed and are discussed in the following 
sections. The economic impacts that would occur under these preferred 
alternatives were compared with the other alternatives to discuss how 
the economic impacts to small entities were minimized while still 
accomplishing the stated objectives of this rule.

Allocation Alternatives

    These alternatives would either modify the base allocations 
(percentages of the U.S. quota designated to particular for bluefin 
quota categories) and remain the same until and if changed by future 
amendment, or would set up a regulatory mechanism for modifying the 
quotas annually or in certain years based on defined criteria.
Alternative A 1--No Action
    The No Action alternative would make no changes to the current 
percentages that each quota category is allocated (General: 47.1 
percent; Harpoon: 3.9 percent; Purse Seine: 18.6 percent; Longline: 8.1 
percent; Trap: 0.1 percent; Angling: 19.7 percent; Reserve: 2.5 
percent). Dead discards would continue to be accounted for separately 
from the quota allocations through the annual specification process.
    In the short-term, minor to moderate direct adverse economic 
impacts are likely to be limited to the Longline category due to quota 
shortages. In 2012, NMFS projected that the Longline category was 
likely to fully harvest their allocated quota before the end of the 
fishing year, and closed the southern area on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 
31546) and the northern area on June 30, 2012 (77 FR 38011, June 26, 
2012). In 2013, the Longline category northern and southern areas were 
closed on June 25 (78 FR 36685) because the adjusted quota had been 
reached. In the long-term, there could be additional minor to moderate 
direct adverse economic impacts if other quota categories are closed 
early in the fishing year.

[[Page 71569]]

Alternative A 2--Codified Reallocation
    The Codified reallocation alternative (Preferred) would reallocate 
quota and result in increased bluefin quota for the Longline category, 
and would therefore alleviate some of the current challenges associated 
with the domestic quota system.
    This alternative would codify a quota category increase of 62.5 mt 
whole weight to the Longline category reflecting the historical 68 mt 
dead discard allowance and the current allocation percentages. All of 
the categories, including the Longline category, would contribute to 
the 68 mt historical allowance, with a net increase of 62.5 to the 
Longline category after its share of the deduction, (i.e., based on the 
current 8.1 percent allocation, the Longline category portion of the 68 
mt is 5.5 mt; 68 mt-5.5 mt equals 62.5 mt, hence an increase of 62.5 
mt. This alternative results in a net increase of 62.5 mt for the 
Longline category, which would increase the potential revenue from 
bluefin for the Longline category by approximately $11,269 per permit 
holder per year. The General category would face a potential reduction 
in the maximum revenue from bluefin of approximately $850 per permit 
holder per year. The Harpoon category would face a potential reduction 
in the maximum revenue from bluefin of approximately $2,409 per permit 
holder per year. The Purse Seine category could face a potential 
reduction in the maximum revenue from bluefin of approximately $107,627 
per permit holder per year. Although the magnitude of revenue loss 
appears to be high for the Purse Seine category, this alternative 
actually would likely have minor adverse economic impacts on Purse 
Seine fishermen since landings in this category have recently been very 
low. This alternative minimizes economic impacts by reallocating only a 
relatively small portion of each category's quota to the Longline 
category.
    Alternative A 2b (Reallocation Incorporating Recent Catch Data) 
would revise the quota allocation percentages for all categories, 
basing the new allocation on both the current codified allocation (50%) 
and recent catch (50%) as applicable to each quota category. 
Reallocating the quota based on recent catch data would result in a 
83.56% increase in the Longline category quota and an increase for the 
Angling category of 47.1%. However, this reallocation alternative would 
result in a decrease in the quotas of the General, Harpoon, Purse 
Seine, Trap, and Reserve categories of 10.85%, 15.56%, 49.01%, 55.56%, 
and 48.05%, respectively. Revising the quota allocations for all 
categories to reflect recent catch would increase the potential revenue 
from bluefin for the Longline category by approximately $11,305 per 
permit holder per year. The General category could face a potential 
reduction in the maximum revenue from bluefin of approximately $1,254 
per permit holder per year. The Harpoon category could face a potential 
reduction in the maximum revenue from bluefin of approximately $4,996 
per permit holder per year. The Purse Seine category could face a 
potential reduction in the maximum revenue from bluefin of 
approximately $713,558 per permit holder per year.
    Alternative A 2c (Reallocation from Purse Seine to Longline 
Category) would reallocate two-fifths (40 percent) of the current Purse 
Seine category quota to the Longline category and would result in 
91.84% increase in the Longline category quota and a decrease the Purse 
Seine quota by 39.99%. The permanent reallocation of two-fifths of the 
Purse Seine category to the Longline category would increase the 
potential revenue from bluefin for the Longline category by 
approximately $12,387 per permit holder per year. The Purse Seine 
category could face a potential reduction in the maximum revenue from 
bluefin of an equivalent $582,202 per permit holder per year. The other 
bluefin quota categories would not be impacted by this alternative.
Alternative A 3--Annual Reallocation of Bluefin Quota From Purse Seine 
Category
    Annual reallocation Alternatives A 3a and A 3b would reallocate 
anticipated unused quota from the Purse Seine category to other quota 
categories or would allocate to the Purse Seine category in proportion 
to the number of permitted vessels (respectively).
    Under alternative A 3a, the preferred alternative, 25 percent of 
the Purse Seine category bluefin quota would be guaranteed to be 
available to the five historically permitted fishery participants 
(permit holders) in that category, but beyond that, the bluefin quota 
would be based on the previous year's landings and dead discards. Based 
on a formula, quota may be reallocated from the Purse Seine category to 
the Reserve category annually. The allocation formula is designed to 
allocate a minimum level of quota to permitted fishery participants, as 
well as enable quota to increase over successive years, in order to 
avoid being too restrictive. Note that NMFS would still have the 
regulatory authority to transfer quota inseason to or from any fishing 
category to or from the Reserve, and could continue to transfer any 
amount of quota inseason, even if purse seine vessels receive the 
minimum amount of quota (25 percent) at the start of the season. In 
recent years, little of the Purse Seine category quota has been landed. 
If that continues into the future, under alternative A 3a, the Purse 
Seine quota could be reduced by 75 percent. The 23.8 mt associated with 
that reduction would reduce the maximum revenue from bluefin that the 
purse seine vessel could land by $403,000 annually. However, given the 
recent bluefin landings history of the purse seine fleet, it is 
unlikely that future bluefin landings would be constrained 
substantially by this reduction and allocations would be re-evaluated 
on an annual basis. Therefore, alternative A 3a would likely only 
result in minor direct adverse short-term economic impacts to permitted 
Purse Seine vessels. Other categories would benefit from the potential 
of increased revenue, and this alternative would increase 
predictability in the fishery. This alternative minimizes economic 
impacts by providing a means to optimize quota utilization and account 
for dead discards, enhance quota flexibility in a predictable manner, 
as well incorporate a system for Purse Seine fishery participants to be 
allocated their total base quota percentage if they are consistently 
active in the fishery.
    Under alternative A 3b (Annual Purse Seine Allocation Commensurate 
with the Number of Purse Seine Vessels), NMFS would make Purse Seine 
category quota available annually to that category based on the number 
of active Purse Seine vessels and would reallocate the remainder to the 
Reserve category. An active Purse Seine vessel would be defined as a 
vessel with a valid Purse Seine category permit, which has requested 
and received an allocation in accordance with the regulations (Sec.  
635.27(a)(4)), and is capable of fishing purse seine gear (defined at 
Sec.  635.21(e)(vi)) to harvest Atlantic bluefin tuna. The net result 
would be that only those Purse Seine category permit holders with 
active vessels would receive Purse Seine quota, and individually they 
would be allocated one fifth of the overall Purse Seine base quota, 
acknowledging the preferred codified allocation alternative 
(Alternative A 2a), under which the Purse Seine base quota would be 
159.1 mt. The economic impacts of this alternative would be similar to 
those under alternative A 3a. Alternative A 3b would also likely only 
result in minor

[[Page 71570]]

direct adverse short-term economic impacts resulting from the loss of 
potential revenue if current bluefin fishing levels remain the same.
Alternative A 4--Modifications to Reserve Category
    Under the alternative A 4a, the No Action alternative, there would 
be no changes to the allocation to the Reserve category or the 
determination criteria that are considered prior to making any 
adjustments to/from this category. This alternative would not impact 
small entities. The Reserve category would be allocated the current 2.5 
percent of the U.S. annual quota, and NMFS could allocate any portion 
of the Reserve category quota for inseason or annual adjustments to any 
other quota category provided NMFS considered the current determination 
criteria and other relevant factors first.
    Alternative A 4b (Modify Reserve Category), the preferred 
alternative, would increase the amount of quota that may be put into 
the Reserve category from several sources and expand the potential uses 
of Reserve category quota. Specifically, it would potentially increase 
the Reserve category quota beyond the current baseline allocation of 
2.5 percent and broaden the determination criteria to be considered in 
making adjustments to/from the Reserve category. This could result in 
moderate beneficial economic impacts if unused quota from a previous 
year could be reallocated to the Reserve category to potentially offset 
any overharvests in another category, consistent with ICCAT 
recommendations on carry-forward of unharvested quota.

Area Based Alternatives

Alternative B 1--Gear Restricted Areas
    Under alternative B 1, NMFS considered a range of GRA alternatives 
from maintaining existing pelagic longline closures (the no action 
alternative) to a year-round GRA of the entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ (west 
of 82[deg] longitude) in order to reduce interactions with bluefin 
tuna.
    Alternative B 1a, the No Action Alternative, would result in the 
status quo regarding GRAss. Although the current pelagic longline 
closed areas would remain effective, the data indicate that large 
numbers of interactions of pelagic longline gear with bluefin occur in 
consistent areas during predictable time periods, which are outside of 
the current closed areas. The No Action alternative would therefore not 
reduce dead discards. The magnitude of the discards in the pelagic 
longline fishery is likely to stay the same or increase under the No 
Action alternative, without implementation of a new GRA. This could 
result in moderate long-term adverse economic impacts when the Longline 
category exceeds its quota earlier in the fishing year because of dead 
discards and is required to shut down.
    Alternative B 1b would define a modified rectangular area off Cape 
Hatteras, North Carolina, and prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear 
in that area annually during the five-month period from December 
through April. Other gear types authorized for use by pelagic longline 
vessels, such as buoy gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel, would be 
allowed. This region off North Carolina contains seasonally consistent 
concentrations of bluefin and catches by the pelagic longline fleet. 
Logbook and observer data indicate that historically there have been 
relatively high catches and catch rates of bluefin by pelagic longline 
vessels in this region. The specific time and area of the Cape Hatteras 
GRA represents a time and area combination likely to result in reduced 
bluefin interactions based on past patterns of interactions. This 
alternative is expected to have moderate short and long-term direct 
adverse economic impacts on 50 vessels that have historically fished in 
the Cape Hatteras GRA during the months of December through April. The 
average annual revenue per vessel made in the gear restricted area is 
approximately $28,000 annually during the restricted months assuming 
that fishing effort does not move to other areas. However, it is likely 
that some of the vessels that would be impacted by this gear restricted 
area would be able to redistribute their effort to other fishing areas. 
NMFS estimated that if a vessel historically made less than 40 percent 
of their sets in the GRA, it would likely redistribute all of its 
effort. If a vessel made more than 40 percent, but less than 75 percent 
of its sets in the GRA, it would likely redistribute 50 percent of its 
effort impacted by the gear restricted area to other areas. Finally, if 
a vessel made more than 75 percent of its sets solely within the gear 
restricted area, NMFS assumed it would not likely shift its effort to 
other areas. Based on these redistribution assumptions, the net impact 
of the Cape Hatteras GRA on fishing revenues after redistribution of 
effort is estimated to be $17,900 per year.
    Under Alternative B 1c (Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA with 
Access based on Performance), NMFS would annually review pelagic 
longline vessel performance using three performance metrics, and based 
on that review, authorize some vessels fishing with pelagic longline 
gear to have access to the Cape Hatteras GRA. As described in more 
detail in Chapter 2, the performance metrics are: (1) Level of bluefin 
interactions/avoidance; (2) observer program participation; and (3) 
logbook submissions. NMFS would notify vessel owners by mail whether or 
not they are authorized to fish in the area. This alternative would use 
the same area off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, as in Alternative B 
1b, and would define criteria for access by HMS permitted vessels 
fishing with pelagic longline gear during the five-month period from 
December through April. Vessels that are determined by NMFS to have a 
relatively low rate of interactions with bluefin based on past 
performance, and that comply with reporting and monitoring requirements 
would be allowed to fish in the area using pelagic longline gear. 
Vessels that have not demonstrated their ability to avoid bluefin would 
not be allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear in this area; or if a 
vessel has demonstrated its ability to avoid bluefin, but has had poor 
record of compliance with reporting and monitoring requirements, it 
would not be allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear in this area 
from December through April. Individual vessel data would be evaluated 
annually for the purpose of determining access, and results would be 
communicated to the individual permit holders via a permit holder 
letter. This evaluation would be based on the most recent complete 
information available in order to provide future opportunities and 
accommodate changes in fishing behavior, both positively and 
negatively, based on performance.
    Based on the proposed performance criteria, NMFS determined that, 
of 161 active vessels in the entire pelagic longline fleet, 50 vessels 
fished in the Cape Hatteras GRA or buffer region. Of these 50 active 
vessels, 16 vessels that fished in the Cape Hatteras GRA or buffer 
region did not meet the criteria for access based on their inability to 
avoid bluefin tuna, and/or compliance with POP observer and logbook 
reporting requirements. The average annual revenue made in the GRA by 
these 16 vessels is approximately $29,000 per vessel during the 
restricted months. However, it is likely that some of the vessels that 
would be impacted by this gear restricted area would be able to 
redistribute their effort to other fishing areas. The net impact of 
Alternative B 1c on fishing revenues after redistribution of effort is 
estimated

[[Page 71571]]

to be $19,000 per vessel per year for those 16 vessels.
    Alternative B 1d (Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA with 
Access Based on Performance; Preferred), would delineate a gear 
restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina and prohibit the use 
of pelagic longline gear in the area annually during the five-month 
period from December through April. Access to the GRA would be 
evaluated annually for each permitted vessel in the pelagic longline 
fleet using the same performance metrics discussed under Alternative B 
1c.
    NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA for the months of December 
through April during which time vessels would be prohibited from 
fishing with pelagic longline gear in the defined area, with the 
exception of vessels granted access based upon performance criteria. 
Based on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed the spatial and temporal 
configurations of the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead is implementing a 
modified gear restricted area during the same months (December through 
April), but of a slightly different configuration than proposed. The 
total area of the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented is 
smaller than that of the proposed Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, 
due to the modification of the southeastern region of the GRA. 
Specifically, the southeastern corner as proposed was a ninety degree 
angle, but this final rule connects the southwestern corner to a more 
northerly point on the eastern boundary of the Cape Hatteras GRA, 
eliminating a triangular shaped area from the southeast region of the 
Gear Restricted Area. The shape of the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA as 
implemented will minimize the likelihood that pelagic longline gear set 
south of the GRA will drift into the GRA due to the prevailing 
direction of currents. As a result of these analyses, and 
considerations, NMFS has modified the preferred alternative to a gear 
restricted area during the same months (December through April), but 
with a slightly different configuration.
    NMFS determined that only 14 vessels that fished in the Modified 
Cape Hatteras GRA would not meet the criteria for access based on their 
inability to avoid bluefin tuna, and/or compliance with POP observer 
and logbook reporting requirements. The average annual revenue from 
fishing sets made in the GRA by these 14 vessels is approximately 
$22,000 per vessel during the restricted months based on past fishing 
patterns from 2006-2012. However, it is likely that some of the vessels 
that would be impacted by this alternative's implementation of the GRA 
would redistribute their effort to other fishing areas. The net impact 
of Alternative B 1d on fishing revenues after redistribution of effort 
is estimated to be $15,000 per vessel per year for those 14 vessels.
    This alternative is as effective at reducing dead discards as the 
originally-proposed Cape Hatteras GRA but it minimizes economic impacts 
to the extent practicable, consistent with the objectives of Amendment 
7. The modified alternative thereby strikes a better balance between 
reducing dead discards of bluefin and continued operation of the 
pelagic longline fleet in the Atlantic. Therefore, NMFS prefers this 
modification (i.e., shaving off the southeast corner of the restricted 
area) to balance environmental, ecological, and economic impacts of the 
alternative. This alternative minimizes economic impacts by providing 
access to vessels if certain parameters are met and because the time 
and area of the GRA were set based on consideration of bluefin 
interactions as well as economic impacts in order to optimize the 
design to achieve the objectives.
    Alternative B 1e would allow vessels with an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline permit to fish under the rules/regulations applicable to the 
General category as they pertain to targeting bluefin using non pelagic 
longline-gear (gear authorized under the General category, including 
rod and reel, handline, harpoon, etc.), in the area defined as the Cape 
Hatteras GRA during the time of the restriction (December through 
April), when the General category fishery is open. The bluefin landed 
with authorized handgear would be counted against the General category 
quota. The amount of bluefin landings allowed under this alternative 
would be limited by the available General category subquotas for 
December and for January. Alternative B 1d would result in short-term, 
direct, minor, beneficial economic impacts for Longline category 
fishermen that otherwise would not be able to fish for bluefin in the 
Cape Hatteras GRA. It would result in short-term, direct, minor, 
adverse economic impacts for General category participants to the 
extent that any Longline category vessel landings of bluefin under 
General category rules results in the available subquota being met 
earlier than it would otherwise. A loss or gain of one fish is 
approximately $3,500. If a Longline category vessel chooses to fish 
with General category gear in the Cape Hatteras GRA versus outside the 
area with pelagic longline gear, the ability to land and sell bigeye, 
albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack from that area would result in short-
term, direct, minor, beneficial economic impacts, although 
substantially less so than continuing to use longline gear, which 
accounts for a much larger proportion of catch of bigeye, albacore, and 
yellowfin tuna than does handgear. If other alternatives, such as 
annual reallocation from the Purse Seine category (A3a) or providing 
additional flexibility for General category quota adjustment (E1c) are 
implemented, adverse economic impacts for General category participants 
may be reduced.
    Alternative B 1f would prohibit the use of pelagic longline gears 
in the GOM for 3 months each year. This alternative is expected to have 
moderate short and long-term direct adverse economic impacts on 69 
vessels that have historically fished in the GOM EEZ during the months 
of March through May. The average annual revenue from fishing sets made 
in the GRA is approximately $26,000 per vessel during the closure 
months. Based on historical fishing patterns of vessels that fish in 
the OM, it is unlikely that effort will be redistributed into areas 
outside of this region.
    Alternative B 1g would define a rectangular area in the GOM and 
prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear during the two-month period 
from April through May. NMFS tailored the Small GOM GRA to maximize the 
reductions in bluefin interactions while minimizing the area where 
pelagic longline gear use is restricted. This alternative is expected 
to have moderate short- and long-term direct adverse economic impacts 
on 36 vessels that have historically fished in the Small Gulf of Mexico 
GRA during April and May. The average annual revenue from fishing sets 
made in the GRA is approximately $7,500 per vessel during the 
restricted months. However, it is likely that some of the vessels that 
would be impacted by this gear restricted area would be able to 
redistribute their effort to other fishing areas within the GOM. The 
net impact of the Small GOM GRA on fishing revenues after 
redistribution of effort is estimated to be $2,600 per vessel per year.
    Alternative B 1h would prohibit the use of pelagic longlines in the 
same area as in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA (i.e., anywhere in the Gulf 
of Mexico), year-round. This alternative is expected to have moderate 
short- and long-term direct adverse economic impacts on 75 vessels that 
have historically fished in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. The average annual 
revenue from fishing in the GRA is approximately $102,000 per vessel.

[[Page 71572]]

    Alternative B 1i, a preferred alternative, would establish modified 
GRAs in the central GOM that would prohibit the use of pelagic 
longlines from April through May. This alternative is based upon public 
comments on the Small GOM GRA, which was the preferred alternative in 
the DEIS. The total area of the Modified Spring GOM GRA is larger than 
that of the Small GOM GRA. The Spring Gulf of MexicoGRAs are comprised 
of two separate areas: An area based on the Small GOM GRA preferred in 
the DEIS, but extended to the east and reduced in size on the western 
and northern borders, and a second area that is adjacent to the 
southern border of the Desoto Canyon Closed Area's northwestern 
`block.' NMFS will also conduct a three-year review to determine the 
effectiveness of the Modified Spring GOMGRAs during the review of the 
IBA program and will consider any changes at that time as appropriate. 
This alternative is expected to have moderate short and long-term 
direct adverse economic impacts on 49 vessels that have historically 
fished in the Modified Spring GOM GRAs during April and May. The 
average annual revenue from fishing sets made in the gear restricted 
area is approximately $11,000 per vessel during the restricted months. 
However, it is likely that some of the vessels impacted by these GRAs 
would be able to redistribute their effort to other fishing areas 
within the GOMand therefore reduce any losses. The net impact of the 
Modified Spring GOM GRAs on fishing revenues after redistribution of 
effort is estimated to be $5,700 per vessel per year. The economic 
impacts of this alternative were minimized through the iterative design 
of the GRA. NMFS carefully evaluated the costs and benefits associated 
with this GRA, and determined that the specific time and area achieves 
a balance between a reduction in bluefin dead discards, protection of 
the GOM Spawning stock, and continued operation of the pelagic longline 
fleet in the GOM.
    Alternative B 1j, a preferred alternative, would allow HMS vessels 
that possess bottom or pelagic longline gear on board to transit the 
closed areas and GRAs if they remove and stow the gangions, hooks, and 
buoys from the mainline and drum. The hooks would not be allowed to be 
baited. Allowing pelagic and bottom longline vessels to transit closed 
and GRAs after removing and stowing gear would result in direct short- 
and long-term beneficial economic impacts by potentially reducing fuel 
costs and time at sea for vessels that need to transit the closed or 
restricted areas. Allowing transit through these areas could also 
potentially improve safety at sea by allowing more direct transit 
routes and reducing transit time, particularly during inclement 
weather. More direct transit routes and reduced transiting time 
minimize economic impacts of the closed and restricted areas.
Alternative B 2--Gear Measures
    Alternative B 2a, the preferred No Action alternative, would not 
change current authorized gear requirements (with respect to the use of 
buoy gear and associated restrictions on possession of bigeye, 
albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas (BAYS) and bluefin) applicable 
to those vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit and 
either a Swordfish Directed or Swordfish Incidental permit. Currently, 
vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit must also have 
both a Swordfish Directed or Incidental permit, and a Shark Directed or 
Incidental permit. There are no economic impacts associated with this 
``no action'' alternative. Alternative B 2b would authorize vessels 
with a Swordfish Incidental permit to fish with buoy gear, except 
vessels fishing in the East Florida Coast Pelagic Longline Closed Area. 
Under this alternative, vessels would still be limited to 35 buoys. The 
rationale for this alternative is to provide increased flexibility and 
encouragement for pelagic longline vessels to utilize gears other than 
pelagic longline to maintain and enhance fishing opportunities. This 
would result in short- and long-term direct beneficial economic impacts 
by providing greater flexibility in the gear type that can be used and 
also by reducing the need to acquire a different permit to use buoy 
gear. Alternative B 2c would allow vessels with an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit and the Swordfish Directed or Incidental 
permit to retain BAYS and bluefin when fishing with buoy gear. The 
rationale for this alternative is the same as for Alternative B 2b: To 
provide increased flexibility and encouragement for pelagic longline 
vessels to utilize gears other than pelagic longline to maintain and 
enhance fishing opportunities in the context of new restrictions that 
may be implemented by Amendment 7. This alternative would result in 
short- and long-term direct beneficial economic impacts by increase the 
potential revenue opportunities by allowing additional species to be 
landed when using buoy gear, reducing costs associated with discarding, 
and reducing the costs associated with the potential need to acquire 
different permits while fishing with buoy gear. This alternative would 
have no effect on vessels with a Swordfish Incidental permit, unless 
Alternative B 2b is adopted. Without Alternative B 2b, this alternative 
would provide additional flexibility for vessels with a Swordfish 
Directed permit and an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit.
Alternative B 3--Access to Closed Areas Using Pelagic Longline Gear
    Alternative B 3a, the preferred No Action alternative, would 
maintain the current regulations that do not allow vessels to enter a 
closed area with pelagic longline gear during the time of the closure, 
unless issued an Exempted Fishing Permit. It would not result in any 
further costs to small entities.
    Alternative B 3b would allow restricted and conditional access to 
the following closed areas: Charleston Bump closed area (February 
through April), a portion of the East Florida Coast closed area (year-
round), the DeSoto Canyon closed area (year-round), and the 
Northeastern U.S. closed area (June). All trips into any of the 
eligible pelagic longline closed areas would be required to be 
observed. Current NMFS Pelagic Observer Program vessel selection 
procedures would be used to select vessels using the current strata 
(i.e., the procedures that select vessels to obtain observer coverage 
each calendar quarter, and deploy in each of various geographic 
(statistical) areas). If selected, a vessel would be informed of the 
statistical area for which the vessel was selected, and the vessel 
would be allowed to fish within the eligible pelagic longline closed 
area provided it is within that particular statistical area and that an 
observer is onboard. The scope of the alternative and its effects would 
depend upon the level of observer coverage. Currently, eight percent of 
fishing effort is covered by observers and funded wholly by NMFS. Due 
to the limits on the level of observers, observer availability and cost 
would serve as the principal constraint to the amount of access. 
Participating vessels would be required to ``declare into'' the area 
via their VMS unit and report species caught and effort daily via VMS. 
There would be minor short- and long-term direct beneficial economic 
and social impacts associated with the added option for vessels to 
potentially fish in these areas, which could potentially increase 
landings revenues and decrease fishing costs by providing access to 
closer and/or more productive fishing areas.

[[Page 71573]]

    In addition to the requirement to carry an observer and declare and 
report catch via VMS, this alternative would further require that 
permitted pelagic longline vessels meet various performance criteria to 
be authorized to fish in a closed area. Vessels that are determined by 
NMFS to have a relatively low rate of interactions with bluefin based 
on past performance, and are compliant with reporting and monitoring 
requirements would be allowed to fish in the area using pelagic 
longline gear. Those vessels that have not demonstrated their ability 
to avoid bluefin or comply with reporting and monitoring requirements 
would not be allowed to fish with pelagic longline gear in the area. 
The rationale underlying this requirement is that the commercial data 
from within the closed areas may be utilized in the future as part of 
the information used to evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of 
closed areas, as well as for stock assessments or other management 
measures. Confidence in the data may be enhanced if the vessels allowed 
to fish in the closed areas have consistently demonstrated compliance 
with relevant regulations and are among the vessels that have 
demonstrated the ability to avoid bluefin at the level exhibited by the 
majority of the fleet. The performance criteria may lead to beneficial 
economic incentives for fishery participants to better comply with 
reporting and monitoring requirements and reduce bluefin interaction 
rates. Potential revenue would be gained if this alternative were 
implemented.
    The maximum number of potential observed trips into the closed 
areas was estimated based on historical rates of observer coverage (per 
quarter) in various statistical areas, and the fact that observer 
coverage would be a condition of a trip into a closed area. NMFS 
estimated the maximum number of trips into the pelagic longline closed 
areas would be 20 trips into the East Florida Coast closed area, witht 
an average revenue of $17,575 per trip; 80 trips into the DeSoto 
Canyons at an average revenue of $17,692 per trip; 2 trips into the 
Northeast closure at an average revenue of $40,726 per trip; and 5 
trips into the Charleston Bump at an average revenue of $17,575 per 
trip. It is import to note that these revenue estimates are an 
overestimate, with a large amount of uncertainty. The estimates are 
high because it is very unlikely that all observed trips in a 
particular statistical area would fish in a closed area. The estimates 
are uncertain because the average revenue per trip data is from 
locations outside the closed areas, and may not represent the potential 
revenue from inside the closed areas.

Bluefin Tuna Quota Controls

Alternative C1--No Action
    Under this alternative, there would be no change to the current 
regulations that restrict pelagic longline vessel retention of bluefin 
once the Longline category quota has been reached; hence, the total 
amount of dead discards would not be restricted. There are no short-
term economic impacts to vessel owners associated with this 
alternative, but in the long-term, if dead discards are not curtailed, 
the pelagic longline fishery could face reduced allocations and 
earnings.
Alternative C 2--Individual Bluefin Quotas
    This preferred alternative would implement IBQs for vessels 
permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category (provided they also 
hold necessary limited access swordfish and shark permits) that would 
result in prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear when the 
vessel's annual pelagic longline IBQ has been caught. The allocation of 
an IBQ share to individual vessels/permits as well as a provision for 
transferability of IBQs would reduce bluefin dead discards by capping 
the amount of catch (landings and dead discards); provide strong 
incentives to reduce interactions and flexibility for vessels to 
continue to operate profitably; accommodate different fishing practices 
within the pelagic longline fleet; and create new potential for revenue 
(from a market for transferrable IBQs).
    NMFS considered two alternatives for vessel eligibility to receive 
bluefin quota shares. The first alternative would be to consider any 
permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline category vessel (sub-alternative C 
2a.1) as being eligible to receive an initial allocation of IBQs. Based 
on the most recent number of Atlantic Tuna longline limited access 
permit holders, NMFS estimates that 223 vessels would be eligible to 
receive IBQs under this alternative. While this alternative might be 
more inclusive of all members of the fishery, it would reduce the 
amount of IBQs allocated to each vessel. There would also likely be 
negative short-term and potentially long-term direct adverse economic 
impacts associated with reduced initial allocation of IBQs to the most 
active participants in the fishery. Their initial allocations would 
likely be insufficient to be able to maintain their current levels of 
fishing activity and they may not be able to find IBQs to lease or have 
sufficient capital to lease a sufficient amount of IBQs.
    The second alternative, sub-alternative C 2a.2 is the preferred 
alternative and would consider only active permitted Atlantic Tunas 
longline vessels. Based on HMS Logbook records from 2006-2012, there 
were 135 active pelagic longline vessels during that period, with 
active defined as having reported in the HMS Logbook successfully 
setting pelagic longline gear at least once between 2006 and 2012. 
Allocation of quota shares to a smaller number of vessels may reduce 
the likelihood that a permitted vessel without quota shares would fish 
and increase the likelihood that available quota would be sufficient 
for active vessels. This alternative minimizes economic impacts by 
utilizing criteria that result in a pool of eligible vessels that is 
optimized in terms of the number of vessels. The optimization balances 
the benefits of a small number of eligible vessels (resulting in a 
larger percentage quota share per vessel), and the benefits of an 
inclusive criteria, which includes the majority of vessels that have 
fished with pelagic longline gear since 2006. The number of vessels 
eligible (135) is slightly larger than the average number of vessels 
that have fished annually since 2006.
    In addition to determining who is eligible to receive IBQs, NMFS 
also considered four alternatives for how IBQ should be initially 
allocated to those eligible vessel owners. Under Alternative C 2b.1, 
NMFS would base the initial allocation of IBQs on an equal share of the 
quota to eligible vessels. To estimate the potential landings each 
vessel could make given its initial IBQ under this alternative, NMFS 
analyzed the ratio of bluefin tuna landings and dead discards to 
designated species weight. These estimated potential landings were then 
compared to average annual historical landings to estimate the 
reduction in designated species landings. Under the 74.8 mt Longline 
category quota scenario, NMFS estimates that there could be a reduction 
of 2.1 million pounds of designated species landing per year if an IBQ 
allocation based on designated species landings is used and no trading 
of IBQs occurs. This would be a reduction of annual landings of 
approximately 36 percent, and result in a reduction in annual revenues 
of approximately $91,000 per vessel. Under the 137 mt Longline category 
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that there could be a reduction of 1.5 
million pounds of designated species landing per year if an IBQ 
allocation based on designated species landings is used and no trading 
of IBQs

[[Page 71574]]

occurs. This would be a reduction of annual landings of approximately 
19 percent, and result in a reduction in annual revenues of 
approximately $47,000 per vessel. Under the 216.7 mt Longline category 
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that there could be a reduction of 0.9 
million pounds of designated species landing per year if an IBQ 
allocation based on designated species landings is used and no trading 
of IBQs occurs. This would be a reduction of annual landings of 
approximately 10 percent and result in a reduction in annual revenues 
of approximately $27,000 per vessel.
    Under Alternative C 2b.2, NMFS would base the initial allocation of 
IBQs based on the historical landings of designated species from 2006 
through 2012. The designated species include swordfish, yellowfin tuna, 
bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, skipjack tuna, dolphinfish, wahoo, blue 
shark, porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher shark. These are the main 
marketable pelagic species landed by pelagic longline vessels in 
addition to bluefin. Under the 74.8 mt Longline category quota 
scenario, NMFS estimates that there could be a reduction of 2.2 million 
pounds of designated species landing per year if an IBQ allocation 
based on designated species landings is used and no trading of IBQs 
occurs. This would be a reduction of annual landings of approximately 
40 percent and result in a reduction in annual revenues of 
approximately $102,000 per vessel. Under the 137 mt Longline category 
quota scenario, NMFS estimates that there could be a reduction of 2.0 
million pounds of designated species landing per year if an IBQ 
allocation based on designated species landings is used and no trading 
of IBQs occurs. This would be a reduction of annual landings of 
approximately 24 percent, and result in a reduction in annual revenues 
of approximately $62,000 per vessel. Under the 216.7 mt Longline 
category quota scenario, NMFS estimates that there could be a reduction 
of 1.2 million pounds of designated species landing per year if an IBQ 
allocation based on designated species landings is used and no trading 
of IBQs occurs. This would be a reduction of annual landings of 
approximately 15 percent, and result in a reduction in annual revenues 
of approximately $37,000 per vessel.
    Under Alternative C 2b.3, a preferred alternative, NMFS would base 
the initial allocation of IBQs on the historical landings of designated 
species from 2006 through 2012 and the ratio of bluefin catch to 
designated species landings. Using the ratio of bluefin tuna landings 
and dead discards to designated species weight, NMFS estimated the 
potential landings each vessel could make given its initial IBQ. These 
estimated potential landings were then compared to average annual 
historical landings to estimate the reduction in designated species. 
Under the 74.8 mt Longline category quota scenario, NMFS estimates that 
there could be a reduction of 2.7 million pounds of designated species 
landing per year if an IBQ allocation based on designated species 
landings is used and no trading of IBQs occurs. This would be a 
reduction of annual landings of approximately 33 percent, and result in 
a reduction in annual revenues or approximately $84,000 per vessel. 
Under the 137 mt Longline category quota scenario, NMFS estimates that 
there could be a reduction of 1.8 million pounds of designated species 
landing per year if an IBQ allocation based on designated species 
landings is used and no trading of IBQs occurs. This would be a 
reduction of annual landings of approximately 22 percent, and result in 
a reduction in annual revenues or approximately $56,000 per vessel. 
Under the 216.7 mt Longline category quota scenario, NMFS estimates 
that there could be a reduction of 1.2 million pounds of designated 
species landing per year if an IBQ allocation based on designated 
species landings is used and no trading of IBQs occurs. This would be a 
reduction of annual landings of approximately 14 percent and result in 
a reduction in annual revenues or approximately $36,000 per vessel. The 
economic impacts of the allocation alternative were minimized through 
the use of the dual criteria, which considers both the bluefin catch 
rate, as well as the amount of designated species catch. The scoring 
system that determines the allocations considers the diversity in the 
fleet so that some vessels are not disadvantaged due to the level of 
their fishing activity. Vessels that have historically caught larger 
amounts of target species, as reflected in the logbook and dealer data 
will score higher on the `designated species' element of the allocation 
criteria. The other aspects of the IBQ Program (e.g., quota allocation 
leasing) as well as other aspect of Amendment 7 (e.g., allocation 
alternatives), were designed to mesh with the IBQ Program in order to 
provide flexibility to increase the likelihood of profitable fishing 
operations and minimize negative economic impacts, in addition to 
minimizing and accounting for bluefin catch.
    After issuing IBQ shares and allocation based upon the formula, 
subalternative C 2b.4 would then designate all IBQ shares and 
allocations as either ``Gulf of Mexico'' or ``Atlantic'' based upon the 
geographic location of sets (associated with the vessels fishing 
history used to determine the vessel's quota share). Gulf of Mexico IBQ 
allocation could be used in either the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic, 
but Atlantic IBQ allocation could only be used in the Atlantic (and not 
the Gulf of Mexico). For a vessel to fish with pelagic longline gear in 
the Gulf of Mexico, the vessel would be required to have the minimum 
amount of IBQ to depart, and the IBQ would have to be Gulf of Mexico. 
The minimum IBQ amount required to fish in the Gulf of Mexico would be 
0.25 mt based on the larger average size of bluefin in the Gulf of 
Mexico. The minimum IBQ amount required to fish in the Atlantic would 
be 0.125 mt based on the smaller average size of bluefin tuna 
encountered in the Atlantic. The economic impact of creating these two 
regional designations would primarily be associated with the larger 
minimum IBQ allocations required to fish in the Gulf of Mexico and the 
restriction from transferring or using Atlantic IBQ in the Gulf of 
Mexico. This would reduce the number of potential trading partners for 
IBQs in the Gulf of Mexico region, thus potentially leading to less 
available IBQ allocation that could be leased, potentially making it 
more difficult to find potential trading partners and therefore 
increasing transaction costs for conducting a lease. The regional 
designations minimize economic impacts by allowing Gulf of Mexico IBQ 
allocation to be utilized in the Atlantic, and through the rules 
regarding the NED, which provide different IBQ accounting rules for 
that unique particular area.
    In defining the scope of IBQ transfer for alternative C 2c, NMFS 
considered two subalternatives, because only two Tuna permit categories 
are under limited access systems. Sub-alternative C 2c.1 would allow 
transfer of bluefin quota shares or quota allocation among permitted 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category vessels only, and would not include 
transferring with other limited access quota categories such as the 
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category. The rationale for this sub-
alternative is to provide flexibility for pelagic longline vessels to 
obtain or sell quota as necessary, so that allocations may be aligned 
with catch (i.e., vessels that catch bluefin may be able to obtain 
quota from those that do not interact with bluefin, or have not used 
their full allocation of bluefin). This sub-

[[Page 71575]]

alternative would constrain the amount of bluefin quota available to 
the Longline category vessels to the Longline category quota, and not 
make additional quota available. Quota transfers would be allowed among 
all Longline category vessels with a valid limited access permit, 
regardless of whether they have been allocated quota under Alternative 
C 2b. If a vessel catches bluefin using quota that has been leased from 
another vessel, the fishing history associated with the catch of 
bluefin tuna would be associated with the vessel that catches the 
bluefin (the lessee, not the lessor vessel). In other words, the lessee 
(vessel catching the fish) gets the `credit' for the landings and dead 
discards, and not the lessor (the vessel that transferred the quota 
allocation to the catching vessel). NMFS assumed that the total surplus 
of IBQs would potentially be traded to vessels with IBQ shortfalls. To 
simulate trading, the total amount of IBQs surplus was divided equally 
by the number of vessels that needed additional IBQs. This occurred in 
two rounds of trades. Under the 74.8 mt quota scenario, the estimated 
reduction in annual revenues goes from $84,000 per vessel under no 
trading to $18,000 per vessel with trading. Under the 137 mt quota 
scenario, the estimated reduction in annual revenues goes from $56,000 
per vessel under no trading to $19 per vessel with trading. Finally, 
under the 216.7 mt quota scenario, the estimated reduction in annual 
revenues goes from $36,000 per vessel under no trading to no change in 
annual revenues with trading since there would be a sufficient amount 
of surplus quota to easily cover the vessels that do not receive 
initial IBQ allocations to cover their historical fishing levels. While 
this alternative would have short-term direct minor beneficial economic 
impacts, those beneficial impacts would be lower than those under sub-
alternative C 2c.2.
    Sub-alternative C 2c.2, the preferred alternative, would allow 
transfer of bluefin quota shares or quota allocation between those 
permitted in the limited access Atlantic Tunas Longline and Purse Seine 
categories. This sub-alternative would provide flexibility for pelagic 
longline vessels to obtain, lease, or sell quota as necessary, so that 
allocations may be aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that catch bluefin 
may be able to obtain quota from those that do not interact with 
bluefin, or have not used their full allocation of bluefin). This sub-
alternative would not constrain the amount of bluefin quota available 
to pelagic longline vessels (i.e., through the Longline category 
quota), but would make additional quota available if purse seine 
vessels are willing to lease quota. This alternative would also modify 
the Purse Seine category regulations which currently restrict the 
transfer of Purse Seine quota to vessels with Purse Seine category 
permits. Purse Seine quota would be transferable to vessels with an 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit. Similarly, Purse Seine fishery 
participants would be able to lease quota allocation from pelagic 
longline vessels. Quota transfer would be allowed among all Longline 
category vessels with a valid limited access permit, regardless of 
whether they have been allocated quota under Alternative C 2b. If a 
vessel catches bluefin using quota that has been leased from another 
vessel, the fishing history associated with the catch of bluefin tuna 
would be associated with the vessel that catches the bluefin (the 
lessee, not the lessor vessel). In other words, the lessee (vessel 
catching the fish) gets the `credit' for the landings and dead 
discards, and not the lessor (the vessel that transferred the quota 
allocation to the catching vessel). This alternative would have short-
term direct moderate beneficial economic impacts.
    NMFS considered both annual leasing and permanent sale of IBQs 
under alternative C 2d. Sub-alternative C 2d.1, a preferred 
alternative, would allow temporary leasing of bluefin quota among 
eligible vessels on an annual basis. Temporary quota transfer would 
give vessels flexibility to lease quota, but as a separate and distinct 
type of transaction from the permanent sale of quota share. Vessel 
owners would be able to obtain quota on an annual basis to facilitate 
their harvest of target species. Sub-leasing of quota would be allowed 
(i.e., IBQ leased from vessel A to vessel B, then to vessel C). This 
sub-alternative may be combined Sub-Alternative C 2d.2 (permanent sale 
of quota share), if implemented. IBQ allocation leases of one year 
duration would coincide with the time period of annual quota allocation 
for the fishery as a whole. For a particular calendar year, an 
individual lease transaction would be valid from the time of the lease 
until December 31. This alternative would have short-term direct 
moderate beneficial economic impacts to participants in the fishery. 
However, in the long-term, the annual transaction costs associated with 
matching lessors and lessees, the costs associated with drafting 
agreements, and the uncertainty vessel owners would face regarding 
quota availability would reduce some of the economic benefits 
associated with leasing. The IBQ allocation leasing alternatives 
minimize economic impacts by providing flexibility for pelagic longline 
vessels to lease IBQ as necessary so that their IBQ allocations may be 
aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that catch bluefin may be able to 
obtain IBQ from those that do not interact with bluefin, or have not 
used their full IBQ allocation of bluefin).
    Sub-alternative C 2d.2 would allow permanent sale of quota share 
among eligible vessels. Through this sub-alternative, vessel owners 
would be able to purchase (or sell) quota share and permanently 
increase (or decrease) their quota share percentage. Permanent sale of 
quota share provides a means for vessel owners to plan their businesses 
and manage their quota according to a longer time scale than a single 
year. Vessel owners may be able to save money through a single quota 
share transaction instead of reoccurring annual quota allocation 
transactions. This sub-alternative may be combined with the temporary 
transfer of quota (i.e., annual leasing of quota, Sub-Alternative C 
2d.2), but is a separate and distinct type of transaction. (Note, that 
elsewhere in this document NMFS considers measures for codified quota 
reallocation alternatives unrelated to an IBQ Program; See Alternative 
A 2). To enable effective accounting and reduce program complexity, 
permanent quota share transfers would become effective in the 
subsequent year, and would have to be executed prior to the annual 
allocation of quota to IBQ holders. Limits would be placed on the 
amount of quota an individual entity could permanently transfer in 
order to prevent the accumulation of an excessive share of quota. This 
alternative would have long-term direct moderate beneficial economic 
impacts to participants in the fishery by allowing the ownership of 
IBQs to shift to where they provide the best economic benefit in the 
long-term. However, in the short-term, there could be issues associated 
with the IBQ market. For example the process of the buyers and sellers 
arriving at a price for IBQ shares may be difficult or highly variable 
due to uncertainties such as how to value IBQ shares, information 
availability, and associated risks. Experiences in other catch share 
programs have shown that fishermen may not know how to effectively 
value the IBQs initially and uncertainty in this new market may cause 
IBQs to be undervalued in the first few years. This could result in 
both adverse social and economic impacts in the fishing community if 
participants sell out of the

[[Page 71576]]

IBQ market in the early years for less than the long-term value of the 
IBQs.
    Sub-alternative C 2d.3, a preferred alternative, would allow 
permanent sale of quota shares among eligible vessel owners in the 
future, after NMFS and fishery participants have multiple years of 
experience with the IBQ Program. Until NMFS develops and implements a 
permanent IBQ transfer program, vessel owners would only be able to 
conduct temporary (annual) leasing of quota allocation, and therefore, 
vessel owners would not be able to purchase (or sell) quota share to 
permanently increase (or decrease) their quota share percentage. A 
phased-in approach would reduce risks for vessel owners during the 
initial stages of the IBQ Program, when the market for bluefin quota 
shares is new and uncertain. During the first years of the IBQ Program, 
price volatility may be reduced, as well as undesirable outcomes of 
selling or buying quota shares at the ``wrong'' time or price. NMFS 
intends to develop a program to allow the permanent sale of quota share 
in the future because it would provide a means for vessel owners to 
plan their business and manage their quota according to a longer time 
scale than a single year, in a manner that would be informed by several 
years of the temporary leasing market. NMFS may wait until a formal 
evaluation of the IBQ Program before developing this alternative (see 
IBQ Program Evaluation Alternatives C 2h.1 and C 2h.2). This sub-
alternative may be combined with the temporary transfer of quota 
allocation (i.e., annual leasing of quota, Sub-Alternative C 2d.1), but 
is a separate and distinct type of transaction. While this alternative 
may result in long-term moderate beneficial economic impacts, the 
uncertainty regarding the timeline may make business planning for 
vessel owners and IBQ holders more difficult and result in some minor 
adverse economic impacts. This alternative minimizes economic impacts 
by ensuring that during the initial years of the IBQ Program, permanent 
transfer of IBQ shares will not be possible, and therefore reduces one 
of the potential risks of the IBQ Program (that a transfer will have 
negative unintended economic impacts).
    Under sub-alternative C 2e.1, a preferred alternative, quota 
allocation and/or quota share transfers would be executed by the 
eligible vessel owners, or their representatives. For example, the two 
vessel owners involved in a lease of quota or sale of quota share could 
log into a password protected web-based computer system (i.e., a NMFS 
database), and execute the quota allocation or quota share transfer. 
Owner-executed transfers would provide the quickest execution of a 
transfer because any eligibility criteria would be verified 
automatically via the user log-in and password, and not involve the 
submission or review of a paper application for a transfer to/by NMFS. 
This would result in short- and long-term minor beneficial economic 
impacts resulting from reduced transactions costs.
    Under sub-alternative C 2e.2, quota and quota share transfers would 
be executed by NMFS. For example, a paper application for a sale of 
quota share could be submitted by the two vessel owners involved in the 
quota share transaction, and NMFS would review and approve the 
transaction based on eligibility criteria (and enter data into a 
computer database that would track the transfers of quota). This method 
would not include the use of a web-based system, but would rely upon 
mail or facsimile submission of applications by the vessel owners to 
NMFS. In comparison to sub-alternative C 2e.1, this alternative may 
result in some minor adverse economic impacts if delays in NMFS' review 
of applications results in increased transactions costs and fewer 
trades.
    Under sub-alternative C 2f.1, there would be no limit on the amount 
of quota allocation an individual vessel (Longline or Purse Seine) 
could lease annually. This alternative would provide flexibility for 
vessels to purchase quota in a manner that could accommodate various 
levels of unintended catch of bluefin, and enable the development of an 
unrestricted market. Because the duration of a temporary lease would be 
limited to a single year, the impacts on an unrestricted market for 
bluefin quota would be limited in duration. Information on this 
unrestricted market could be used to develop future restrictions if 
necessary. This alternative would result in short- and long-term minor 
beneficial economic impacts by accommodating the various needs of 
vessel owners for IBQ trades.
    Under sub-alternative C 2f.2,the limit on the amount of IBQ 
allocation that may be leased annually would be the combined Longline 
and Purse Seine category allocations. This alternative would provide 
flexibility for vessels to purchase quota in a manner that could 
accommodate various levels of unintended catch of bluefin, and enable 
the development of an unrestricted market. Because the duration of a 
temporary lease would be limited to a single year, the impacts on an 
unrestricted market for bluefin quota would be limited in duration. 
Information on this unrestricted market could be used to develop future 
restrictions (through proposed and final rulemaking) if necessary. This 
alternative would result in short- and long-term minor beneficial 
economic impacts by accommodating the various needs of vessel owners 
for IBQ trades.
    Sub-alternative C 2f.3, a preferred alternative, would have NMFS 
consider in the future the development of further limits on the amount 
of quota allocation an individual vessel (Longline or Purse Seine), or 
the Longline or Purse Seine category (in its entirety), could lease 
annually. Setting a different limit than the combined amount of 
Longline and Purse Seine category allocations would be difficult, as 
the market for bluefin allocations is new and, as a consequence, there 
are no data to inform potential, alternative limits. Further, NMFS does 
not believe there is a need for a reduced limit. The IBQ Program 
preferred alternatives are designed to incentivize longline vessels to 
minimize bluefin interactions, and only 25 percent of vessels are 
expected to need to lease additional bluefin quota. In recent years, 
the Purse Seine category has not fished or not fully harvested the 
amount of quota available. This alternative could result in long-term 
minor adverse economic impacts if the limits cause some vessel owners 
to not be able to acquire sufficient IBQs for their fishing activity 
needs.
    The measures under alternative C 2g are based on the premise that 
the success of an IBQ Program rests upon the ability to track ownership 
of quota shares and quota allocation holders; allocate the appropriate 
amount of annual harvest privileges (quota allocation); reconcile 
landings and dead discards against those privileges; and then balance 
the amounts against the total allowable quota. The current pelagic 
longline reporting requirements and the monitoring program that provide 
data on pelagic longline bluefin landings and dead discards were not 
designed to support inseason accounting of dead discards. More timely 
information on catch would be necessary in order to monitor a pelagic 
longline IBQ, inclusive of dead discards. VMS reporting Sub-alternative 
C 2g.1, a preferred alternative, is the same management alternative 
described in Alternative D 1b. This alternative is intended to support 
the implementation of a pelagic longline IBQ. The economic impacts are 
detailed in the section below discussing Alternative D 1b.
    Electronic monitoring sub-alternative C 2g.2, a preferred 
alternative, is the same management alternative described in 
Alternative D 2b of this document.

[[Page 71577]]

This alternative is intended to support the implementation of a pelagic 
longline IBQ. The economic impacts are detailed in the section below 
discussing Alternative D 2b.
    Under sub-alternative C 2g.3, a preferred alternative, in order to 
conduct inseason quota monitoring and estimate total bluefin dead 
discards and landings, NMFS may extrapolate observer-generated data 
(in-season) regarding bluefin discards (rate, number, location, etc.) 
by pelagic longline vessels, based on reasonable statistical methods, 
and available observer data. This alternative would not require a 
regulatory change, but would inform the public that NMFS would use this 
management practice if warranted. NMFS would use this observer 
information in conjunction with, or in place of, vessel-generated 
estimates of bluefin discards in order to develop inseason estimates of 
total bluefin landings and dead discards. NMFS may use this method to 
estimate dead discard rates of bluefin for individual vessels in the 
context of an IBQ Program. This sub-alternative would address the 
potential for uncertain dead discard data from the pelagic longline 
fleet that may result from challenges in the implementation of new 
regulations, technical problems relating to the reporting and 
monitoring system, or time lags in the availability of data. This 
alternative would potentially have short-term minor or neutral indirect 
beneficial economic impacts by addressing the potential for fishery 
disruptions if there are issues in the transition to an IBQ monitoring 
system.
    Under sub-alternative C 2h.1, a preferred alternative, NMFS would 
formally evaluate the program after three years of operation and 
provide the HMS Advisory Panel with a publicly-available written 
document with its findings. NMFS would utilize its standardized 
economic performance indicators as part of its review. This would 
result in neutral economic impacts because it is administrative in 
nature.
    Under sub-alternative C 2h.2, NMFS would conduct a formal 
evaluation of the IBQ Program after five years of operation and provide 
the HMS Advisory Panel with a written document with its findings. As 
described above, NMFS would utilize its standardized economic 
performance indicators (and associated standardized definitions) as 
part of its review. This alternative would result in neutral economic 
and social impacts because it is administrative in nature.
    Under alternative C 2i, a preferred alternative, NMFS would develop 
and implement a cost recovery program of up to 3 percent of the ex-
vessel value of fish harvested under the program, for costs associated 
with the costs of management, data collection and analysis, and 
enforcement activities, could result in direct long-term moderate 
adverse economic impacts to the industry. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
provides NMFS the authority for cost recovery under Sec.  303A(e). A 
cost recovery program would not be implemented until after the IBQ 
Program evaluation described in Alternative C 2h. Immediate 
implementation of a cost recovery program without the information 
obtained from the operation of the fishery under an IBQ Program would 
be very difficult, and would increase costs and uncertainty for fishing 
vessels during a time period when the fishery would be bearing other 
new costs and sources of uncertainty. This alternative could result in 
direct long-term moderate adverse economic impacts to the industry.
    Alternative C 2j, a preferred alternative, would implement an 
appeals process for administrative review of NMFS' decisions regarding 
initial allocation of quota shares for the IBQ Program. The appeals 
process for administrative review of NMFS' decisions regarding initial 
allocation of quota shares for the IBQ Program would result in neutral 
economic impacts because it would utilize the National Appeals Office 
procedures and ensure a standardized and centralized appeals process, 
which would provide procedural certainty to the participants.
    If an IBQ Program is implemented, preferred alternative C 2k would 
implement a control date in conjunction with the implementation 
(effective date) of the IBQ Program. The control date would serve as a 
reference date that may be utilized with future management measures, 
such as a modification to aspects of the IBQ program as a result of 
items identified during the 3-year review of the IBQ program. The 
implementation of a control date by itself would have no effect, but 
would provide NMFS with a potential management tool that may be 
utilized if necessary as part of a future management measure. A control 
date is typically used to discourage speculative fishing behavior or 
speculative entry into a fishery and notifies the public that a date 
may be used in conjunction with future management measures. This 
alternative would likely have neutral economic impacts and would only 
result in beneficial short-term economic impacts if it actually 
discouraged speculative fishing behavior that may have occurred without 
the control date.
    Sub-alternative C 2l.1, the elimination of target catch 
requirements is a preferred alternative. Current target catch 
requirements act at the level of an individual trip to limit bluefin 
retention, but do not prevent interactions potentially resulting in 
discarding bluefin dead (although it is intended to dis-incentivize 
interactions with bluefin by reducing any financial incentive for such 
interactions by limiting retention). The target catch requirement 
therefore contributes to the discarding of bluefin if the amount of 
target catch species is insufficient to retain the numbers of bluefin 
caught. Under this sub-alternative C 2l.1a, the current target catch 
requirements would remain in effect. This would have neutral economic 
impacts since it would not change what is currently in place.
    Sub-alternative C 2l.1b, preferred alternative, would eliminate the 
current target catch requirements for pelagic longline vessels. This 
alternative is intended to work in conjunction with an IBQ. The 
objective of this alternative is to reduce bluefin dead discards and 
optimize fishing opportunity for target species. If an IBQ Program is 
implemented, elimination of the target catch requirement could reduce 
dead discards, and enable vessels to fish for target species in a more 
flexible manner. A vessel that has caught some bluefin but has 
insufficient target species to meet the target catch requirement would 
no longer have to choose between discarding bluefin or fishing for more 
target species; rather, the vessel would use the annual individual 
bluefin quota (IBQ). Thus, the IBQ would replace the target catch 
requirement as the means of limiting the amount of bluefin landed and 
discarded dead per vessel on an annual basis, instead of on a per trip 
basis. This alternative would likely have direct short- and long-term 
minor beneficial economic impacts.
    Sub-alternative C 2l.2a would maintain the status quo regarding 
retention of bluefin by pelagic longline vessels. There would be no 
requirement to retain commercial legal-sized bluefin that are dead. 
Vessels would continue to be able to discard bluefin even if they are 
of commercial legal-size (i.e., 73'' or greater) and dead. If the IBQ 
Program is implemented, all dead discards would be accounted for under 
that program. This alternative would have neutral economic impacts 
since it does not change what is currently occurring.
    Under sub-alternative C 2l.2b, a preferred alternative, pelagic 
longline

[[Page 71578]]

vessels would be required to retain all legal-sized commercial bluefin 
tuna that are dead at haul-back. Because these fish would be required 
to be retained, legal discards and the waste of fish would be 
decreased, and it would be more likely that such fish are accurately 
accounted for, and result in a positive use (marketed, used for 
scientific information, etc.). However, given that current behavior may 
be to discard some fish in order to optimize landings value of bluefin, 
there could be minor adverse economic impacts associated with this 
alternative since vessel operators would no longer have the option to 
discard legal-sized bluefin.
Alternative C 3--Regional and Group Quotas
    Alternative C 3a would implement annual bluefin quotas by region 
for vessels possessing the Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 
(combined with the required shark and swordfish limited access permits) 
that would result in prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear when 
a particular region's annual bluefin quota has been caught. Both 
bluefin landings and dead discards would count toward the regional 
quota. Annual bluefin quotas would be associated with defined 
geographic regions. While regional quotas may be simpler than an IBQ 
system and have advantages over a single quota allocated for the entire 
Longline category, some regions may face chronic shortages of bluefin 
quota if that region experiences increased fishing effort or bluefin 
interaction rates. It is difficult to predict the total amount of 
fishing effort that would occur under regional quotas, and the amount 
of bluefin quota that would be caught. There is likely to be less 
fishing effort under the Regional quota control alternative (compared 
with the No Action alternative) because a few vessels could catch a 
large number of bluefin, and because of the closure of the entire area 
to the use of pelagic longline gear. The historical data indicate that 
the majority of bluefin have been caught by relatively few vessels. The 
amount of target species catch such as swordfish and yellowfin tuna, 
would depend primarily upon the amount of fishing effort and whether 
the regional quotas or IBQs become constraining. If the regional quotas 
reduce pelagic longline fishing effort, there may be some minor adverse 
economic and social impacts on regional fishing communities where 
effort is reduced.
    Alternative C 3b would implement a quota system for vessels 
possessing the Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit (combined with 
the required shark and swordfish limited access permits) that would 
define three bluefin quota groups and assign vessels with a valid 
permit to one of the three groups. Both bluefin landings and dead 
discards would count toward the group quotas. Each active vessel would 
be assigned to a quota group based upon the associated permit's 
historical bluefin interactions to ``designated species'' landings 
ratio. Active vessels with relatively high numbers of bluefin 
interactions would be assigned to one quota group, active vessels with 
a moderate level of bluefin interactions would be assigned to a second 
group, and the active vessels with a low level of bluefin interactions 
would be assigned to a third quota group. Using the current quota 
allocation (8.1%) and the 2012 Longline category quota (74.8 mt) to 
illustrate, the low avoider quota group would be allocated 24.1 mt and 
the medium and high avoider quota groups would be allocated 25.1 mt. 
Although the three quota groups have almost the identical number of 
vessels assigned to them (53, 54, 54, respectively), as well as similar 
quota, the average amount of bluefin that they caught historically 
varies from group to group. The number of bluefin tuna interactions 
from 2006 to 2011 for the low, medium, and high avoiders was 8,050, 
1,348, and 95, respectively. Converted to averages, the average annual 
number of bluefin interactions would be 1,342, 225, and 16. Utilizing a 
rough conversion factor of a .125 mt per fish, 225 fish is equivalent 
to 28 mt. The high and medium avoider groups are likely to have 
adequate quota, whereas the low avoider group would have inadequate 
quota if the future interaction rate of the vessels is similar. The 
average number of interactions associated with the low avoider group 
equates to approximately 168 mt. It is likely that the group quota 
associated with vessels with the highest historical rate of bluefin 
interactions would be attained first. This indicates that there would 
be potentially significant direct short- and long-term adverse economic 
impacts to the low avoider group. However, there could be moderate to 
minor positive economic impacts to the high and medium avoider groups.
Alternative C 4--NMFS Authority To Close the Pelagic Longline Fishery
    Under alternative C 4a, No Action, the current regulatory situation 
would continue, in which NMFS does not have the authority to prohibit 
the use of pelagic longline gear when the bluefin quota is attained. 
When the quota is projected to be reached, pelagic longline vessels may 
no longer retain bluefin tuna, but may continue to fish for their 
target species, and must discard any bluefin caught. The economic 
impacts of this alternative would lead to short- and long-term direct 
minor economic and social impacts due the loss of revenue from bluefin 
tuna.
    Under alternative C 4b, a preferred alternative, NMFS would close 
the pelagic longline fishery (i.e., prohibit the use of pelagic 
longline gear) when the total Longline category bluefin quota is 
reached; projected to be reached; is exceeded; or in order to prevent 
over-harvest of the Longline category bluefin quota and prevent further 
discarding of bluefin; or when there is high uncertainty regarding the 
estimated or documented levels of bluefin catch. The economic impacts 
of this alternative would depend upon when the closure occurred, 
ranging from January through December. The time the pelagic longline 
fishery would be closed would depend upon many factors, including the 
size of the Longline category quota, the type of quota control 
alternative and other alternatives implemented by Amendment 7, and non-
regulatory factors. The range of quotas that would be available to the 
Longline category would depend upon the combination of alternatives 
implemented.
    Based on the Longline category being closed in late spring and 
early summer over the past few years and the 2013 closure occurring in 
June, NMFS estimates that a June closure is a plausible example to 
examine. A June closure of the pelagic longline fishery would result in 
a potential loss of revenue of approximately $21.0 million, or $156,000 
per vessel per year. This would result in a major short-term adverse 
direct economic impact to the pelagic longline fishery and this 
economic impact would continue into the long-term if landings and dead 
discard rates continue along the current trend.

Enhanced Reporting Measures

Alternative D 1--VMS Requirements
    Alternative D 1a, the No Action alternative, would have no 
requirement under HMS regulations for an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 
category vessel to obtain a VMS unit and there would be no change to 
the reporting requirements applicable to purse seine vessels. There 
would also be no additional VMS requirements under HMS regulations for 
a vessel using pelagic longline gear.

E-MTU VMS Installation and Operation

    Alternative D 1b, a preferred alternative, would require the three 
vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit to have an 
E-

[[Page 71579]]

MTU VMS unit installed by a qualified marine electrician to remain 
eligible for the Purse Seine permit. Purse seine vessel owners would be 
required to provide a hail-out declaration using their E-MTU VMS units, 
indicating target species and gear possessed onboard the vessel when 
leaving port on every trip. Purse seine vessel owners would also be 
required to provide a hail-in declaration, using their E-MTU VMS units, 
providing information on the timing and location of landing before 
returning to port. The units would be required to send position 
information to NMFS every hour on a 24/7 basis, unless the vessel has 
declared out of the fishery or been granted a power-down exemption from 
NMFS.
    All of the three vessels that are currently authorized to deploy 
purse seine gear for Atlantic tunas have already installed E-MTU VMS 
units in compliance with regulations for other Council-managed 
fisheries, including Northeast Multispecies and/or Atlantic scallop. If 
vessels have not already had a type-approved E-MTU VMS unit installed, 
or if permits were transferred to vessels that have not yet installed 
E-MTU VMS, they may be eligible for reimbursement (up to $3,100) to 
offset the costs of procuring a type-approved unit subject to 
availability of funds. This reimbursement would only cover the cost of 
the E-MTU VMS and could not be applied to offset installation costs by 
a qualified marine electrician ($400) or monthly communication costs 
($44). Initial costs, per vessel, for compliance with E-MTU VMS 
requirements included in this alternative would be $3,500 if no 
reimbursement were received, and $400 if a reimbursement were received. 
On a monthly basis, vessels would be required to establish a 
communication service plan corresponding to the type-approved E-MTU VMS 
selected. Costs vary based on the E-MTU VMS unit and communication 
service provider that is selected; however, these costs average $44/
month and include hourly transmission reporting and a limited amount of 
hail in and hail out declarations. Charges vary by communication 
service provider for additional messaging or transmission of data in 
excess of what allowed in their individual plan. Furthermore, costs 
might vary depending on how many trips a vessel makes on a monthly 
basis as the number of declarations (hail in/hail out) increase 
proportionately. For this analysis, all communication costs were 
expected to be covered under baseline monthly plan costs (i.e., $44/
month).
    If a vessel has already installed a type-approved E-MTU VMS unit, 
this alternative would have neutral direct and indirect socioeconomic 
impacts in the short and long-term as the only expense would be monthly 
communication service fees which they are already paying for 
participation in a Council-managed fishery. If vessels do not have an 
E-MTU VMS unit installed or an Atlantic tunas purse seine permit is 
transferred to another vessel lacking VMS, direct, adverse, short-term 
socioeconomic impacts are expected as a result of having to pay for the 
E-MTU VMS unit and a qualified marine electrician to install the unit. 
In the long-term, direct economic impacts would become minor, because 
monthly communication service provider costs ($44) would be the only 
expense. Economic impacts to shore-based businesses, including fish 
dealers, bait and gear suppliers, and other fishing related industries 
are not expected.
    Pelagic longline vessels are already required to use an E-MTU VMS 
that has been installed by a qualified marine electrician to provide 
hourly position reports and hail in/out declarations to provide 
information on target species, gear possessed, and expected time/
location of landing. Therefore, this alternative would result in 
neutral economic impacts in the short and long term. Economic impacts 
to shore-based businesses, including fish dealers, bait and gear 
suppliers, and other fishing related industries are not expected.

Reporting Bluefin Tuna Interactions Using E-MTU VMS

    Preferred alternative D 1b would also require vessels fishing for 
Atlantic tunas with pelagic longline or purse seine gear to report 
daily the number of bluefin retained, discarded (dead and alive), fish 
disposition, and fishing effort (number of sets, number of hooks, 
respectively). This alternative is intended to support the inseason 
monitoring of the purse seine and pelagic longline fisheries. Although 
NMFS currently has the authority to require logbook reporting for the 
purse seine fishery, NMFS has not exercised this authority (see Section 
2.3.7). Current information on the catch of the purse seine fishery is 
limited to dealer data on sold fish, and does not include information 
of discarded bluefin or other species caught or discarded. Inseason 
information on catch, including dead discards, would enhance NMFS' 
ability to monitor and manage all quota categories.

Purse Seine

    The characteristics of the purse seine fishery are unique. Many 
bluefin may be caught by the fishery in a relatively short period of 
time, and the proportion of discarded to retained fish may be high in 
some instances. Timely information on discarded bluefin tuna, and more 
timely information on retained bluefin, would improve the current 
monitoring of bluefin landings and dead discards. This alternative 
would provide timely information on purse seine fishing effort, and 
improve NMFS' ability to interpret and utilize the bluefin data in the 
context of the fishery as a whole. Recently, there has been limited 
effort in the Atlantic tunas purse seine fishery for a variety of 
reasons, including availability and quantity of commercial size bluefin 
and/or current permit holders are participating in Council-managed 
fisheries. This alternative would require vessel operators to use their 
E-MTU VMS to submit electronic reports describing the number and size 
of bluefin that were landed and discarded dead.
    Vessel operators fishing for Atlantic tunas with purse seine gear 
are already be required to have an E-MTU VMS unit installed and capable 
of submitting hourly position reports while fishing in addition to hail 
out/in declarations before and after fishing. This alternative would, 
however, increase the amount of information that vessel operators 
provide using their E-MTU VMS units. Typically, fishermen would make a 
single declaration for each set that details the quantity and size of 
bluefin retained. This alternative would result in neutral economic 
impacts in the short and long-term because the vessel owners would 
already be paying, on average, $44 per month to cover the costs of a 
communication service provider. The number of additional characters 
transmitted to report bluefin retained and discarded dead are expected 
to be less than 50 characters per set, and are not expected to exceed 
the typical monthly allowance for data sent using the E-MTU VMS. 
Economic impacts to shore-based businesses, including fish dealers, 
bait and gear suppliers, and other fishing related industries are not 
expected.

Pelagic Longline

    With respect to pelagic longline vessels, this alternative is 
intended to support the implementation of a pelagic longline IBQ 
Program, whether individual or regional, described under Section 2.3. 
For example, under an IBQ Program, each vessel must not harvest

[[Page 71580]]

more than is permitted by the total of his/her quota share. The IBQ 
Program would require vessel owners/operators have the ability to track 
quota shares and quota allocations, reconcile landings against quota 
allocations, and then balance the amounts against the total allowable 
quota. Although the current pelagic longline reporting requirements and 
the monitoring program provide data on pelagic longline discards and 
landings, and enable inseason monitoring and management based upon 
landings, the reporting requirements and monitoring program were not 
designed to support inseason monitoring of dead discards. More timely 
information on dead discards would be necessary in order to monitor and 
enforce a pelagic longline IBQ Program. Although the current 
information on bluefin discards from the pelagic longline fishery, 
which is obtained through logbook data on effort and catches from the 
observer program, is sufficient to estimate bluefin dead discards on an 
annual basis, the time lag associated with the current information is 
not useful for ``real-time'' in-season monitoring of an IBQ Program. 
Specifically, there is a time lag between the time logbooks are 
submitted or the field information is recorded by the observer during 
the fishing trip, the time the data are entered into a database, and 
the time the data are finalized (after a process of quality control) 
and available for use. A trip declaration requirement could be 
necessary in order for NMFS to obtain timely information on pelagic 
longline fishing effort, and interpret and utilize the bluefin data in 
the context of the fishery as a whole.
    HMS logbook data (2006-2012) indicate that, on average, pelagic 
longline vessels have one interaction (9,660 interactions/10,262 trips 
= 0.94 interactions/trip) with a bluefin per vessel per trip. This 
alternative would require all pelagic longline vessel operators to 
report all interactions (kept, discarded dead, discarded alive) and 
estimate fish size (> or < than 73 CFL) using their E-MTU 
VMS within 12 hours of the completion of the haul-back. Furthermore, 
additional information on fishing effort, including the number of hooks 
deployed on the set that had a bluefin would also be reported.
    This alternative is expected to have neutral to minor adverse 
economic impacts on pelagic longline vessel operators and owners in the 
short and long-term. Economic impacts to shore-based businesses, 
including fish dealers, bait and gear suppliers, and other fishing 
related industries are not expected. Existing regulations require all 
pelagic longline vessel operators to provide hail out/in declarations 
and provide location reports on an hourly basis at all times unless 
they have declared out of the fishery or been granted a power down 
exemption by NMFS. In order to comply with these regulations, vessel 
owners must subscribe to a communication service plan that includes an 
allowance for sending similar declarations (hail out/in) describing 
target species, fishing gear possessed, and estimated time/location of 
landing using their E-MTU VMS. This alternative would require, on 
average, 1 additional report per trip that describe bluefin 
interactions and fishing effort. Each report is expected to be 
comprised of less than 50 characters. Because of the minimal time 
(approximately 5 minutes) required to submit these short reports and 
the fact that owners would likely already be enrolled in a 
communication service plan that would encompass transmission of these 
additional characters, adverse economic impacts are not expected.
Alternative D 2--Electronic Monitoring of Longline Category
    Under alternative D2a, the No Action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain the status quo and would not pursue any additional measures 
that would require permitted pelagic longline vessels to install 
electronic devices such as cameras in order to support the monitoring 
or verification of bluefin catch under the IBQ Program. Currently, 
pelagic longline vessels are required to use E-MTU VMS units to provide 
hourly position reports and to provide hail out/in declarations 
describing target species, fishing gear onboard, and time/location of 
landing unless they have declared out of the fishery or been granted a 
power down exemption by NMFS. Under this alternative, these 
requirements would be maintained, and no additional electronic 
monitoring requirements would be implemented. This alternative would 
not result in economic impacts because it would maintain existing 
requirements.
    Alternative D 2b, a preferred alternative, would require the use of 
electronic monitoring, including video cameras, by all vessels issued 
an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit that intend to fish for 
highly migratory species. Specifically, vessels would be required to 
install and maintain video cameras and associated data recording and 
monitoring equipment in order to record all longline catch and relevant 
data regarding pelagic longline gear retrieval and deployment.
    More specifically, this alternative would require the installation 
of NMFS-approved equipment that may include one to four video cameras, 
a recording device, video monitor, hydraulic pressure transducer, winch 
rotation sensor, system control box, or other equipment needed to 
achieve the objectives. Vessel owner/operators would be required to 
install, maintain, facilitate inspection of the equipment by NMFS, and 
obtain NMFS approval of the equipment. The vessel owner/operator would 
be required to store and make the data available to NMFS for at least 
120 days, and facilitate the submission of data to NMFS. The vessel 
operator would be responsible for ensuring that all catch is handled in 
a manner than enables the electronic monitoring system to record such 
fish, and must identify a crew person or employee responsible for 
ensuring that all handling, retention, and sorting of bluefin occurs in 
accordance with the regulations.
    While the electronic monitoring program is being designed and 
implemented, NMFS would continue to use logbook, observer, and landings 
information to assess catch by the pelagic longline fleet. NMFS would 
communicate in writing with the vessel owners during all phases of the 
program to provide information to assistant vessel owners, and 
facilitate the provision of technical assistance.
    This alternative would require both fixed and variable costs over 
the service life of each camera installed onboard. Fixed costs for 
vessel owners would include purchasing the camera ($3,565) and having 
it installed on the vessel ($500). Variable costs for vessel owners 
include data retrieval ($45/hour; $4,500/year); service ($45/hour; 
$270/year); technician travel ($0.5/mile; $1,680/year); fishing 
activity interpretation ($47/hour; $1,175 year); and catch data 
interpretation ($1.5 hours per haul at a labor rate of $47/hour, 1 haul 
per trip and 100 trips; $7,050/year). The estimated total variable 
costs would be $14,663, and first year fixed costs would be $4,065 for 
the purchase and installation of the equipment. First year fixed and 
variable costs total $18,728/vessel for the first year. After the first 
year, the annual variable costs of operation are estimated to be 
$14,663/vessel. The estimate provided here for catch data 
interpretation is likely an overestimate as the Agency is primarily 
concerned with verification of bluefin reports and no other species 
(i.e., yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin, wahoo, etc.) being landed on 
pelagic longline vessels. After purchasing the camera and having it 
installed, expenses

[[Page 71581]]

would be limited to the variable costs listed. This alternative would 
result in direct and indirect adverse economic impacts to pelagic 
longline vessel owners in the short and long term. NMFS is minimizing 
the economic impacts of this alternative by paying for the initial 
installation of the equipment, as well as for some of the variable 
costs such as review of the data.
Alternative D 3--Automated Catch Reporting
    The preferred alternative D 3 would require Atlantic Tunas General, 
Harpoon and HMS Charter/Headboat permit holders to report their bluefin 
catch (i.e., landings and discards) using an expanded version of the 
bluefin recreational automated landings reporting system (ALRS). The 
automated system includes two reporting options, one that is web-based 
and an interactive voice response telephone system. The ``No Action'' 
alternative is not preferred because it would not meet the Amendment 7 
objectives, and would have no social or economic impacts.
    The primary impacts of the preferred alternative are the amount of 
time the new reporting requirement would take, and the reporting costs, 
respectively. NMFS estimated the potential annual catch for each permit 
category based on previous years data and multiplied it by the 5 
minutes it takes to complete a report (NMFS 2013) for each fish to 
estimate a total reporting burden of 607 hours for potentially 8,226 
permit holders as a result of this alternative. Since the data are 
collected online or via telephone, there are no monetary costs to 
fishermen or direct economic impacts to fishermen from this 
alternative.
    Adjustments to both the online and IVR systems of the ALRS to 
implement catch reporting for General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/
Headboat category permit holders are estimated to cost NMFS a total of 
between $15,000 and $35,000 (B. McHale, pers. comm.) Annual maintenance 
would likely cost approximately $8,700 per year, which is the current 
cost for maintaining the ALRS and the call-in system for reports of 
other recreational HMS landings (NMFS 2013). The economic impacts of 
this alternative are minimized because the online reporting requirement 
results in a relatively low reporting burden.
Alternative D 4--Deployment of Observers
    Under alternative D 4a, the No Action alternative, which is the 
preferred alternative, there would be no changes to the current 
observer coverage in the Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, Purse Seine, 
Harpoon, or HMS Charter/Headboat categories. Therefore, there would be 
no additional cost to small businesses.
    Alternative D 4b would increase the level of NMFS-funded observers 
on a portion of trips by vessels fishing under the Atlantic Tunas 
Longline, General, Purse Seine, Harpoon, or HMS Charter/Headboat 
categories. There might be some minor costs to vessel operators with 
the increased chance that they will be selected for observer coverage 
and will have to accommodate an observer.
Alternative D 5--Logbook Requirement for Atlantic Tunas and HMS 
Category Permit Holders
    Alternative D 5, the No Action alternative, is preferred and would 
make no changes to the current logbook requirements applicable to any 
of the permit categories. It would have no economic impact on fishing 
vessel owners.
    Alternative D 5b would require the reporting of catch by Atlantic 
Tunas General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessels 
targeting bluefin through submission of an HMS logbook to NMFS. The 
direct social and economic impacts of this non-preferred alternative 
include the amount of time to complete logbook forms and the cost of 
submission (i.e., mailing) for all fishermen permitted in the affected 
permit categories. These impacts would be minor, adverse, and long-
term. A high-end proxy for the impacts of this alternative is the 
current reporting burden and cost for the entire HMS logbook program, 
which have been estimated for all commercial HMS fisheries (28,614 
permits, NMFS 2011a). The annual reporting burden for the entire 
program is estimated at 36,189 hours and costs are $94,779 for postage. 
A more refined estimate is 6,735 hours, which is based on the number of 
fishermen likely to conduct directed fishing trips for bluefin based on 
the total number of General, Charter/Headboat, and Harpoon category 
permit holders in the states from Maine through South Carolina. This is 
likely also an over-estimate, since many General and Charter/Headboat 
permit holders in these states fish for yellowfin, or other tunas 
rather than bluefin, or, for Charter/Headboat permit holders, other 
HMS. NMFS estimates this alternative would have a total annual 
reporting burden of 16,526 hours and a cost of $8,263.
Alternative D 6--Expand the Scope of the Large Pelagics Survey
    ``No Action'' is the preferred alternative for the scope of the 
Large Pelagics Survey, and would have no social or economic impacts. 
The non-preferred alternative would expand the Large Pelagics Survey to 
include May, November, and December, and add surveys to the states 
south of Virginia, including those bordering the Gulf of Mexico, in 
order to increase the amount of information available about the 
recreational bluefin fishery, and further refine recreational bluefin 
landings estimates.
    The direct economic impact of this non-preferred alternative is the 
amount of time that fishermen would expend participating in the survey. 
The impacts would be minor, adverse, and long-term. There are no 
financial costs to fishermen since the survey is conducted in person 
and over the phone, and there would be no direct economic impacts to 
fishermen for this alternative. NMFS estimates that the dockside survey 
takes 5 minutes on average, the phone survey takes 8 minutes, and 
collection of supplemental biological information takes about 1 minute. 
Previously, NMFS estimated that annual implementation of the Large 
Pelagics Survey throughout Atlantic and Gulf coastal states using the 
current target sample-size of 7,870 for the dockside survey, 10,780 for 
the phone survey and 1,500 for the biological survey would result in a 
reporting burden of 656 hours, 924 hours, and 25 hours respectively, 
for a total reporting burden of 1,730 hours (NMFS 2011b). This estimate 
could be used as a high-end proxy for the reporting burden associated 
with this alternative. Another method for estimating the reporting 
burden associated with this alternative is to use a ratio comparing the 
sample frame (i.e., number of permits) used in the coastwide estimate 
with the sample frame for the alternative (i.e., number of permits in 
states south of VA). Using this method, the reporting burden estimate 
is 559 hours. Because of the sampling design, adding the months of May, 
November, and December is not expected to add any reporting burden or 
cost (Ron Salz, pers. comm.).

Other Measures

Alternative E 1--Modify General Category Subquota Allocations
    If no action is taken under Alternative E 1a to modify the General 
category sub-period allocations, economic impacts would be neutral and 
largely would vary by geographic area, with continued higher potential 
revenues during the

[[Page 71582]]

summer months in the northeast and lower amounts to winter fishery 
participants off the mid- and south Atlantic states. General category 
participants that fish in the January bluefin fishery may continue to 
perceive a disadvantage as the available quota for that period is 
relatively small (5.3% of the General category quota) and they do not 
benefit from the rollover of unused quota either inseason or from one 
time period to the next. Nor do they benefit from prior-year 
underharvest, because of the timing of the annual final quota 
specifications (published in the middle of the year).
    Alternative E 1b would establish a 12 equal monthly subquotas. It 
would allow the General category to remain open year-round, and would 
revise subquotas so that they are evenly distributed throughout the 
year (i.e., the base quota of 435.1 mt would be divided into monthly 
subquotas of 8.3 percent of the General category base quota, or 36.1 
mt). NMFS would continue to carry forward unharvested General category 
quota from one time period to the next time period. This alternative 
would result in increased harvest in the earlier portions of the 
General category bluefin season and decreased harvest in the later 
portions of the season. For early season (January-March) General 
category participants, an additional 85.2 mt would be available (i.e., 
108.3-23.1 mt). At $9.13/lb, this represents a potential increase in 
revenue of approximately $1.7 million overall during this time period, 
nearly five times the current amount. NMFS does not have General 
category price/lb information for April or May since there is currently 
no General category fishing during those months, but using $9.13/lb as 
an estimate, potential revenues for each of those months would be 
$726,621. Potential revenues for the current June-August and September 
periods would decrease by approximately $2.2 million (50%) and $1.7 
million (69%), given recent average price ($9.13 and $9.61, 
respectively). For October-November and for December, potential 
revenues would increase by approximately $317,000 (28%) and $287,000 
(60%) at $9.21/lb and $9.65/lb, respectively. Relative to the No Action 
alternative, under Alternative E 1b, there would generally be 
substantially increased revenues for January through May and October 
through December and substantially decreased revenues for June through 
September, and total annual revenues would decrease by approximately 
$100,000 (1%).
    Alternative E 1c, a preferred alternative, is similar to 
Alternative E 1b and could result in a shift in the distribution of 
quota and thus fishing opportunities to the earlier portion of the 
year. For example, in 2011 and 2012, June through August General 
category landings totaled 140.3 mt and 192.2 mt, out of an available 
(base) quota of 217.6 mt. In 2010, June through August General category 
landings totaled 125.4 mt of an available (adjusted) quota of 269.4 mt. 
If quota that is anticipated to be unused in the first part of the 
summer season is made available to January period General category 
participants and bluefin are landed against the January period 
subquota, it would potentially result in improved and fuller use of the 
General category quota. Also, because bluefin price per lb is often 
higher in the January period than during the summer, shifting quota to 
this earlier period would result in beneficial impacts to early season 
General category participants off the mid- and south Atlantic states. 
It is possible, however, that an increase of bluefin on the market in 
the January period could reduce the average price for that time of 
year. Participants in the summer fishery may perceive such quota 
transfer to be a shift away from historical participants in the 
traditional General category bluefin fishing areas off New England and 
thus adverse. However, because unused quota rolls forward within a 
calendar year from one period to the next, any unused quota from the 
adjusted January period would return to the June through August period 
and onward if not used completely during that period. Overall, short-
term, direct impacts depend on the amount and timing of quota 
transferred inseason and would be expected to be neutral to minor, 
beneficial for January fishery participants and neutral to minor, 
adverse impacts for participants in the June through December General 
category fishery. This alternative minimizes economic impacts by 
providing additional regulatory flexibility for NMFS to transfer quota 
among seasons, and respond to and adapt to changes in the bluefin 
fishery. This flexibility therefore enhances NMFS' ability to optimize 
quota distribution among participants, seasons, and regions.
Alternative E 2--NMFS Authority To Adjust Harpoon Category Retention 
Limits Inseason
    Under the No Action alternative, alternative E 2a, Harpoon category 
participants would continue to have the ability to retain and land up 
to four large medium fish per vessel per day, as well as unlimited 
giants. The economic impact of the No Action alternative is expected to 
be direct and neutral to slightly beneficial and short-term, as 
participants would continue to be able to retain and land a 3rd and 4th 
large medium bluefin, if available, and would not have to discard these 
fish if caught while targeting giant bluefin. In 2012, the first year 
following implementation of the four-fish limit on large mediums, there 
were only two trips on which three large mediums were landed and two 
trips on which four large mediums were landed, or 6% total of 
successful trips. Harpoon quota revenues in 2012 were 24 percent lower 
than 2011 and 71 percent higher than in 2010.
    Under alternative E 2b, a preferred alternative, the daily 
retention limit of large medium bluefin would range from two to four 
bluefin, and the default large medium limit would be set at two fish. 
On a per-trip basis, there would be minor short-term direct adverse 
social and economic impacts that would depend on availability of large 
mediums to Harpoon category vessels on a per trip basis and the actual 
retention limit that NMFS sets inseason (or that is in place by 
default). Looking at successful 2012 trips, NMFS can estimate potential 
impacts of this change by determining the number of trips on which 
three or four large mediums were landed in 2012, and assume that those 
fish may not be able to be landed under this alternative. Using 2012 
successful trip data, if the limit was set at two large mediums, the 
revenue from up to six large mediums would be foregone for the season, 
and with a three fish limit, the revenue of up to two large mediums 
would be foregone. At an average 2012 weight of 296 lbs. and an average 
price of $9.13/lb for the Harpoon category, a loss of one to six fish 
would be approximately $2,702 to $16,215 for the Harpoon category as a 
whole for the year.
    Potentially beneficial economic impacts are possible if a lower 
limit at the beginning of the season results in the Harpoon category 
quota lasting longer into the season, as the average price/lb is 
generally higher in July and August than it is in June. NMFS has not 
needed to close the Harpoon category in recent years (i.e., as a result 
of the quota being met), but depending on the size of the amount of 
quota available and the number of Harpoon category participants, this 
may be a consideration. This alternative minimizes economic impacts by 
providing additional regulatory flexibility for NMFS to set bluefin 
trip limits, and respond to and adapt to changes in the bluefin 
fishery.

[[Page 71583]]

Alternative E 3--Angling Category Subquota Distribution
    Under alternative E 3a, the No Action alternative, Angling category 
participants fishing south of 39[deg]18' N. lat. (approximately, Great 
Egg Inlet, NJ) would continue to have their landings of trophy bluefin 
count toward a shared 66.7% of the Angling category large medium and 
giant bluefin subquota. The social impact of the No Action alternative 
is expected to vary by geographic area and be dependent on the 
availability of trophy-sized bluefin on the fishing grounds. If the 
pattern of high activity off Virginia and North Carolina continues, 
fishermen in the mid-Atlantic may have greater opportunities to land a 
bluefin and participants in the Gulf of Mexico may have no opportunity 
to land a bluefin when the fish are in their area as the southern 
trophy fishery may already be closed for the year. For Angling and 
Charter/Headboat fishermen, based on the last two years, there would be 
direct, beneficial, short-term social impacts in the mid-Atlantic and 
direct, adverse, short-term impacts for participants south of that 
area, including the Gulf of Mexico. The issue of economic costs for 
Angling category participants is not relevant as there is no sale of 
tunas by Angling category participants. For charter vessels, which sell 
fishing trips to recreational fishermen, economic impacts are expected 
to be neutral to beneficial for those in the mid-Atlantic and neutral 
to adverse for those south of that area, including the Gulf of Mexico, 
as the perceived opportunity to land a trophy bluefin may be 
diminished. This should be tempered in the Gulf of Mexico, where there 
is no directed fishing for bluefin allowed. Given that the current 
southern trophy bluefin subquota of 2.8 mt represents approximately 17-
30 individual fish, impacts are expected to be minor.
    Under Alternative E 3b, the preferred alternative, a portion of the 
trophy south subquota would be allocated specifically for the Gulf of 
Mexico. Specifically, the trophy subquota would be divided as 33% each 
to the northern area, the southern area outside the Gulf of Mexico, and 
the Gulf of Mexico. At the current average trophy fish weight, this 
would allow annually up to 8 trophy bluefin to be landed in each of the 
three areas.
    There would be minor, short-term, direct, beneficial social impacts 
to a small number of vessels in the Gulf of Mexico given the small 
amount of fish that would be allowed to be landed (as well as indirect 
beneficial economic impacts for charter vessels), but the perception of 
greater fairness among southern area participants may result in 
indirect, longer-term, beneficial, social impacts. There would be 
minor, short-term, direct and indirect adverse social impacts (and 
economic impacts for charter vessels) for those outside the Gulf of 
Mexico as the perceived opportunity to land a trophy bluefin may be 
diminished.
Alternative E 4--Change Start Date of Purse Seine Category to June 1
    Under Alternative E 4a, the No Action alternative, there would be 
no change to the start date of the Purse Seine category fishery, which 
is currently set at July 15. Economic impacts would be expected to be 
direct and neutral to adverse depending on availability of schools of 
bluefin for purse seine operators to decide to make a set on. That is, 
currently, if conditions would warrant making a set (e.g., based on 
information from spotter pilots) before July 15, purse seine operators 
would not be able to fish and would miss the economic opportunity to 
land and sell bluefin while the other commercial bluefin fisheries are 
open. Social impacts would be minor and neutral to adverse for purse 
seine fishery participants and would be minor and neutral to beneficial 
for fishermen in other categories due to reduced actual or perceived 
gear conflict from June 1 through July 14.
    Under the preferred alternative, E 4b, extending the range of 
potential start dates for the Purse Seine fishery, beginning fishing on 
June 1, would allow NMFS more flexibility in determining when the 
appropriate start date should be set, and the potential for increased 
flexibility for purse seine operators to choose when to fish, based on 
availability of schools of appropriate-sized bluefin and market price. 
Economic impacts would be expected to be direct and neutral to moderate 
and beneficial depending on when determines the start date should be, 
and depending upon the availability of schools of bluefin for purse 
seine operators to decide to make a set on and market conditions. 
Social impacts would be minor and neutral to beneficial for purse seine 
fishery participants and would be minor and neutral to adverse for 
fishermen in other categories due to increased actual or perceived gear 
conflict from June 1 through July 14. In 2012, the average price per 
pound was $12.46, although the price likely reflects the relatively 
small amount of purse seine-caught bluefin on the market that year. In 
2009, the last year in which there were Atlantic purse seine bluefin 
landings, the average price per pound was $5.96. NMFS minimized the 
potential economic impacts of this alternative by altering this measure 
from that which was proposed, to remove the default start date of June 
1, which was of concern to handgear fishermen, but instead will 
finalize an expanded range of potential start dates to the Purse Seine 
fishery.
Alternative E 5--Rule Regarding Permit Category Changes
    Under the No Action alternative, E 5a, there would be no changes 
made to current regulations regarding the ability of an applicant to 
make a correction to their open-access HMS permit category. The current 
regulations prohibit a vessel issued an open-access Atlantic Tunas or 
an HMS permit from changing the category of the permit after 10 
calendar days from the date of issuance. This No Action alternative is 
administrative in nature, and therefore the social and economic impacts 
associated with it would be neutral for most applicants. However, for 
those applicants who discover their permit category may not allow the 
vessel to fish in a manner as intended, they may experience moderate 
adverse social and economic impacts at an individual level. For 
example, if a commercial fishermen obtained an Angling category permit 
(recreational) versus a General category permit (commercial) and did 
not discover the error until after the 10 calendar day window, their 
vessel would not be allowed to fish commercially for Atlantic tunas for 
the remainder of that year. Likewise, if recreational fishermen 
obtained a General category permit (commercial) versus an Angling 
category permit (commercial) and did not discover the error until after 
the 10 calendar window, their vessel would not be allowed to fish under 
the recreational rules and regulations for the remainder of the year. 
These two examples demonstrate the potential in lost fishing 
opportunities as a result of the No Action alternative.
    Under the preferred alternative, E 5b, NMFS would allow category 
changes to an open-access HMS permit for a time period greater than 10 
calendar days (e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days), provided the vessel has not 
fished as verified via landings data. This alternative would result in 
neutral social and economic impacts for most applicants as there are 
approximately 20 requests annually that would fall outside the 10 
calendar day window. However, those applicants who discover their 
permit category may not allow the vessel to fish in a manner as 
intended (~20 per year), would

[[Page 71584]]

experience moderate beneficial social and economic impacts provided 
they discover the error in the liberalized window (e.g., 30, 45, or 60 
days). Using the two examples illustrated above and assuming no bluefin 
were caught in either case, each applicant would be allowed to correct 
their open-access HMS permit category to match their intended fishing 
practices for the remainder of that year, thereby mitigating the 
potential of lost fishing opportunities, as well as potential income.
Alternative E 6--North Atlantic Albacore Tuna Quota
    Alternative E 6a, the No Action alternative, maintains the current 
northern albacore tuna quota. In the last 10 years, U.S. catches 
reached or exceeded the current U.S. initial quota (527 mt for 2013) in 
2004 with 646 mt and in 2007 with 532 mt. However, catches have been 
less than the adjusted U.S. quotas (currently about 659 mt) for the 
last several years. Under the No Action alternative, there is no 
domestic mechanism to limit annual catches of northern albacore beyond 
the current requirements for Atlantic tunas or HMS vessel permits, 
authorized gear, observers/logbooks, and time/area closures. Therefore, 
expected short-term, direct economic impacts and social impacts under 
the No Action alternative would be neutral. If future overharvests 
result in the United States being out of compliance with the ICCAT 
recommendation, the United States would need to put control measures in 
place and neutral to adverse longer-term direct economic and social 
impacts could occur if the resulting annual quota needs to be reduced 
by the amount of the overharvest.
    If, under preferred alternative, E 6b, NMFS implements a domestic 
quota for northern albacore and recent catch levels continue, and the 
U.S. quota (including the adjusted quota) recommended by ICCAT is 
maintained at the current amount, economic and social impacts would not 
be expected. However, if either the U.S. quota is reduced as part of a 
new TAC recommendation or catches increase above the current adjusted 
U.S. quota, there could be adverse impacts resulting from reduced 
future fishing opportunities and ex-vessel revenues. At an average 
price of $1.29/lb for commercially-landed albacore in 2011, a reduction 
of one mt would represent approximately $2,800 under a full quota use 
situation. Actual impacts would largely depend on the availability of 
northern albacore and the ability of fishery participants to harvest 
the quota. In addition, any adverse social and economic impacts of 
exceeding the TAC, which was adopted as part of the overall ICCAT 
northern albacore rebuilding program, would be reduced and, in the long 
term, may be beneficial for fishermen as the stock grows. There may be 
slight differences in the level of economic and social impacts 
experienced by the specific individuals of the northern albacore 
fishery, as well as by participants within a particular fishery sector.
    NMFS has determined that Amendment 7 does not require reinitiation 
of consultation and that, per ESA section 7(d), it would not result in 
an ``irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources'' that would 
have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any 
reasonable and prudent alternative measures during the ongoing 
consultations.
    On March 31, 2014, NMFS reinitiated consultation for the pelagic 
longline fishery. That fishery operates consistent with a 2004 
Biological Opinion (BiOp) that concluded that the Atlantic pelagic 
longline fishery was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley or olive ridley sea 
turtles but was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
leatherback sea turtles. NMFS implemented the Reasonable and Prudent 
Alternatives (RPAs) and Terms and Conditions specified in that BiOp 
(e.g., hook type, bait type, mandatory workshops). On March 31, 2014, 
NMFS requested reinitiation of consultation of the pelagic longline 
BiOp due to new information on mortality rates and total mortality 
estimates for leatherback turtles that exceed those specified in the 
RPAs, changes in information about leatherback and loggerhead 
populations, and new information on sea turtle mortality. While the 
mortality rate measure needs to be re-evaluated, this does not affect 
the overall ability of the RPAs to avoid jeopardy during the 
reinitiation.
    NMFS is continuing to implement these RPAs during the ongoing 
consultation and has previously determined that ongoing operations in 
compliance with that BiOp are consistent with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) 
of the ESA.
    Implementation of this final rule will not affect NMFS' ability to 
comply with the RPAs and RPMs in the 2004 BiOp, and will not trigger 
additional ESA requirements or considerations pertaining to the pelagic 
longline fishery and listed sea turtles and other species covered in 
the 2004 BiOp. Amendment 7 measures (including those that could reduce 
fishing effort) implemented in conjunction with current measures in the 
HMS fisheries would not change the determination that ongoing 
operations are unlikely 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. A complete discussion 
of the effect of the alternatives applicable to the Longline category 
on quota allocation and fishing effort is located in Section 4.1.6.1 of 
the FEIS.
    On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a final rule to list four Distinct 
Populations Segments (DPS) of scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna 
lewini): Two as threatened (Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS and 
Indo-West Pacific DPS) and two as endangered (Eastern Atlantic DPS and 
Eastern Pacific DPS) under the Endangered Species Act (79 FR 38214). 
The Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS consists primarily of the 
population found in the Caribbean Sea and off the Atlantic coast of 
Central and South America (includes all waters of the Caribbean Sea, 
including the U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
    On August 27, 2014, NMFS published a final rule to list the 
following 20 coral species as threatened: Five in the Caribbean 
including Florida and the Gulf of Mexico (Dendrogyra cylindrus, 
Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata, Orbicella franksi, and 
Mycetophyllia ferox); and 15 in the Indo-Pacific (Acropora globiceps, 
Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora lokani, Acropora pharaonis, Acropora 
retusa, Acropora rudis, Acropora speciosa, Acropora tenella, Anacropora 
spinosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis, Montipora 
australiensis, Pavona diffluens, Porites napopora, and Seriatopora 
aculeata). Additionally, in that August 2014 rule, two species that had 
been previously listed as threatened (Acropora cervicornis and Acropora 
palmata) in the Caribbean were found to still warrant listing as 
threatened.
    The Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS of scalloped hammerhead 
sharks and seven Caribbean species of corals occur within the 
management area of Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) commercial 
and recreational fisheries which are managed by NMFS's Office of 
Sustainable Fisheries, HMS Management Division. Following these 
listings and based on the information included in an October 2014 
biological evaluation, NMFS determined that certain authorized Atlantic 
HMS gear types may affect and are likely to adversely affect scalloped 
hammerhead sharks within the Central and

[[Page 71585]]

Southwest Atlantic DPS. Additionally, certain authorized Atlantic HMS 
gear types may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, 
threatened Caribbean coral species. Thus, on October 30, 2014, NMFS 
requested reinitiation of ESA section 7 consultation for the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan activities, as 
amended and as previously consulted on in the 2001 Atlantic HMS 
biological opinion and the 2012 Shark and Smoothhound biological 
opinion, to assess potential adverse effects of certain gear types on 
the Central and Southwest DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks and seven 
threatened coral species.
    With regard to the new listings, per ESA section 7(d), NMFS has 
determined that Amendment 7 would not result in an ``irreversible or 
irretrievable commitment of resources'' that would have the effect of 
foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and 
prudent alternative measures during the ongoing consultations. There 
are scalloped hammerhead shark interactions in the Central and 
Southwest Atlantic DPS, based on Fisheries Logbook System and Pelagic 
Observer Program data. The number of interactions is consistent with 
the conclusion that scalloped hammerhead sharks in the Central and 
Southwest Atlantic DPS are rarely targeted and that recreational 
fishing results in catch and release of low numbers of under-sized 
scalloped hammerhead sharks. Additionally, Atlantic HMS gear types may 
affect but are not likely to adversely affect, threatened Caribbean 
coral species.
    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been 
approved by OMB under control numbers 0648-0372, 0648-0328, and 0648-
0677. Public reporting burden for these collections of information are 
estimated to average, as follows:
    1. Purse Seine VMS hail out & in, OMB # 0648-0372, (5 min/
response);
    2. Pelagic Longline (PLL) and Purse Seine (PS) VMS catch reports 
and verification, OMB # 0648-0372, (5 min/response for PLL; 15 min for 
PS)
    3. Electronic Monitoring of Pelagic Longline Vessels, Data 
Retrieval, OMB # 0648-0328, (5 min/response)
    4. General, Harpoon, and Charter/Headboat reporting via automated 
systems, OMB # 0648-0328, (5 min/response)
    5. Pelagic Longline appeal of Performance Metrics, OMB # 0648-0677, 
(2 hr/response)
    6. Pelagic Longline appeal of Quota Shares, OMB # 0648-0677, (2 hr/
response)
    7. Pelagic Longline and Purse Seine IBQ Trade Execution and 
Tracking, Transfer of Allocation, OMB # 0648-0677, (2 min/response)
    8. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, Online Account Initial 
Application, OMB # 0648-0677, (10 min/response)
    9. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, Online Account Renewal 
Application, OMB # 0648-0677, (10 min/response)
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. Copies of 
this final rule and the compliance guide are available upon request 
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Copies of the compliance guide will also be 
available from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division Web 
site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.
    This final rule does not conflict, duplicate, or overlap with other 
relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)). Fishermen, dealers, and 
managers in these fisheries must comply with a number of international 
agreements, domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include, but are not 
limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ACTA, the High Seas Fishing 
Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered 
Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. We do not believe 
that the new regulations duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 
relevant regulations, Federal or otherwise.
    The State of Louisiana objected to the consistency determination 
required by 15 CFR 930.39, and stated that the potential biological 
benefits of the Amendment are minimal compared to the potentially large 
socio-economic impacts for pelagic longline vessels, especially those 
related to the IBQ program. The State of Louisiana also disagreed with 
the conclusion that the proposed activity is consistent to the maximum 
extent practicable with the LCRP, claiming that the determination lacks 
information sufficient to support the consistency statement ``as 
required by federal regulations at 15 CFR 930.39(a) and as identified 
in the enforceable policies of the Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 
43, Part I.''
    The State of Louisiana states that Amendment 7 is inconsistent with 
three, and is not fully consistent with six, of the enforceable 
policies of the Louisiana Administrative Code and states that Amendment 
7 lacks comprehensive data and information sufficient to support the 
consistency statement. The specific factors of section 701 of the 
Louisiana Administrative Code that the State of Louisiana states are 
not fully consistent with Amendment 7 are Section 701 F(5), 
availability of feasible alternative sites or methods of implementing 
the use; F(7) economic need for use and extent of impacts of use on 
economy of locality; F(11) extent of impacts on existing and 
traditional uses of the area and on future uses for which the area is 
suited; F(16) proximity to and extent of impacts on public lands or 
works, or historic, recreational, or cultural resources; F(17) extent 
of impacts on navigation, fishing, public access, and recreational 
opportunities; and F(19) extent of long term benefit or adverse 
impacts.
    After reviewing these concerns and, in accordance with the Coastal 
Zone Management Act (CZMA) regulations at 15 CFR 930.43(d)(2), NMFS has 
concluded that the proposed action is consistent to the maximum extent 
practicable with the enforceable policies of the LCRP, as noted below, 
though the State of Louisiana objects. Specifics on this conclusion are 
as follows.
    Regarding factor F(5), there are no alternative sites for 
implementing the use of pelagic longline fishing within the Gulf of 
Mexico--pelagic longline fishing already occurs within all available 
federal and state waters. As noted below, alternative methods of 
reducing dead discards that were analyzed included group or regional 
quotas and would have had more adverse impacts than the preferred 
alternative. Regarding factor F(7), the State of Louisiana correctly 
states that pelagic longline fishing is an important economic activity 
contributing to the Louisiana economy. Pelagic longline fishing will 
continue to be authorized within the Gulf of Mexico, and valuable 
target species such as swordfish and yellowfin tuna are abundant in the 
region such that, should pelagic

[[Page 71586]]

longline vessels continue to offload to Louisiana-based federal 
dealers, pelagic longline fishing will continue to contribute to the 
Louisiana economy.
    Regarding factor F(11), as stated above, pelagic longline fishing 
will continue to be authorized within the Gulf of Mexico such that 
existing and traditional uses as well as future uses of the area will 
continue. Therefore, NMFS believes that the proposed action is 
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 
policies of the LCRP.
    Regarding factor F(16), productive fishing grounds will still be 
available for pelagic longline fishing within the Gulf of Mexico even 
with the preferred alternative that would implement the Modified Spring 
Gulf of Mexico GRAs. As noted in Chapter 4 of the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS), with redistribution of effort, NMFS 
anticipates a reduction of approximately $281,000 in ex-vessel value 
from implementing the preferred alternative, which, while approximately 
3 percent of the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fleet total ex-vessel 
value of $9.74 million, means that roughly 97 percent of ex-vessel 
value within the Gulf of Mexico will continue to contribute to the 
State of Louisiana economy. Therefore, NMFS believes that the proposed 
action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 
enforceable policies of the LCRP.
    Regarding factor F(17), the preferred alternative to implement the 
Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA would restrict access to two 
additional areas within the Gulf of Mexico where bluefin bycatch has 
consistently occurred from 2006-2012 and which comprise approximately 
11 percent of the area. In combination with the DeSoto Canyon pelagic 
longline closed areas, which were closed to reduce bycatch of juvenile 
swordfish and overfished billfish and coastal sharks, and other 
applicable HMS pelagic longline closed areas, approximately 25 percent 
of the Gulf of Mexico is restricted to pelagic longline gear. While 
these measures impact pelagic longline fishing, other fishing 
activities, navigation, public access, and recreational opportunities 
would remain unaffected. Therefore, NMFS believes that the proposed 
action is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the 
enforceable policies of the LCRP.
    Regarding factor F(19), implementation of Amendment 7 measures 
would provide different benefits and adverse impacts for the pelagic 
longline fleet within the Gulf of Mexico depending on the measure. The 
preferred Codified and Annual Reallocation alternatives would provide 
short and long term benefits to the pelagic longline fishery through an 
increased codified quota of 62 mt in addition to potential for 
additional quota as a result of the annual reallocation alternative. 
Implementation of IBQs, as noted above, would provide approximately 75 
percent of pelagic longline vessels an allocation sufficient for 
reported bluefin interactions. A portion of Louisiana homeported 
vessels would likely need to lease additional bluefin quota or modify 
fishing behavior to reduce bluefin interactions, although 
implementation of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs would limit 
access to areas of high bluefin interactions, thereby likely reducing 
bluefin interactions without additional changes by fishermen. 
Therefore, NMFS believes that the proposed action is consistent to the 
maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the LCRP.
    The State of Louisiana also states that Amendment 7 is inconsistent 
with the enforceable policies of the Lousiana Administrative Code's 
Section 701G (2), adverse economic impacts on the locality of the used 
and affected governmental bodies; (6), adverse disruption of existing 
social patterns; and (10), adverse effects of cumulative impacts.
    Regarding factors G(2) and (6), the implementation of Amendment 7 
measures would provide different benefits and adverse impacts for the 
pelagic longline fleet within the Gulf of Mexico depending on the 
measure. While some impacts are expected to be short-and long-term 
moderate adverse impacts, NMFS has balanced the overall impacts to the 
pelagic longline fleet as well as other user groups to achieve 
Amendment 7 objectives in a fair and appropriate manner, and as 
described in Chapters 5, 7, and 8 of the FEIS, has minimized adverse 
social and economic impacts to the extent practicable, consistent with 
the National Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory Flexibility Act, and 
CZMA. Providing additional codified quota as well as the potential of 
additional quota through annual reallocation, in combination with GRAs 
where bluefin interactions have been historically high and IBQs that 
provide 75 percent of the fleet with sufficient quota to continue 
current fishing practices- balances the need to reduce dead discards 
with providing fishing opportunities to all user groups. The adverse 
impacts to 13 Louisiana homeported vessels that would likely need to 
lease approximately 7 metric tons of bluefin are warranted given the 
long-term benefits to the overall pelagic longline fleet under the 
combination of all preferred alternatives.
    Regarding G(10), the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline fleet is a 
heavily regulated fishery and has experienced several natural and man-
made adverse impacts as well as regulatory changes in recent years. 
Several regulatory measures have been implemented to reduce bycatch of 
threatened or endangered species (i.e., circle hooks in 2004) and 
overfished species such as bluefin (e.g., weak hooks in 2011) or 
coastal sharks (i.e., sandbar sharks in 2008 and scalloped hammerhead 
sharks in 2013). These measures often have short term adverse impacts 
but are ultimately needed for the sustainability of the fishery in the 
long term. In each of these actions, NMFS has minimized adverse impacts 
to the extent practicable while still meeting conservation objectives, 
consistent with applicable law.
    Furthermore, the FEIS analysis demonstrates that NMFS utilized many 
of the factors cited by the State of Louisiana as lacking in NMFS's 
evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the best available logbook, dealer, 
and observer data, conducted vessel-specific analyses for preferred 
alternatives on gear restricted areas and IBQ measures, and relied on 
relevant recent scientific information. NMFS also explored the 
availability of alternative methods of achieving the Amendment 7 
objectives, and considered the economic impacts, as well as the long 
term benefits of the measures. The alternative methods to reduce dead 
discards of no action or group or regional quotas would have more 
adverse impacts and be less effective in achieving Amendment 7 
objectives to reduce dead discards and maximize fishing opportunity. 
The design of the IBQ management measures and other aspects of 
Amendment 7 minimize the significant adverse economic impacts, 
disruption of social patterns, and adverse cumulative impacts, to the 
extent practicable, relative to other methods analyzed while also 
meeting Amendment 7 objectives.
    As explained in Chapter 5 of the FEISit includes limited state 
specific analyses of the impacts of the preferred codified and IBQ 
measures. Due to the nature of the bluefin fisheries (widely 
distributed and highly variable), the FEIS analyses are principally at 
a fishery-wide, or permit category level. The IBQ analyses show that 
approximately 75 percent of the pelagic longline fleet would receive an 
initial allocation that would be consistent with their historical 
reported landings such that they would be able to continue to

[[Page 71587]]

operate without having to acquire additional quota. Under the preferred 
137 mt alternative (see Table 5.26), the total additional amount of 
quota needed to continue fishing at historical levels is estimated to 
total 51.3 metric tons across all the vessels needing additional quota. 
Many vessels, however, would not need their full initial IBQ allocation 
to continue fishing at their historic levels. The total of this surplus 
quota across all vessels likely not fully use their initial IBQ 
allocation is estimated to be 82.8 mt in the context of the preferred 
137 mt alternative. The total surplus of quota exceeds the total amount 
needed under the preferred 137 mt alternative, so the transfer of quota 
among pelagic longline vessels should reduce potential economic impacts 
of the IBQ program.
    The states with the largest amount of additional IBQ needed include 
Louisiana, New York, and Florida, while vessels with home ports in 
Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana would have the most surplus quota 
available to trade. Specific to pelagic longline vessels homeported in 
Louisiana, NMFS estimates that approximately 12 vessels would receive 
an initial allocation either at or above their historical reported 
landings and would have approximately 10.4 mt of surplus allocation. 
Conversely, approximately 13 vessels would need additional quota of 
17.4 mt to maintain current fishing practices. Therefore, the total 
quota need among State of Louisiana homeported vessels would be 7 mt. 
Vessels may change their fishing practices such that the amount of 
quota they need is reduced or they may be able to lease quota from 
other vessels with surplus quota. Therefore, the adverse impacts to 
State of Louisiana homeported vessels would be minimized to the extent 
practicable while still meeting the objectives of Amendment 7.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 635

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

    Dated: November 21, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR 
part 635 are amended as follows:

Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 350 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  902.1, the table in paragraph (b) under 50 CFR is amended 
by adding new entries in numerical order for Sec. Sec.  635.5(a)(4), 
635.9(e), 635.14(d), 635.15(a)(2), (c)(2) and (k)(4), and 635.69(a) and 
(e)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  902.1  OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Current OMB control
   CFR Part or section where the information       number (all numbers
       collection requirement is located            begin with 0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
50 CFR:                                          .......................
 
                                * * * * *
    635.5(a)(4)................................                    -0328
 
                                * * * * *
    635.9(e)...................................                    -0328
    635.14(d)..................................                    -0677
    635.15(a)(2), (c)(2) and (k)(4)............                    -0677
 
                                * * * * *
    635.69(a) and (e)(4).......................                    -0372
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title 50--Wildlife and Fisheries

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

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

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


0
4. In Sec.  635.2:
0
a. Revise the definitions of ``Bottom longline,'' ``Green-stick gear,'' 
and ``Pelagic longline,'' and
0
b. Add the definitions of ``Cape Hatteras gear restricted area,'' ``In 
transit,'' ``Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area,'' and 
``Transiting'' in alphabetical order.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bottom longline means a longline that is deployed with enough 
weights and/or anchors to maintain contact with the ocean bottom. For 
the purposes of this part, a vessel is considered to have bottom 
longline gear on board when a power-operated longline hauler, a 
mainline, weights and/or anchors capable of maintaining contact between 
the mainline and the ocean bottom, and leaders (gangions) with hooks 
are on board. Removal of any of these elements constitutes removal of 
bottom longline gear. Bottom longline vessels may have a limited number 
of floats and/or high flyers onboard for the purposes of marking the 
location of the gear but removal of these floats does not constitute 
removal of bottom longline gear.
* * * * *
    Cape Hatteras gear restricted area means the area within the 
Atlantic Ocean bounded by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order stated: 34[deg]50' N. lat., 75[deg]10' W. 
long.; 35[deg]40' N. lat., 75[deg]10' W. long.; 35[deg]40' N. lat., 
75[deg]00' W. long.; 37[deg]10' N. lat., 75[deg]00' W. long.; 
37[deg]10' N. lat., 74[deg]20' W. long.; 34[deg]30' N. lat., 74[deg]20' 
W. long.; 34[deg]50' N. lat., 75[deg]00' W. long; 34[deg]50' N. lat., 
75[deg]10' W.
* * * * *
    Green-stick gear means an actively trolled mainline attached to a 
vessel and elevated or suspended above the surface of the water with no 
more than 10 hooks or gangions attached to the mainline. The suspended 
line, attached gangions and/or hooks, and catch may be retrieved 
collectively by hand or mechanical means. Green-stick does not 
constitute a pelagic longline or a bottom longline as defined in this 
section.
    In transit means non-stop progression through an area without any 
fishing activity occurring.
* * * * *
    Pelagic longline means a longline that is suspended by floats in 
the water column and that is not fixed to or in contact with the ocean 
bottom. For the purposes of this part, a vessel is considered to have 
pelagic longline gear on board when a power-operated longline hauler, a 
mainline, floats capable of supporting the mainline, and leaders 
(gangions) with hooks are on

[[Page 71588]]

board. Removal of any of these elements constitutes removal of pelagic 
longline gear.
* * * * *
    Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area means two areas within 
the Gulf of Mexico described here. The first area is bounded by 
straight lines connecting the following coordinates in the order 
stated: 26[deg]30' N. lat., 94[deg]40' W. long.; 27[deg]30' N. lat., 
94[deg]40' W. long.; 27[deg]30' N. lat., 89[deg] W. long.; 26[deg]30' 
N. lat., 89[deg] W. long.; 26[deg]30' N. lat., 94[deg]40' W. long. The 
second area is bounded by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order stated: 27[deg]40' N. lat., 88[deg] W. long.; 
28[deg] N. lat., 88[deg] W. long.; 28[deg] N. lat., 86[deg] W. long.; 
27[deg]40' N. lat., 86[deg] W. long.; 27[deg]40'N. lat., 88[deg] W. 
long.
* * * * *
    Transiting means progressing through an area without any fishing 
activity occurring.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  635.4 revise paragraphs (j)(3) and (o)(4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits and fees.

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (3) A vessel owner issued an Atlantic Tunas permit in the General, 
Harpoon, or Trap category or an Atlantic HMS permit in the Angling or 
Charter/Headboat category under paragraph (b), (c), or (d) of this 
section may change the category of the vessel permit once within 45 
calendar days of the date of issuance of the permit, provided the 
vessel has not landed bluefin tuna during those 45 calendar days as 
verified by NMFS via landings data. After 45 calendar days from the 
date of issuance of the permit, the vessel owner may not change the 
permit category until the following fishing season.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (4) The owner of a vessel issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small 
Boat permit may fish for, take, retain, or possess only BAYS tunas, 
Atlantic swordfish, and Atlantic sharks, subject to the trip limits 
specified at Sec.  635.24.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  635.5:
0
a. Paragraph (a)(3) is revised;
0
b. Paragraph (a)(4) is redesignated as paragraph (a)(5);
0
c. New paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6) are added;
0
d. Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) is revised;
0
e. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is added; and
0
f. Paragraph (c)(1) is revised.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.5  Recordkeeping and reporting.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) Bluefin tuna landed by a commercial vessel and not sold. If a 
person who catches and lands a large medium or giant bluefin tuna from 
a vessel issued a permit in any of the commercial categories for 
Atlantic tunas does not sell or otherwise transfer the bluefin tuna to 
a dealer who has a dealer permit for Atlantic tunas, the person must 
contact a NMFS enforcement agent, at a number designated by NMFS, 
immediately upon landing such bluefin tuna, provide the information 
needed for the reports required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this 
section, and, if requested, make the tuna available so that a NMFS 
enforcement agent or authorized officer may inspect the fish and attach 
a tag to it. Alternatively, such reporting requirement may be fulfilled 
if a dealer who has a dealer permit for Atlantic tunas affixes a dealer 
tag as required under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section and reports 
the bluefin tuna as being landed but not sold on the reports required 
under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. If a vessel is placed on a 
trailer, the person must contact a NMFS enforcement agent, or the 
bluefin tuna must have a dealer tag affixed to it by a permitted 
Atlantic tunas dealer, immediately upon the vessel being removed from 
the water. All bluefin tuna landed but not sold will be applied to the 
quota category according to the permit category of the vessel from 
which it was landed.
    (4) Bluefin tuna discarded dead, or landed by a commercial vessel 
and sold. The owner of a vessel that has been permitted or that is 
required to be permitted under Sec.  635.4 in the Atlantic Tunas 
General or Harpoon categories, or has been permitted or is required to 
be permitted under Sec.  635.4 under the HMS Charter/Headboat category 
and fishing under the General category quotas and daily limits as 
specified at Sec.  635.23(c), must report all discards and/or landings 
of bluefin tuna through the NMFS electronic catch reporting system 
within 24 hours of the landings or the end of trip. Such reports may be 
made by either calling a phone number designated by NMFS or by 
submitting the required information online to a Web site designated by 
NMFS. The owner of a vessel that has been permitted in a different 
bluefin tuna category must report as specified elsewhere in this 
section (Sec.  635.5).
* * * * *
    (6) Atlantic Tunas permitted vessels. The owner or operator of an 
Atlantic Tunas vessel fishing with pelagic longline gear or an Atlantic 
Tunas Purse Seine category participant is subject to the VMS reporting 
requirements under Sec.  635.69(e)(4) and the applicable Individual 
Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program and/or leasing requirements under Sec.  
635.15(a)(2).
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Landing reports. Each dealer with a valid Atlantic Tunas dealer 
permit issued under Sec.  635.4 must submit the landing reports to NMFS 
for each bluefin received from a U.S. fishing vessel. Such reports must 
be submitted electronically by sending a facsimile to a number 
designated by NMFS not later than 24 hours after receipt of the 
bluefin. Landing reports must include the name and permit number of the 
vessel that landed the bluefin and other information regarding the 
catch as instructed by NMFS. Landing reports submitted via facsimile 
must be signed by the permitted vessel owner or operator immediately 
upon transfer of the bluefin. When purchasing bluefin tuna from 
eligible IBQ Program participants or Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 
category participants, permitted Atlantic Tunas dealers must also enter 
landing reports into the electronic IBQ System established under 
635.15, not later than 24 hours after receipt of the bluefin. The 
vessel owner or operator must confirm that the IBQ System landing 
report information is accurate by entering a unique PIN when the dealer 
report is submitted. The dealer must inspect the vessel's permit to 
verify that it is a commercial category, the required vessel name and 
permit number as listed on the permit are correctly recorded on the 
landing report, and that the vessel permit has not expired.
* * * * *
    (iii) Dealers must comply with dealer requirements related to the 
Individual Bluefin Quota Program under Sec.  635.15(a)(4)(iii).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Bluefin tuna. The owner of a vessel permitted, or required to 
be permitted in the Atlantic HMS Angling or Atlantic HMS Charter/
Headboat category under Sec.  635.4 must report the catch of all 
bluefin tuna discarded dead and/or retained under the Angling category 
quota designated at Sec.  635.27(a) through the NMFS electronic catch 
reporting system within 24 hours of the landing.
* * * * *

0
7. Add Sec.  635.9 to subpart A--with paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (e)(1) 
effective June 1, 2015--to read as follows:

[[Page 71589]]

Sec.  635.9  Electronic monitoring.

    (a) Applicability. An owner or operator of a commercial vessel 
permitted or required to be permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category under Sec.  635.4, and that has pelagic longline gear on 
board, is required to have installed, operate, and maintain an 
electronic monitoring (EM) system on the vessel, as specified in this 
section. Vessel owner or operators can contact NMFS or a NMFS-approved 
contractor for more details on procuring an EM system.
    (b) EM Installation. (1) NMFS or a NMFS-approved contractor will 
assess individual Atlantic Tunas Longline permitted vessels that are 
currently eligible for IBQ share, install and test all EM systems; 
provide training to vessel owners or operators or their designees; and 
develop in consultation with vessel owners or operators or their 
designees required operational plans (Vessel Monitoring Plan or VMP) 
for the EM systems, as described in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (2) Vessel owners or operators, as instructed by NMFS, will be 
required to coordinate with NMFS or a NMFS-approved contractor to 
schedule a date or range of dates for EM installation, and/or may be 
required to steam to a designated port for EM installation on NMFS-
determined dates. NMFS may require vessel owners to make minor 
modifications to vessel equipment to facilitate installation and 
operation of the EM system, such as, but not limited to, installation 
of a fitting for the pressure side of the line of the drum hydraulic 
system, a power supply for the EM system and power switches/
connections, additional lighting, and/or a mounting structure(s) for 
installation of the camera(s). EM installation must be completed by 
June 1, 2015 in order to fish with pelagic longline gear after that 
date.
    (i) Certificate of Installation. After confirming that an EM system 
that meets the requirements of this section is properly installed, the 
system has been tested, and training and a required operational plan 
(VMP) are completed, NMFS or the NMFS-approved contractor will provide 
a Certificate of Installation to the vessel owner or operator.
    (ii) Vessels described under paragraph (a) of this section may not 
depart on a fishing trip without having a valid Certificate of 
Installation and VMP on board.
    (c) EM System Components. The EM system installed by the NMFS-
approved contractor must be comprised of video camera(s), recording 
equipment, and other related equipment and must have the following 
components and capabilities:
    (1) Video camera(s). (i) Video cameras must be mounted and placed 
so as to provide clear, unobstructed views of the area(s) where the 
pelagic longline gear is retrieved and of catch being removed from 
hooks prior to being placed in the hold or discarded. There must be 
lighting sufficient to illuminate clearly individual fish.
    (ii) Video camera(s) must be in sufficient numbers (a minimum of 
two and up to four), with sufficient resolution (no less than 720p 
(1280 x 720)) for NMFS, the USCG, and their authorized officers and 
designees, or any individual authorized by NMFS to determine the number 
and species of fish harvested. To obtain the views described in 
paragraph (c)(1)(i), at least one camera must be mounted to record 
close-up images of fish being retained on the deck at the haulback 
station, and at least one camera must be mounted to record activity at 
the waterline along the side of the vessel at the haul back station. 
NMFS or the NMFS-approved contractor will determine if more cameras are 
needed.
    (iii) The EM system must be capable of initiating video recording 
at the time gear retrieval starts. It must record all periods of time 
when the gear is being retrieved and catch is removed from the hooks 
until it is placed in the hold or discarded.
    (2) GPS receiver. A GPS receiver is required to produce output, 
which includes location coordinates, velocity, and heading data, and is 
directly logged continuously by the control box. The GPS receiver must 
be installed and remain in a location where it receives a strong signal 
continuously.
    (3) Hydraulic and drum rotation sensors. Hydraulic sensors are 
required to continuously monitor the hydraulic pressure and a drum 
rotation sensor must continuously monitor drum rotations.
    (4) EM control box. The system must include a control box that 
receives and stores the raw data provided by the sensors and cameras. 
The control box must contain removable hard drives and storage systems 
adequate for a trip lasting 30 days.
    (5) EM systems monitor. A wheelhouse monitor must provide a 
graphical user interface for harvester to monitor the state and 
performance of the control box and provide information on the current 
date and time synchronized via GPS, GPS coordinates, current hydraulic 
pressure reading, presence of a data disk, percentage used of the data 
disk, and video recording status.
    (6) The EM system must have software that enables the system to be 
tested for functionality and that records the outcome of the tests.
    (d) Data maintenance, storage, and viewing. The EM system must have 
the capacity to allow NMFS, the USCG, and their authorized officers and 
designees, or any NMFS-approved contractor to observe the live video on 
the EM systems monitor as described in paragraph (c)(5) of this 
section. Vessel owner or operators must provide access to the system, 
including the data upon request.
    (e) Operation. (1) Unless otherwise authorized by NMFS in writing, 
a vessel described in paragraph (a) of this section must collect video 
and sensor data in accordance with the requirements in this section, in 
order to fish with pelagic longline gear.
    (2) Vessel monitoring plan. The vessel owner or operator must have 
available onboard a written VMP for its system, which is an operational 
plan developed by the NMFS-approved contractor containing the 
standardized procedures relating to the vessel's EM system. VMPs may 
include, but are not limited to, information on the locations of EM 
system components; contact information for technical support; 
instructions on how to conduct a pre-trip system test; instructions on 
how to verify proper system functions; location(s) on deck where fish 
retrieval should occur to remain in view of the cameras; procedures for 
how to manage EM system hard drives; catch handling procedures; a size 
reference for facilitating determination of fish size; periodic checks 
of the monitor during the retrieval of gear to verify proper 
functioning; reporting procedures. The VMP should minimize to the 
extent practicable any impact on the current operating procedures of 
the vessel, and should help ensure the safety of the crew.
    (3) Handling of fish and duties of care. The vessel owner or 
operator must ensure that all fish that are caught, even those that are 
released, are handled in a manner that enables the video system to 
record such fish, and must ensure that all handling and retention of 
bluefin tuna occurs in accordance with relevant regulations and the 
operational procedures outlined in the VMP. The vessel owner or 
operator is responsible for ensuring the proper continuous functioning 
of the EM system, including that the EM system must remain powered on 
for the duration of each fishing trip from the time of departure to 
time of return; cameras must be cleaned routinely; and EM system 
components must not be tampered with.

[[Page 71590]]

    (4) Completion of trip. Within 48 hours of completing a fishing 
trip,, the vessel owner or operator must mail the removable EM system 
hard drive(s) containing all data to NMFS or NMFS-approved contractor, 
according to instructions provided by NMFS. The vessel owner or 
operator is responsible for using shipping materials suitable to 
protect the hard drives (e.g.,, bubble wrap), tracking the package, and 
including a self-addressed mailing label for the next port of call so 
replacement hard drives can be mailed back to the vessel owner or 
operator. Prior to departing on a subsequent trip, the vessel owner or 
operator must install a replacement EM system hard drive(s) to enable 
data collection and video recording. The vessel owner or operator is 
responsible for contacting NMFS or NMFS-approved contractor if they 
have requested but not received a replacement hard drive(s) and for 
informing NMFS or NMFS-approved contractor of any lapse in the hard 
drive management procedures described in the VMP.
    (f) Failure to adequately monitor the gear and catch. The vessel 
owner or operator must monitor and maintain the EM system in working 
condition, which includes ensuring the proper continuous functioning of 
the EM system, cameras provide clear unobstructed views, and video 
picture quality is clear. Prior to departing on a trip with pelagic 
longline gear on board, the vessel owner or operator must test the 
functionality of the system and contact NMFS or the NMFS-approved 
contractor if the system is not functioning properly. In that case, or 
if NMFS independently determines that an EM system fails to meet the 
requirements of this section, the vessel cannot leave port unless and 
until NMFS provides written authorization. NMFS may grant such 
authorization after confirming that an EM system is functioning 
properly or other circumstances as determined by NMFS warrant 
authorization.
    (g) Repair and replacement. If the vessel owner or operator becomes 
aware that the EM system on the vessel is not functioning properly at 
sea, the vessel owner or operator must contact NMFS and follow the 
instructions given. Such instructions may include but are not limited 
to returning to port until the EM system is repaired. Once in port, an 
EM system must be functioning properly (e.g., repaired, reinstalled, or 
replaced) consistent with the installation requirements in this section 
before the vessel can fish with pelagic longline gear.

Subpart B--Individual Vessel Measures

0
8. Revise the subpart B heading to read as set forth above.

0
9. Add Sec.  635.14 to subpart B to read as follows:


Sec.  635.14  Performance metrics.

    (a) General. For purposes of Sec.  635.21(c)(3), NMFS will 
determine ``qualified'' vessels based on the performance metrics in 
paragraph (b) of this section. Specifically, NMFS will use fishery 
dependent and fishery independent data to evaluate vessel performance 
based on avoidance of bluefin tuna interactions while fishing with a 
pelagic longline gear and history of compliance with the observer and 
logbook requirements of Sec. Sec.  635.7 and 635.5, respectively.
    (b) Calculation of performance metrics. In year one of 
implementation, NMFS will analyze the relevant data from the period 
2006 to 2012 to determine a vessel's score and qualification status. 
Subsequently, NMFS will analyze available data from the most recent 
complete three consecutive year period to determine a vessel's score 
and qualification status. NMFS will communicate the results of the 
annual determination to individual permit holders in writing. NMFS may 
revise, through the framework procedures under Sec.  635.34, the 
scoring system to reflect changes in the fishery or ensure that it 
provides the desired incentives and meets the goals of this program. 
The process used to calculate the performance metrics are described 
fully in Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. The main metrics 
are summarized below.
    (1) Bluefin tuna interactions performance metric. The basis for the 
bluefin tuna interactions performance metric is the ratio of the number 
of bluefin tuna interactions (i.e., the number of fish landed, 
discarded dead, and discarded alive) to the total weight of designated 
target species landings (in pounds). For the purposes of this section, 
the designated target species are: Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, 
albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin 
mako, and thresher sharks. A relatively low bluefin tuna interaction to 
designated species ratio (`bluefin tuna ratio') indicates that the 
vessel has successfully avoided catching bluefin tuna while fishing 
with pelagic longline gear in the performance metric period.
    (2) Observer compliance performance metric. NMFS will score vessels 
based on both the vessel owner's and the operator's compliance with the 
observer requirements outlined in Sec.  635.7 of this part and Sec.  
600.746 of this chapter. In addition, the scoring system will consider 
the number of trips for which an individual vessel was selected to 
carry an observer, the number of trips actually observed, the reason 
why a particular trip was not observed, and other relevant observer 
information. The scoring system is neutral with respect to valid 
reasons that a vessel may have been selected by the observer program, 
but did not take an observer (e.g., no observer was available or the 
vessel was not fishing with pelagic longline gear). The scoring system 
is designed to weigh trips that were not observed due to noncompliance 
with the communication requirements more heavily than those not 
observed due to noncompliance with the safety and accommodation 
requirements. The scoring system is also designed to consider evidence 
of fishing activity that may have occurred without required 
communication or observer coverage.
    (3) Logbook compliance performance metric. NMFS will score vessels 
based on both the vessel owner's and vessel operator's compliance with 
the logbook reporting requirements outlined in Sec.  635.5. This metric 
will reflect the timeliness of the submission of the logbooks (for 
example, the amount of time elapsed between the offloading of the catch 
and the logbook submission).
    (4) Combining performance metrics. The performance metrics 
described under paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section will be 
combined through the use of a decision formula described in Amendment 7 
to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. The decision formula will result in a 
designation for each vessel of ``qualified'' or ``not qualified.''
    (c) Annual notification. NMFS will notify permitted vessel owners 
annually of the score of their vessel (i.e., ``qualified'' or ``not 
qualified'') by certified mail. The score applies for only one year. 
NMFS will make aggregate data regarding access to gear restricted areas 
available to the general public.
    (d) Appeals. Permitted vessel owners can appeal their performance 
score determinations pursuant to the procedures, timing, and other 
requirements at Sec.  635.15(k)(4)(i), (ii), and (iv). Any initial 
administrative determination or appeal would be evaluated based upon 
the following criteria:
    (1) The accuracy of NMFS records regarding the relevant 
information; and
    (2) correct assignment of historical data to the vessel owner/
permit holder. The current owner of a permitted vessel

[[Page 71591]]

may also appeal on the basis of historical changes in vessel ownership 
or permit transfers. Appeals based on hardship factors will not be 
considered.

0
10. Add Sec.  635.15 to subpart B--with paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)(ii) 
and (b)(5)(i) effective January 1, 2016--to read as follows:


Sec.  635.15  Individual bluefin tuna quotas.

    (a) General. This section establishes an IBQ Program for eligible 
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders that use pelagic longline gear 
under this part and addresses Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 
leasing.
    (1) Overview. Under the IBQ Program, NMFS will assign eligible 
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders initial IBQ shares equivalent to 
a percentage of the annual Longline category quota. Purse Seine 
Category quota shares are allocated separately pursuant to Sec.  
635.27(a)(4).
    (2) Electronic IBQ System. IBQ Program participants, Atlantic Tunas 
Purse Seine category participants, and other permit holders eligible to 
lease IBQ allocations under paragraph (c) of this section, must have 
access to the electronic IBQ system and set up an IBQ account on that 
system as instructed by NMFS.
    (b) IBQ allocation and usage. An IBQ quota allocation is the amount 
of bluefin tuna (whole weight) in metric tons (mt), which an IBQ 
Program participant is allotted to account for incidental catch of 
bluefin tuna during a given calendar year. Unless otherwise required 
under paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an Atlantic Tunas Longline 
permitted vessel's initial IBQ allocation for a particular year is 
derived by multiplying its IBQ share (percentage) by the Longline 
category quota for that year.
    (1) Annual calculation and notification of IBQ allocations. 
Annually, as described in detail in paragraph (f) of this section, NMFS 
will notify IBQ share recipients of their IBQ allocation for the next 
calendar year. IBQ allocations expire at the end of each calendar year.
    (2) Regional designations. As described further under paragraph 
(k)(3) of this section, all IBQ shares and resultant allocations are 
designated as either ``Gulf of Mexico'' or ``Atlantic'' based upon the 
geographic location of sets as reported to NMFS under the requirements 
of Sec.  635.5. Regional percentages determine the share and allocation 
within the two pelagic longline (PLL) share categories: Gulf of Mexico 
(PLL GOM) and Atlantic (PLL ATL). PLL GOM shares and resultant 
allocations can be used to fish with pelagic longline gear in either 
the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic regions. PLL ATL shares and 
resultant allocations can only be used to fish with pelagic longline 
gear in the Atlantic region. Purse Seine category annual allocations 
can only be used to fish in the Atlantic region, even if leased to a 
PLL participant. For the purposes of this section, the Gulf of Mexico 
region includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the 
boundary stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c) and the Atlantic region 
includes all other waters of the Atlantic Ocean with the exception 
regarding fishing taking place in the Northeast Distant (NED) gear 
restricted area defined at Sec.  635.2 and is further described in 
paragraph (b)(8) of this section.
    (3) Minimum IBQ allocation. Before departing on a fishing trip, a 
vessel with an eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit that 
fishes with or has pelagic longline gear onboard, must have the minimum 
IBQ allocation for either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic, depending on 
fishing location. The minimum IBQ allocation for a vessel fishing in 
the Gulf of Mexico, or departing for a fishing trip in the Gulf of 
Mexico, is 0.25 mt ww (551 lb ww). The minimum IBQ allocation for a 
vessel fishing in the Atlantic or departing for a fishing trip in the 
Atlantic is 0.125 mt ww (276 lb ww). A vessel owner or operator may not 
declare into or depart on a fishing trip with pelagic longline gear 
onboard unless it has the relevant required minimum IBQ allocation for 
the region in which the fishing activity will occur.
    (4) Accounting for bluefin tuna caught. (i) With the exception of 
vessels fishing in the NED, in compliance with the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(8) of this section, all bluefin tuna catch (dead discards 
and landings) must be accounted for and deducted from the vessel's IBQ 
allocation.
    (ii) If the amount of bluefin tuna catch on a particular trip 
exceeds the amount of the vessel's IBQ allocation, the vessel may 
continue to fish and complete the trip, but must resolve any quota debt 
(see paragraph (b)(5) of this section before declaring into or 
departing on a subsequent fishing trip with pelagic longline gear 
onboard by acquiring additional IBQ allocation through leasing, as 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (iii) IBQ Program participants, Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 
participants, and dealers must comply with reporting requirements at 
Sec.  635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). The vessel owner or operator of a vessel that 
caught bluefin tuna must enter dead discard information from the trip 
simultaneously with the dealer entering that trip's landings 
information into the electronic IBQ system (pursuant to Sec.  
635.5(b)(2)(i)(A)). The vessel owner or operator must also confirm the 
accuracy of the dealer reported data at the time of entry in the 
electronic IBQ System. No IBQ transactions will be processed between 6 
p.m. eastern time on December 31 and 2 p.m. Eastern Time on January 1 
of each year to provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ accounts and update 
IBQ shares and allocations for the upcoming fishing year.
    (5) Exceeding an available allocation. This paragraph (b)(5) 
applies to a vessel with, or an permit holder of, an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit or an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 
permit unless otherwise specified. If the amount of bluefin tuna catch 
for a particular trip (as defined at Sec.  600.10 of this chapter) 
exceeds the amount of allocation available to the vessel, the permitted 
vessel is considered to have a ``quota debt'' equal to the difference 
between the catch and the allocation. For example, if a vessel has an 
allocation of 0.40 mt (882 lb), and catches 0.50 mt (1,102 lb) of 
bluefin tuna on a trip, that vessel would have a quota debt of 0.10 mt 
(220 lb).
    (i) Trip level quota debt. Vessels with a quota debt cannot fish 
with or have gear for which the vessel is permitted onboard until the 
quota debt is settled by leasing allocation for the appropriate region 
(per paragraph (c) of this section) and applying the leased allocation 
to settle the quota debt or through additional allocation (per 
paragraph (f) of this section) such that the permitted vessel has at 
least the minimum quota allocation required to fish as specified in 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Annual level quota debt. If, by the end of the fishing year, a 
permit holder does not have adequate allocation (obtained either 
through leasing under paragraph (c) of this section) or additional 
allocation under paragraph (f) of this section to settle their vessel's 
quota debt, the vessel's allocation will be reduced in the amount equal 
to the quota debt in the subsequent year or years until the quota debt 
is fully accounted for. A vessel may not fish if it has outstanding 
quota debt, even across fishing years.
    (iii) Association with permit. Quota debt is associated with the 
vessel's permit, and remains associated with the permit if/when the 
permit is transferred or sold. At the end of the year, if an owner with 
multiple permitted vessels has a quota debt on one or more vessels 
owned, the IBQ system will apply any remaining unused allocation 
associated

[[Page 71592]]

with that owner's other vessels to resolve the quota debt.
    (6) Duration. IBQ allocation issued under this section is valid for 
the relevant fishing year unless it is revoked, suspended, or modified 
or unless the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is closed per 
Sec.  635.28(a).
    (7) Unused IBQ allocation. Any IBQ allocation that is unused at the 
end of the fishing year may not be carried forward by a permit-holder 
to the following year, but would remain associated with the Longline 
category as a whole, and subject to the quota regulations under Sec.  
635.27, including annual quota adjustments.
    (8) The IBQ Program and the Northeast Distant Area (NED). The 
following restrictions apply to vessels fishing with pelagic longline 
gear in the NED:
    (i) When NED bluefin quota is available. Permitted vessels fishing 
with pelagic longline gear may fish in the NED, and any bluefin catch 
will count toward the ICCAT-allocated separate NED quota until the NED 
quota has been filled. Permitted vessels fishing in the NED are still 
required to have the minimum IBQ allocation, specified under paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section to depart on a trip using pelagic longline gear.
    (ii) When NED bluefin quota is filled. Permitted vessels fishing 
with pelagic longline gear may fish in the NED after the ICCAT-
allocated separate NED quota has been filled but the permitted vessels 
must abide by all the requirements of the IBQ program. Bluefin catch 
will be accounted for using the vessel's IBQ allocation, as described 
under paragraphs (b)(2) and (k)(3) of this section.
    (c) IBQ Allocation Leasing--(1) Eligibility. The permit holders of 
vessels issued valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permits and participants 
in the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category are eligible to lease IBQ 
allocation to and/or from each other. A person who holds an Atlantic 
Tunas Longline permit that is not associated with a vessel may not 
lease IBQ allocation.
    (2) Application to lease--(i) Application information requirements. 
All IBQ allocation leases must occur electronically through the 
electronic IBQ system, and include all information required by NMFS.
    (ii) Approval of lease application. Unless NMFS denies an 
application to lease IBQ allocation according to paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 
of this section, the electronic IBQ system will provide an approval 
code to the IBQ lessee confirming the transaction.
    (iii) Denial of lease application. NMFS may deny an application to 
lease IBQ allocation for any of the following reasons, including, but 
not limited to: The application is incomplete; the IBQ lessor or IBQ 
lessee is not eligible to lease per paragraph (c)(1) of this section; 
the IBQ lessor or IBQ lessee permits is sanctioned pursuant to an 
enforcement proceeding; or the IBQ lessor has an insufficient IBQ 
allocation available to lease (i.e., the requested amount of lease may 
not exceed the amount of IBQ allocation associated with the lessor). As 
the electronic IBQ system is automated, if any of the criteria above 
are applicable, the lease transaction will not be allowed to proceed. 
The decision by NMFS is the final agency decision; there is no 
opportunity for an administrative appeal.
    (3) Conditions and restrictions of leased IBQ allocation--(i) 
Subleasing. In a fishing year, an IBQ allocation may be leased numerous 
times following the process specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section.
    (ii) History of leased IBQ allocation use. The fishing history 
associated with the catch of bluefin tuna will be associated with the 
vessel that caught the bluefin tuna regardless of how the vessel 
acquired the IBQ allocation (e.g., through initial allocation or 
lease), for the purpose of calculation of the performance metrics 
described under Sec.  635.14(b), or other relevant restrictions based 
upon bluefin catch.
    (iii) Duration of IBQ allocation lease. IBQ allocations expire at 
the end of each calendar year. Thus, an IBQ lessee may only use the 
leased IBQ allocation during the fishing year in which the IBQ 
allocation is applicable.
    (iv) Temporary prohibition of leasing IBQ allocation. No leasing of 
IBQ allocation is permitted between 6 p.m. eastern time on December 31 
of one year and 2 p.m. Eastern Time on January 1 of the next. . This 
period is necessary to provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ accounts, and 
update IBQ shares and allocations for the upcoming fishing year.
    (v) Related restrictions. Other regulations specific to the 
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category are set forth at Sec.  
635.27(a)(4)(v).
    (d) Sale of IBQ shares. Sale of IBQ shares currently not permitted.
    (e) Changes in vessel and permit ownership. In accordance with the 
regulations specified under Sec.  635.4(l), a vessel owner that has an 
IBQ share may transfer the Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit to 
another vessel that he or she owns or transfer the permit to another 
person. The IBQ share as described under this section would transfer 
with the permit to the new vessel, and remain associated with that 
permit. Within a fishing year, when an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit 
transfer occurs (from one vessel to another), the associated IBQ shares 
are transferred with the permit, however IBQ allocation is not, unless 
the IBQ allocation is also transferred through a separate transaction 
within the electronic IBQ system. As described under paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (k)(1) of this section, a person or entity that holds an Atlantic 
Tunas Longline permit that is not associated with a vessel may not 
receive or lease IBQ allocation.
    (f) Annual notification of shares and allocations. On January 1 of 
each year, NMFS will notify eligible IBQ Participants, as specified in 
paragraph (k)(1) of this section, of their IBQ share and the resulting 
IBQ allocation (mt) for the relevant fishing year, as well as the 
regional designations based on the available Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category quota, and any existing quota debt. NMFS will provide this 
information through the electronic IBQ system and via annual permit 
holder letters. Unless specified otherwise, those IBQ shares and 
resultant allocations will be available for use at the start of each 
fishing year. Permit holders (of eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permits) that have not completed the process of permit renewal 
or permit transfer as of December 31 will be issued IBQ allocation upon 
completion of the permit renewal or permit transfer, provided the 
eligible permit is associated with a vessel.
    (g) Evaluation. NMFS will continually monitor the IBQ Program with 
respect to the objectives listed in the FEIS and make any changes 
through future rulemakings as deemed necessary to meet those 
objectives. Three years after full implementation, NMFS will publish a 
written report describing any findings.
    (h) Property rights. IBQ shares and resultant allocations issued 
pursuant to this part may be revoked, limited, modified or suspended at 
any time subject to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, 
or other applicable law. Such IBQ shares and resultant allocations do 
not confer any right to compensation and do not create any right, 
title, or interest in any bluefin tuna until it is landed or discarded 
dead.
    (i) Enforcement and monitoring. NMFS will enforce and monitor the 
IBQ Program through the use of the reporting and record keeping 
requirements described under Sec.  635.5, the monitoring requirements 
under Sec. Sec.  635.9 and 635.69, and its authority to close the

[[Page 71593]]

pelagic longline fishery specified under Sec.  635.28.
    (j) Cost recovery. In a future action, NMFS will develop and 
implement cost recovery for the IBQ program that will cover costs of 
management, data collection and analysis, and enforcement activities. 
Fees shall be collected from quota share and/or allocation holders for 
the IBQ program pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act sections 303A(e) and 
304(d)(2). Such fees shall not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel value 
of fish harvested under the program.
    (k) Initial IBQ shares. During year one of implementation of the 
IBQ Program described in this section, NMFS will issue IBQ shares to 
eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders, as specified in 
paragraph (k)(1) of this section. New entrants to the pelagic longline 
fishery would need to obtain an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, as well 
as other required limited access permits, as described under Sec.  
635.4(l), and would need to lease IBQ allocations per paragraph (c) of 
this section if the permits acquired did not qualify for an initial IBQ 
share.
    (1) Eligible IBQ share Recipients. (i) Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit holders whose valid permit was associated with a vessel 
as of August 21, 2013, and that was determined to be ``active'' would 
be eligible to receive an initial IBQ share. ``Active'' vessels are 
those vessels that have used pelagic longline gear on at least one set 
between 2006 and 2012 as reported to NMFS on logbooks, per the 
requirements of Sec.  635.5. In determining a permitted vessel's 
initial IBQ share eligibility and calculating the initial IBQ share, 
NMFS used the data associated with the qualifying vessel's history (and 
not the permit). Therefore, for the purposes of this section, the 
vessel owner at the time of reporting is not relevant. If the logbook 
reports indicate that a particular vessel used pelagic longline gear 
for at least one set between 2006 and 2012, and the vessel was issued a 
valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit as of August 21, 2013, 
the current permit holder is qualified to receive an initial IBQ share.
    (ii) Except as described in paragraph (k)(4) of this section 
regarding appeals, if the logbook reports indicate that a particular 
vessel did not use pelagic longline gear for at least one set between 
2006 and 2012, and/or the vessel was not issued a valid Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit on August 21, 2013, the current permit holder 
is not eligible to receive an initial IBQ share even if the current 
permit holder fished with pelagic longline gear on a different vessel 
between 2006 and 2012. Persons that held an Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit that was not associated with a vessel as of August 21, 
2013 are not eligible for an initial IBQ share. Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permits holders that are ineligible to receive an initial IBQ 
share would need to lease IBQ allocation per paragraph (c) of this 
section, as well as meet all other applicable requirements, before the 
vessel could fish with or possess pelagic longline gear onboard.
    (2) IBQ share determination (i) Initial IBQ shares. NMFS has 
reviewed each permitted vessel's reported bluefin tuna interactions 
(all discards and landings) and landings of designated species 
(swordfish, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; 
wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin mako and thresher sharks) and placed 
each permitted vessel into one of three tiers: Low, medium and high 
based on the ratio of bluefin tuna interactions. The IBQ share will be 
assigned based on the three tiers.
    (ii) Appeals to initial IBQ shares. When NMFS determines that all 
appeals pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of this section have been 
resolved, NMFS may adjust the initial IBQ share percentages described 
under paragraph (k)(2)(i) as necessary to accommodate those appellants 
that have been deemed eligible for an initial IBQ share or are provided 
an increased IBQ share.
    (3) Regional designations. All initial IBQ shares and resultant 
allocations are designated as either ``Gulf of Mexico'' or ``Atlantic'' 
based upon the geographic location of sets as reported to NMFS under 
the requirements of Sec.  635.5. Eligible permit holders may use Gulf 
of Mexico IBQ shares and resultant allocations to fish in either the 
Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic regions. Eligible permit holders may use 
Atlantic IBQ shares and resultant allocations only to fish in the 
Atlantic region. If a permitted vessel had fishing history in both the 
Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, it may receive both the Gulf of Mexico and 
Atlantic IBQ shares, depending upon the amount of IBQ share and the 
proportion of fishing history in the two areas. Based on the procedures 
described under paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section, if a permit 
holder would be issued a regional IBQ share that results in a regional 
allocation less than a minimum amount for a particular area (i.e., less 
than 0.125 mt for the Atlantic or less than 0.25 mt for the Gulf of 
Mexico), the de minimis regional IBQ share and resultant allocation 
would be designated to the other regional designation.
    (4) Appeals of initial IBQ share. Atlantic Tunas Longline Permit 
holders may appeal their initial IBQ shares through the two-step 
process described below. NMFS will provide further explanation on how 
to submit an appeal when it informs permit holders of their initial IBQ 
shares.
    (i) Initial administrative determination (IAD). The HMS Management 
Division will evaluate requests from Atlantic Tunas Longline Permit 
holders regarding their initial IBQ shares. Any request must be 
postmarked no later than March 2, 2015, be in writing, and indicate the 
reason for the request, and contain documentation supporting the 
request (see paragraphs (k)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this section). The HMS 
Management Division will evaluate the request and supporting 
documentation, and notify the appellant by a written IAD regarding a 
decision to approve or deny the request. The IAD will explain the basis 
for any denial decision.
    (ii) Appeal of IAD. Within 90 days after the date of issuance of 
the IAD, the permit holder may appeal the IAD to the NMFS National 
Appeals Office, pursuant to procedures at 15 CFR part 906.
    (iii) Items subject to IAD and appeal. The only items subject to an 
IAD or appeal are: Initial IBQ share eligibility based on ownership of 
an active vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 
combined with the required shark and swordfish limited access permits; 
the accuracy of NMFS records regarding that vessel's amount of 
designated species landings and/or bluefin interactions; and correct 
assignment of target species landings and bluefin interactions to the 
vessel owner/permit holder. As described under paragraph (k)(1) of this 
section, the IBQ share formulas are based upon historical data 
associated with a permitted vessel. Because vessels may have changed 
ownership or permits may have been transferred during 2006 through 
2012, the current owner of a permitted vessel may also appeal on the 
basis of historical changes in vessel ownership or permit transfers. 
Appeals based on hardship factors (e.g., illness of vessel owner, 
divorce, etc.) will not be considered.
    (iv) Supporting documentation for IAD or appeal. NMFS will consider 
official NMFS logbook records or weighout slips for landings between 
January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2012, that were submitted to NMFS 
prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the cutoff date for eligible 
landings) and verifiable sales slips, receipts from registered dealers, 
state landings records, and permit records as supporting documentation 
for a request

[[Page 71594]]

or appeal under paragraph (k)(4) of this section. NMFS will count only 
those designated species landings that were landed legally when the 
owner had a valid permit. No other proof of catch history or species 
interactions will be considered, except for NMFS logbook records, 
observer data, or other NMFS data. NMFS permit records will be the sole 
basis for determining permit transfers. Copies of documents may be 
submitted, provided they are of equal legibility and quality as the 
originals, and such copies shall have the same force and effect as if 
they were originals. NMFS may request the originals at a later date. 
NMFS may refer any submitted materials that are of questionable 
authenticity to the NMFS Office of Enforcement for investigation.

0
11. Add Sec.  635.19 to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  635.19  Authorized gears.

    (a) General. No person may fish for, catch, possess, or retain any 
Atlantic HMS with gears other than the primary gears specifically 
authorized in this part. Consistent with Sec.  635.21(a), secondary 
gears may be used at boat side to aid and assist in subduing, or 
bringing on board a vessel, Atlantic HMS that have first been caught or 
captured using primary gears. For purposes of this part, secondary 
gears include, but are not limited to, dart harpoons, gaffs, flying 
gaffs, tail ropes, etc. Secondary gears may not be used to capture, or 
attempt to capture, free-swimming or undersized HMS. Except for vessels 
permitted under Sec.  635.4(o) or as specified in this section, a 
vessel using or having onboard in the Atlantic Ocean any unauthorized 
gear may not possess an Atlantic HMS on board.
    (b) Atlantic tunas. A person that fishes for, retains, or possesses 
an Atlantic bluefin tuna may not have on board a vessel or use on board 
a vessel any primary gear other than those authorized for the category 
for which the Atlantic tunas or HMS permit has been issued for such 
vessel. Primary gears are the gears specifically authorized in this 
section. When fishing for Atlantic tunas other than bluefin tuna, 
primary gear authorized for any Atlantic Tunas permit category may be 
used, except that purse seine gear may be used only on board vessels 
permitted in the Purse Seine category and pelagic longline gear may be 
used only on board vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
tuna permit, a LAP other than handgear for swordfish, and a LAP for 
sharks. A person issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit 
who fishes for, retains, or possesses BAYS tunas in the U.S. Caribbean, 
as defined at Sec.  622.2 of this chapter, may have on board and use 
handline, harpoon, rod and reel, bandit gear, green-stick gear, and 
buoy gear.
    (1) Angling. Speargun (for BAYS tunas only), and rod and reel 
(including downriggers) and handline (for all tunas).
    (2) Charter/headboat. Rod and reel (including downriggers), bandit 
gear, handline, and green-stick gear are authorized for all 
recreational and commercial Atlantic tuna fisheries. Speargun is 
authorized for recreational Atlantic BAYS tuna fisheries only.
    (3) General. Rod and reel (including downriggers), handline, 
harpoon, bandit gear, and green-stick.
    (4) Harpoon. Harpoon.
    (5) Longline. Longline and green-stick.
    (6) Purse seine. Purse seine.
    (7) Trap. Pound net and fish weir.
    (c) Billfish. (1) Only persons who have been issued a valid HMS 
Angling or valid Charter/Headboat permit, or who have been issued a 
valid Atlantic Tunas General category or Swordfish General Commercial 
permit and are participating in a tournament as provided in Sec.  
635.4(c), may possess a blue marlin, white marlin, or roundscale 
spearfish in, or take a blue marlin, white marlin, or roundscale 
spearfish from, its management unit. Blue marlin, white marlin, or 
roundscale spearfish may only be harvested by rod and reel.
    (2) Only persons who have been issued a valid HMS Angling or valid 
Charter/Headboat permit, or who have been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas 
General category or Swordfish General Commercial permit and are 
participating in a tournament as provided in Sec.  635.4(c), may 
possess or take a sailfish shoreward of the outer boundary of the 
Atlantic EEZ. Sailfish may only be harvested by rod and reel.
    (d) Sharks. No person may possess a shark in the EEZ taken from its 
management unit without a permit issued under Sec.  635.4. No person 
issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit under Sec.  635.4 may 
possess a shark taken by any gear other than rod and reel, handline, 
bandit gear, longline, or gillnet. No person issued an HMS Commercial 
Caribbean Small Boat permit may possess a shark taken from the U.S. 
Caribbean, as defined at Sec.  622.2 of this chapter, by any gear other 
than with rod and reel, handline or bandit gear. No person issued an 
HMS Angling permit or an HMS Charter/Headboat permit under Sec.  635.4 
may possess a shark if the shark was taken from its management unit by 
any gear other than rod and reel or handline, except that persons on a 
vessel issued both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit and a Federal 
Atlantic commercial shark permit may possess sharks taken with rod and 
reel, handline, bandit gear, longline, or gillnet if the vessel is not 
engaged in a for-hire fishing trip.
    (e) Swordfish. (1) No person may possess north Atlantic swordfish 
taken from its management unit by any gear other than handgear, green-
stick, or longline, except that such swordfish taken incidentally while 
fishing with a squid trawl may be retained by a vessel issued a valid 
Incidental HMS squid trawl permit, subject to restrictions specified in 
Sec.  635.24(b)(2). No person may possess south Atlantic swordfish 
taken from its management unit by any gear other than longline.
    (2) An Atlantic swordfish may not be retained or possessed on board 
a vessel with a gillnet. A swordfish will be deemed to have been 
harvested by gillnet when it is onboard, or offloaded from, a vessel 
fishing with or having on board a gillnet.
    (3) A person aboard a vessel issued or required to be issued a 
valid directed handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish or an HMS Commercial 
Caribbean Small Boat permit 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 
fishing with or having on board longline gear. Only vessels that have 
been issued a valid directed or handgear swordfish LAP or an HMS 
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit under this part may utilize or 
possess buoy gear.
    (4) Except for persons aboard a vessel that has been issued a 
directed, incidental, or handgear limited access swordfish permit, a 
Swordfish General Commercial permit, an Incidental HMS squid trawl 
permit, or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit under Sec.  
635.4, no person may fish for North Atlantic swordfish with, or possess 
a North Atlantic swordfish taken by, any gear other than handline or 
rod and reel.
    (5) A person aboard a vessel issued or required to be issued a 
valid Swordfish General Commercial permit may only possess North 
Atlantic swordfish taken from its management unit by rod and reel, 
handline, bandit gear, green-stick, or harpoon gear.

0
12. Section 635.21 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation, restricted areas, and deployment 
restrictions.

    (a) All Atlantic HMS fishing gears. (1) An Atlantic HMS harvested 
from its management unit that is not retained must be released in a 
manner that will ensure maximum probability of

[[Page 71595]]

survival, but without removing the fish from the water.
    (2) If a billfish is caught by a hook and not retained, the fish 
must be released by cutting the line near the hook or by using a 
dehooking device, in either case without removing the fish from the 
water.
    (3) Restricted gear and closed areas for all Atlantic HMS fishing 
gears. (i) No person may fish for, catch, possess, or retain any 
Atlantic HMS or anchor a fishing vessel that has been issued a permit 
or is required to be permitted under this part, in the areas and 
seasons designated at Sec.  622.34(a)(3) of this chapter.
    (ii) From November through April of each year, no vessel issued, or 
required to be issued, a permit under this part may fish or deploy any 
type of fishing gear in the Madison-Swanson closed area or the 
Steamboat Lumps closed area, as defined in Sec.  635.2.
    (iii) From May through October of each year, no vessel issued, or 
required to be issued, a permit under this part may fish or deploy any 
type of fishing gear in the Madison-Swanson or the Steamboat Lumps 
closed areas except for surface trolling. For the purposes of this 
section, surface trolling is defined as fishing with lines trailing 
behind a vessel which is in constant motion at speeds in excess of four 
knots with a visible wake. Such trolling may not involve the use of 
down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices.
    (iv) From January through April of each year, no vessel issued, or 
required to be issued, a permit under this part may fish or deploy any 
type of fishing gear in the Edges 40 Fathom Contour closed area, as 
defined in Sec.  635.2.
    (b) Longline--general restrictions. (1) All vessels that have 
pelagic or bottom longline gear onboard and that have been issued, or 
are required to have, a limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna 
Longline category permit for use in the Atlantic Ocean including the 
Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must possess inside the wheelhouse 
the document provided by NMFS entitled ``Careful Release Protocols for 
Sea Turtle Release with Minimal Injury,'' and must also post inside the 
wheelhouse the sea turtle handling and release guidelines provided by 
NMFS.
    (2) Transiting and gear stowage: If a vessel issued a permit under 
this part is in a closed or gear restricted area described in this 
section with pelagic or bottom longline gear on board, it is a 
rebuttable presumption that any fish on board such a vessel were taken 
with pelagic or bottom longline in the closed or gear restricted area 
except where such possession is aboard a vessel transiting a closed 
area with all fishing gear stowed appropriately. Longline gear is 
stowed appropriately if all gangions and hooks are disconnected from 
the mainline and are stowed on or below deck, hooks are not baited, and 
all buoys and weights are disconnected from the mainline and drum 
(buoys may remain on deck).
    (3) When a marine mammal or sea turtle is hooked or entangled by 
pelagic or bottom longline gear, the operator of the vessel must 
immediately release the animal, retrieve the pelagic or bottom longline 
gear, and move at least 1 nm (2 km) from the location of the incident 
before resuming fishing. Similarly, when a smalltooth sawfish is hooked 
or entangled by bottom longline gear, the operator of the vessel must 
immediately release the animal, retrieve the bottom longline gear, and 
move at least 1 nm (2 km) from the location of the incident before 
resuming fishing. Reports of marine mammal entanglements must be 
submitted to NMFS consistent with regulations in Sec.  229.6 of this 
title.
    (4) Vessels that have pelagic or bottom longline gear on board and 
that have been issued, or are required to have been issued, a permit 
under this part must have only corrodible hooks on board.
    (c) Pelagic longlines. (1) If a vessel issued or required to be 
issued a permit under this part:
    (i) Is in a closed area designated under paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section and has bottom longline gear onboard, the vessel may not, at 
any time, possess or land any pelagic species listed in table 2 of 
appendix A to this part in excess of 5 percent, by weight, of the total 
weight of pelagic and demersal species possessed or landed, that are 
listed in tables 2 and 3 of appendix A to this part.
    (ii) Has pelagic longline gear on board, persons aboard that vessel 
may not possess, retain, transship, land, sell, or store silky sharks, 
oceanic whitetip sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great hammerhead 
sharks.
    (2) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, if pelagic 
longline gear is on board a vessel issued or required to be issued a 
permit under this part, persons aboard that vessel may not fish or 
deploy any type of fishing gear:
    (i) In the Northeastern United States closed area from June 1 
through June 30 each calendar year;
    (ii) In the Charleston Bump closed area from February 1 through 
April 30 each calendar year;
    (iii) In the East Florida Coast closed area at any time;
    (iv) In the Desoto Canyon closed area at any time;
    (v) In the Cape Hatteras gear restricted area from December 1 
through April 30 each year;
    (vi) In the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted area from April 1 
through May 30 each year;
    (vii) In the Northeast Distant gear restricted area at any time, 
unless persons onboard the vessel complies with the following:
    (A) The vessel is limited to possessing onboard and/or using only 
18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees. 
The outer diameter of the circle hook at its widest point must be no 
smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm) when measured with the eye on the hook 
on the vertical axis (y-axis) and perpendicular to the horizontal axis 
(x-axis), and the distance between the circle hook point and the shank 
(i.e., the gap) must be no larger than 1.13 inches (28.8 mm). The 
allowable offset is measured from the barbed end of the hook and is 
relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook 
when laid on its side. The only allowable offset circle hooks are those 
that are offset by the hook manufacturer. If green-stick gear, as 
defined at Sec.  635.2, is onboard, a vessel may possess up to 20 J-
hooks. J-hooks may be used only with green-stick gear, and no more than 
10 hooks may be used at one time with each green-stick gear. J-hooks 
used with green-stick gear may be no smaller than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) 
when measured in a straight line over the longest distance from the eye 
to any other part of the hook; and,
    (B) The vessel is limited, at all times, to possessing onboard and/
or using only whole Atlantic mackerel and/or squid bait, except that 
artificial bait may be possessed and used only with green-stick gear, 
as defined at Sec.  635.2, if green-stick gear is onboard; and,
    (C) Vessels must possess, inside the wheelhouse, a document 
provided by NMFS entitled, ``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle 
Release with Minimal Injury,'' and must post, inside the wheelhouse, 
sea turtle handling and release guidelines provided by NMFS; and,
    (D) Required sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, which NMFS has 
approved under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of this section, on the initial 
list of ``NMFS-Approved Models For Equipment Needed For The Careful 
Release of Sea Turtles Caught In Hook And Line Fisheries,'' must be 
carried onboard, and must be used in accordance with the handling 
requirements specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(vii)(E) through (G) of this 
section; and,

[[Page 71596]]

    (E) Sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section, must be used to disengage any hooked or 
entangled sea turtles that cannot be brought on board, and to 
facilitate access, safe handling, disentanglement, and hook removal or 
hook cutting from sea turtles that can be brought on board, where 
feasible. Sea turtles must be handled, and bycatch mitigation gear must 
be used, in accordance with the careful release protocols and handling/
release guidelines specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this 
section, and in accordance with the onboard handling and resuscitation 
requirements specified in Sec.  223.206(d)(1) of this title.
    (F) Boated turtles: When practicable, active and comatose sea 
turtles must be brought on board, with a minimum of injury, using a 
dipnet approved on the initial list specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All turtles less than 3 ft. (.91 m) 
carapace length should be boated, if sea conditions permit. A boated 
turtle should be placed on a standard automobile tire, or cushioned 
surface, in an upright orientation to immobilize it and facilitate gear 
removal. Then, it should be determined if the hook can be removed 
without causing further injury. All externally embedded hooks should be 
removed, unless hook removal would result in further injury to the 
turtle. No attempt to remove a hook should be made if the hook has been 
swallowed and the insertion point is not visible, or if it is 
determined that removal would result in further injury. If a hook 
cannot be removed, as much line as possible should be removed from the 
turtle using approved monofilament line cutters from the initial list 
specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section, and the hook 
should be cut as close as possible to the insertion point, using bolt 
cutters from that list, before releasing the turtle. If a hook can be 
removed, an effective technique may be to cut off either the barb, or 
the eye, of the hook using bolt cutters, and then to slide the hook 
out. When the hook is visible in the front of the mouth, an approved 
mouth-opener from the initial list specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section may facilitate opening the turtle's 
mouth, and an approved gag from that list may facilitate keeping the 
mouth open. Short-handled dehookers for ingested hooks, long-nose 
pliers, or needle-nose pliers from the initial list specified in 
paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section should be used to remove 
visible hooks that have not been swallowed from the mouth of boated 
turtles, as appropriate. As much gear as possible must be removed from 
the turtle without causing further injury prior to its release. Refer 
to the careful release protocols and handling/release guidelines 
required in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and the handling 
and resuscitation requirements specified in Sec.  223.206(d)(1) of this 
title, for additional information.
    (G) Non-boated turtles: If a sea turtle is too large, or hooked in 
a manner that precludes safe boating without causing further damage or 
injury to the turtle, sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, specified in 
paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section, must be used to disentangle 
sea turtles from fishing gear and disengage any hooks, or to clip the 
line and remove as much line as possible from a hook that cannot be 
removed, prior to releasing the turtle, in accordance with the 
protocols specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section. Non-
boated turtles should be brought close to the boat and provided with 
time to calm down. Then, it must be determined whether or not the hook 
can be removed without causing further injury. A front flipper or 
flippers of the turtle must be secured, if possible, with an approved 
turtle control device from the list specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All externally embedded hooks must be 
removed, unless hook removal would result in further injury to the 
turtle. No attempt should be made to remove a hook if it has been 
swallowed, or if it is determined that removal would result in further 
injury. If the hook cannot be removed and/or if the animal is 
entangled, as much line as possible must be removed prior to release, 
using an approved line cutter from the list specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. If the hook can be removed, it must be 
removed using a long-handled dehooker from the initial list specified 
in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. Without causing further 
injury, as much gear as possible must be removed from the turtle prior 
to its release. Refer to the careful release protocols and handling/
release guidelines required in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this 
section, and the handling and resuscitation requirements specified in 
Sec.  223.206(d)(1) of this title, for additional information.
    (3) Restricted access to the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. A 
vessel that has been issued, or is required to have been issued, a 
limited access permit under this part may fish with pelagic longline 
gear in the Cape Hatteras gear restricted area described in paragraph 
(c)(2)(v) of this section, provided the vessel has been determined by 
NMFS to be ``qualified,'' (for the relevant year) using the performance 
metrics described in Sec.  635.14.
    (4) In the Gulf of Mexico, pelagic longline gear may not be fished 
or deployed from a vessel issued or required to have been issued a 
limited access permit under this part with live bait affixed to the 
hooks; and, a person aboard a vessel issued or required to have been 
issued a limited access permit under this part that has pelagic 
longline gear on board may not possess live baitfish, maintain live 
baitfish in any tank or well on board the vessel, or set up or attach 
an aeration or water circulation device in or to any such tank or well. 
For the purposes of this section, the Gulf of Mexico includes all 
waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the boundary stipulated at 50 
CFR 600.105(c).
    (5) The operator of a vessel permitted or required to be permitted 
under this part and that has pelagic longline gear on board must 
undertake the following sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures:
    (i) Possession and use of required mitigation gear. Required sea 
turtle bycatch mitigation gear, which NMFS has approved under paragraph 
(c)(5)(iv) of this section as meeting the minimum design standards 
specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (M) of this section, must 
be carried onboard, and must be used to disengage any hooked or 
entangled sea turtles in accordance with the handling requirements 
specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (A) Long-handled line clipper or cutter. Line cutters are intended 
to cut high test monofilament line as close as possible to the hook, 
and assist in removing line from entangled sea turtles to minimize any 
remaining gear upon release. NMFS has established minimum design 
standards for the line cutters, which may be purchased or fabricated 
from readily available and low-cost materials. The LaForce line cutter 
and the Arceneaux line clipper are models that meet these minimum 
design standards. One long-handled line clipper or cutter meeting the 
minimum design standards, and a set of replacement blades, are required 
to be onboard. The minimum design standards for line cutters are as 
follows:
    (1) A protected and secured cutting blade. The cutting blade(s) 
must be capable of cutting 2.0-2.1 mm (0.078 in.-0.083 in.) 
monofilament line (400-lb test) or polypropylene multistrand material, 
known as braided or tarred mainline, and must be maintained in working 
order. The cutting blade must be curved, recessed, contained in a 
holder, or otherwise designed to

[[Page 71597]]

facilitate its safe use so that direct contact between the cutting 
surface and the sea turtle or the user is prevented. The cutting 
instrument must be securely attached to an extended reach handle and be 
easily replaceable. One extra set of replacement blades meeting these 
standards must also be carried on board to replace all cutting surfaces 
on the line cutter or clipper.
    (2) An extended reach handle. The line cutter blade(s) must be 
securely fastened to an extended reach handle or pole with a minimum 
length equal to, or greater than, 150 percent of the height of the 
vessel's freeboard, or 6 feet (1.83 m), whichever is greater. It is 
recommended, but not required, that the handle break down into 
sections. There is no restriction on the type of material used to 
construct this handle as long as it is sturdy and facilitates the 
secure attachment of the cutting blade.
    (B) Long-handled dehooker for ingested hooks. A long-handled 
dehooking device is intended to remove ingested hooks from sea turtles 
that cannot be boated. It should also be used to engage a loose hook 
when a turtle is entangled but not hooked, and line is being removed. 
The design must shield the barb of the hook and prevent it from re-
engaging during the removal process. One long-handled device, meeting 
the minimum design standards, is required onboard to remove ingested 
hooks. The minimum design standards are as follows:
    (1) Hook removal device. The hook removal device must be 
constructed of 5/16-inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless steel and have a 
dehooking end no larger than 1-7/8-inches (4.76 cm) outside diameter. 
The device must securely engage and control the leader while shielding 
the barb to prevent the hook from re-engaging during removal. It may 
not have any unprotected terminal points (including blunt ones), as 
these could cause injury to the esophagus during hook removal. The 
device must be of a size appropriate to secure the range of hook sizes 
and styles used in the pelagic longline fishery targeting swordfish and 
tuna.
    (2) Extended reach handle. The dehooking end must be securely 
fastened to an extended reach handle or pole with a minimum length 
equal to or greater than 150 percent of the height of the vessel's 
freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m), whichever is greater. It is recommended, 
but not required, that the handle break down into sections. The handle 
must be sturdy and strong enough to facilitate the secure attachment of 
the hook removal device.
    (C) Long-handled dehooker for external hooks. A long-handled 
dehooker, meeting the minimum design standards, is required onboard for 
use on externally-hooked sea turtles that cannot be boated. The long-
handled dehooker for ingested hooks described in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) 
of this section would meet this requirement. The minimum design 
standards are as follows:
    (1) Construction. A long-handled dehooker must be constructed of 5/
16-inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless steel rod. A 5-inch (12.7-cm) tube T-
handle of 1-inch (2.54 cm) outside diameter is recommended, but not 
required. The design should be such that a fish hook can be rotated 
out, without pulling it out at an angle. The dehooking end must be 
blunt with all edges rounded. The device must be of a size appropriate 
to secure the range of hook sizes and styles used in the pelagic 
longline fishery targeting swordfish and tuna.
    (2) Extended reach handle. The handle must be a minimum length 
equal to the height of the vessel's freeboard or 6 ft. (1.83 m), 
whichever is greater.
    (D) Long-handled device to pull an ``inverted V.'' This tool is 
used to pull a ``V'' in the fishing line when implementing the 
``inverted V'' dehooking technique, as described in the document 
entitled ``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release With 
Minimal Injury,'' required under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, for 
disentangling and dehooking entangled sea turtles. One long-handled 
device to pull an ``inverted V'', meeting the minimum design standards, 
is required onboard. If a 6-ft (1.83 m) J-style dehooker is used to 
comply with paragraph (c)(5)(i)(C) of this section, it will also 
satisfy this requirement. Minimum design standards are as follows:
    (1) Hook end. This device, such as a standard boat hook or gaff, 
must be constructed of stainless steel or aluminum. A sharp point, such 
as on a gaff hook, is to be used only for holding the monofilament 
fishing line and should never contact the sea turtle.
    (2) Extended reach handle. The handle must have a minimum length 
equal to the height of the vessel's freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m), 
whichever is greater. The handle must be sturdy and strong enough to 
facilitate the secure attachment of the gaff hook.
    (E) Dipnet. One dipnet, meeting the minimum design standards, is 
required onboard. Dipnets are to be used to facilitate safe handling of 
sea turtles by allowing them to be brought onboard for fishing gear 
removal, without causing further injury to the animal. Turtles must not 
be brought onboard without the use of a dipnet. The minimum design 
standards for dipnets are as follows:
    (1) Size of dipnet. The dipnet must have a sturdy net hoop of at 
least 31 inches (78.74 cm) inside diameter and a bag depth of at least 
38 inches (96.52 cm) to accommodate turtles below 3 ft. (0.914 m) 
carapace length. The bag mesh openings may not exceed 3 inches (7.62 
cm). There must be no sharp edges or burrs on the hoop, or where the 
hoop is attached to the handle.
    (2) Extended reach handle. The dipnet hoop must be securely 
fastened to an extended reach handle or pole with a minimum length 
equal to, or greater than, 150 percent of the height of the vessel's 
freeboard, or at least 6 ft (1.83 m), whichever is greater. The handle 
must made of a rigid material strong enough to facilitate the sturdy 
attachment of the net hoop and able to support a minimum of 100 lbs 
(34.1 kg) without breaking or significant bending or distortion. It is 
recommended, but not required, that the extended reach handle break 
down into sections.
    (F) Tire. A minimum of one tire is required onboard for supporting 
a turtle in an upright orientation while it is onboard, although an 
assortment of sizes is recommended to accommodate a range of turtle 
sizes. The required tire must be a standard passenger vehicle tire, and 
must be free of exposed steel belts.
    (G) Short-handled dehooker for ingested hooks. One short-handled 
device, meeting the minimum design standards, is required onboard for 
removing ingested hooks. This dehooker is designed to remove ingested 
hooks from boated sea turtles. It can also be used on external hooks or 
hooks in the front of the mouth. Minimum design standards are as 
follows:
    (1) Hook removal device. The hook removal device must be 
constructed of \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) 316 L stainless steel, and must 
allow the hook to be secured and the barb shielded without re-engaging 
during the removal process. It must be no larger than \15/16\ inch 
(3.33 cm) outside diameter. It may not have any unprotected terminal 
points (including blunt ones), as this could cause injury to the 
esophagus during hook removal. A sliding PVC bite block must be used to 
protect the beak and facilitate hook removal if the turtle bites down 
on the dehooking device. The bite block should be constructed of a \3/
4\-inch (1.91 cm) inside diameter high impact plastic cylinder (e.g., 
Schedule 80 PVC) that is 10 inches (25.4 cm) long to allow for 5 inches 
(12.7 cm) of slide along the shaft. The device must be of a size 
appropriate to secure the range of hook sizes and styles used in the 
pelagic

[[Page 71598]]

longline fishery targeting swordfish and tuna.
    (2) Handle length. The handle should be approximately 16-24 inches 
(40.64 cm-60.69 cm) in length, with approximately a 5-inch (12.7 cm) 
long tube T-handle of approximately 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter.
    (H) Short-handled dehooker for external hooks. One short-handled 
dehooker for external hooks, meeting the minimum design standards, is 
required onboard. The short-handled dehooker for ingested hooks 
required to comply with paragraph (c)(5)(i)(G) of this section will 
also satisfy this requirement. Minimum design standards are as follows:
    (1) Hook removal device. The dehooker must be constructed of \5/
16\-inch (7.94 cm) 316 L stainless steel, and the design must be such 
that a hook can be rotated out without pulling it out at an angle. The 
dehooking end must be blunt, and all edges rounded. The device must be 
of a size appropriate to secure the range of hook sizes and styles used 
in the pelagic longline fishery targeting swordfish and tuna.
    (2) Handle length. The handle should be approximately 16-24 inches 
(40.64 cm-60.69 cm) long with approximately a 5-inch (12.7 cm) long 
tube T-handle of approximately 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter.
    (I) Long-nose or needle-nose pliers. One pair of long-nose or 
needle-nose pliers, meeting the minimum design standards, is required 
on board. Required long-nose or needle-nose pliers can be used to 
remove deeply embedded hooks from the turtle's flesh that must be 
twisted during removal. They can also hold PVC splice couplings, when 
used as mouth openers, in place. To meet the minimum design standards 
such pliers must generally be approximately 12 inches (30.48 cm) in 
length, and should be constructed of stainless steel material.
    (J) Bolt cutters. One pair of bolt cutters, meeting the minimum 
design standards, is required on board. Required bolt cutters may be 
used to cut hooks to facilitate their removal. They should be used to 
cut off the eye or barb of a hook, so that it can safely be pushed 
through a sea turtle without causing further injury. They should also 
be used to cut off as much of the hook as possible, when the remainder 
of the hook cannot be removed. To meet the minimum design standards 
such bolt cutters must generally be approximately 17 inches (43.18 cm) 
in total length, with 4-inch (10.16 cm) long blades that are 2\1/4\ 
inches (5.72 cm) wide, when closed, and with 13-inch (33.02 cm) long 
handles. Required bolt cutters must be able to cut hard metals, such as 
stainless or carbon steel hooks, up to \1/4\-inch (6.35 mm) diameter.
    (K) Monofilament line cutters. One pair of monofilament line 
cutters is required on board. Required monofilament line cutters must 
be used to remove fishing line as close to the eye of the hook as 
possible, if the hook is swallowed or cannot be removed. To meet the 
minimum design standards such monofilament line cutters must generally 
be approximately 7\1/2\ inches (19.05 cm) in length. The blades must be 
1 in (4.45 cm) in length and \5/8\-in (1.59 cm) wide, when closed, and 
are recommended to be coated with Teflon (a trademark owned by E.I. 
DuPont de Nemours and Company Corp.).
    (L) Mouth openers/mouth gags. Required mouth openers and mouth gags 
are used to open sea turtle mouths, and to keep them open when removing 
ingested hooks from boated turtles. They must allow access to the hook 
or line without causing further injury to the turtle. Design standards 
are included in the item descriptions. At least two of the seven 
different types of mouth openers/gags described below are required:
    (1) A block of hard wood. Placed in the corner of the jaw, a block 
of hard wood may be used to gag open a turtle's mouth. A smooth block 
of hard wood of a type that does not splinter (e.g. maple) with rounded 
edges should be sanded smooth, if necessary, and soaked in water to 
soften the wood. The dimensions should be approximately 11 inches 
(27.94 cm) 1 inch (2.54 cm) 1 inch (2.54 cm). A long-handled, wire shoe 
brush with a wooden handle, and with the wires removed, is an 
inexpensive, effective and practical mouth-opening device that meets 
these requirements.
    (2) A set of three canine mouth gags. Canine mouth gags are highly 
recommended to hold a turtle's mouth open, because the gag locks into 
an open position to allow for hands-free operation after it is in 
place. A set of canine mouth gags must include one of each of the 
following sizes: small (5 inches) (12.7 cm), medium (6 inches) (15.24 
cm), and large (7 inches) (17.78 cm). They must be constructed of 
stainless steel. A 1-inch (4.45 cm) piece of vinyl tubing (\3/4\-inch 
(1.91 cm) outside diameter and \5/8\-inch (1.59 cm) inside diameter) 
must be placed over the ends to protect the turtle's beak.
    (3) A set of two sturdy dog chew bones. Placed in the corner of a 
turtle's jaw, canine chew bones are used to gag open a sea turtle's 
mouth. Required canine chews must be constructed of durable nylon, 
zylene resin, or thermoplastic polymer, and strong enough to withstand 
biting without splintering. To accommodate a variety of turtle beak 
sizes, a set must include one large (5\1/2\-8 inches (13.97 cm-20.32 
cm) in length), and one small (3\1/2\-4\1/2\ inches (8.89 cm-11.43 cm) 
in length) canine chew bones.
    (4) A set of two rope loops covered with hose. A set of two rope 
loops covered with a piece of hose can be used as a mouth opener, and 
to keep a turtle's mouth open during hook and/or line removal. A 
required set consists of two 3-foot (0.91 m) lengths of poly braid rope 
(\3/8\-inch (9.52 mm) diameter suggested), each covered with an 8-inch 
(20.32 cm) section of \1/2\-inch (1.27 cm) or \3/4\-inch (1.91 cm) 
light-duty garden hose, and each tied into a loop. The upper loop of 
rope covered with hose is secured on the upper beak to give control 
with one hand, and the second piece of rope covered with hose is 
secured on the lower beak to give control with the user's foot.
    (5) A hank of rope. Placed in the corner of a turtle's jaw, a hank 
of rope can be used to gag open a sea turtle's mouth. A 6-foot (1.83 m) 
lanyard of approximately \3/16\-inch (4.76 mm) braided nylon rope may 
be folded to create a hank, or looped bundle, of rope. Any size soft-
braided nylon rope is allowed, however it must create a hank of 
approximately 2-4 inches (5.08 cm-10.16 cm) in thickness.
    (6) A set of four PVC splice couplings. PVC splice couplings can be 
positioned inside a turtle's mouth to allow access to the back of the 
mouth for hook and line removal. They are to be held in place with the 
needle-nose pliers. To ensure proper fit and access, a required set 
must consist of the following Schedule 40 PVC splice coupling sizes: 1 
inch (2.54 cm), 1\1/4\ inch (3.18 cm), 1\1/2\ inch (3.81 cm), and 2 
inches (5.08 cm).
    (7) A large avian oral speculum. A large avian oral speculum 
provides the ability to hold a turtle's mouth open and to control the 
head with one hand, while removing a hook with the other hand. The 
avian oral speculum must be 9-inches (22.86 cm) long, and constructed 
of \3/16\-inch (4.76 mm) wire diameter surgical stainless steel (Type 
304). It must be covered with 8 inches (20.32 cm) of clear vinyl tubing 
(\5/16\-inch (7.9 mm) outside diameter, \3/16\-inch (4.76 mm) inside 
diameter).
    (M) Turtle control devices. One turtle control device, as described 
in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(M)(1) or (2) of this section, and meeting the 
minimum design standards, is required onboard and must be used to 
secure a front flipper of the sea turtle so that the animal can be 
controlled at the side of

[[Page 71599]]

the vessel. It is strongly recommended that a pair of turtle control 
devices be used to secure both front flippers when crew size and 
conditions allow. Minimum design standards consist of:
    (1) Turtle tether and extended reach handle. Approximately 15-20 
feet of \1/2\-inch hard lay negative buoyance line is used to make an 
approximately 30-inch loop to slip over the flipper. The line is fed 
through a \3/4\-inch fair lead, eyelet, or eyebolt at the working end 
of a pole and through a \3/4\-inch eyelet or eyebolt in the midsection. 
A \1/2\-inch quick release cleat holds the line in place near the end 
of the pole. A final \3/4\-inch eyelet or eyebolt should be positioned 
approximately 7-inches behind the cleat to secure the line, while 
allowing a safe working distance to avoid injury when releasing the 
line from the cleat. The line must be securely fastened to an extended 
reach handle or pole with a minimum length equal to, or greater than, 
150 percent of the height of the vessel's freeboard, or a minimum of 6 
feet (1.83 m), whichever is greater. There is no restriction on the 
type of material used to construct this handle, as long as it is 
sturdy. The handle must include a tag line to attach the tether to the 
vessel to prevent the turtle from breaking away with the tether still 
attached.
    (2) T&G ninja sticks and extended reach handles. Approximately 30-
35 feet of \1/2\-inch to \5/8\-inch soft lay polypropylene or nylon 
line or similar is fed through 2 PVC conduit, fiberglass, or similar 
sturdy poles and knotted using an overhand (recommended) knot at the 
end of both poles or otherwise secured. There should be approximately 
18-24 inches of exposed rope between the poles to be used as a working 
surface to capture and secure the flipper. Knot the line at the ends of 
both poles to prevent line slippage if they are not otherwise secured. 
The remaining line is used to tether the apparatus to the boat unless 
an additional tag line is used. Two lengths of sunlight resistant \3/
4\-inch schedule 40 PVC electrical conduit, fiberglass, aluminum, or 
similar material should be used to construct the apparatus with a 
minimum length equal to, or greater than, 150 percent of the height of 
the vessel's freeboard, or 6 feet (1.83 m), whichever is greater.
    (ii) Handling and release requirements. (A) Sea turtle bycatch 
mitigation gear, as required by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (D) of 
this section, must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea 
turtles that cannot be brought onboard. Sea turtle bycatch mitigation 
gear, as required by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E) through (M) of this 
section, must be used to facilitate access, safe handling, 
disentanglement, and hook removal or hook cutting of sea turtles that 
can be brought onboard, where feasible. Sea turtles must be handled, 
and bycatch mitigation gear must be used, in accordance with the 
careful release protocols and handling/release guidelines specified in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and in accordance with the onboard 
handling and resuscitation requirements specified in Sec.  
223.206(d)(1) of this title.
    (B) Boated turtles. When practicable, active and comatose sea 
turtles must be brought on board, with a minimum of injury, using a 
dipnet as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i)(E) of this section. All 
turtles less than 3 ft. (.91 m) carapace length should be boated, if 
sea conditions permit.
    (1) A boated turtle should be placed on a standard automobile tire, 
or cushioned surface, in an upright orientation to immobilize it and 
facilitate gear removal. Then, it should be determined if the hook can 
be removed without causing further injury.
    (2) All externally embedded hooks should be removed, unless hook 
removal would result in further injury to the turtle. No attempt to 
remove a hook should be made if it has been swallowed and the insertion 
point is not visible, or if it is determined that removal would result 
in further injury.
    (3) If a hook cannot be removed, as much line as possible should be 
removed from the turtle using monofilament cutters as required by 
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, and the hook should be cut as 
close as possible to the insertion point before releasing the turtle, 
using boltcutters as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
    (4) If a hook can be removed, an effective technique may be to cut 
off either the barb, or the eye, of the hook using bolt cutters, and 
then to slide the hook out. When the hook is visible in the front of 
the mouth, a mouth-opener, as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 
section, may facilitate opening the turtle's mouth and a gag may 
facilitate keeping the mouth open. Short-handled dehookers for ingested 
hooks, long-nose pliers, or needle-nose pliers, as required by 
paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, should be used to remove visible 
hooks from the mouth that have not been swallowed on boated turtles, as 
appropriate.
    (5) As much gear as possible must be removed from the turtle 
without causing further injury prior to its release. Refer to the 
careful release protocols and handling/release guidelines required in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the handling and resuscitation 
requirements specified in Sec.  223.206(d)(1) of this title, for 
additional information.
    (C) Non-boated turtles. If a sea turtle is too large, or hooked in 
a manner that precludes safe boating without causing further damage or 
injury to the turtle, sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear required by 
paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (D) of this section must be used to 
disentangle sea turtles from fishing gear and disengage any hooks, or 
to clip the line and remove as much line as possible from a hook that 
cannot be removed, prior to releasing the turtle, in accordance with 
the protocols specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (1) Non-boated turtles should be brought close to the boat and 
provided with time to calm down. Then, it must be determined whether or 
not the hook can be removed without causing further injury. A front 
flipper or flippers of the turtle must be secured with an approved 
turtle control device from the list specified in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(D) 
of this section.
    (2) All externally embedded hooks must be removed, unless hook 
removal would result in further injury to the turtle. No attempt should 
be made to remove a hook if it has been swallowed, or if it is 
determined that removal would result in further injury. If the hook 
cannot be removed and/or if the animal is entangled, as much line as 
possible must be removed prior to release, using a line cutter as 
required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. If the hook can be 
removed, it must be removed using a long-handled dehooker as required 
by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section.
    (3) Without causing further injury, as much gear as possible must 
be removed from the turtle prior to its release. Refer to the careful 
release protocols and handling/release guidelines required in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section, and the handling and resuscitation requirements 
specified in Sec.  223.206(d)(1) for additional information.
    (iii) Gear modifications. The following measures are required of 
vessel operators to reduce the incidental capture and mortality of sea 
turtles:
    (A) Gangion length. The length of any gangion on vessels that have 
pelagic longline gear on board and that have been issued, or are 
required to have, a limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna Longline 
category permit for use in the Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean 
Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must be at least 10 percent longer than any 
floatline length if the total length of any gangion plus the total 
length of any floatline is less than 100 meters.

[[Page 71600]]

    (B) Hook size, type, and bait. Vessels fishing outside of the NED 
gear restricted area, as defined at Sec.  635.2, that have pelagic 
longline gear on board, and that have been issued, or are required to 
have, a limited access swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean 
Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, are limited, at all times, to possessing on 
board and/or using only whole finfish and/or squid bait, and the 
following types and sizes of fishing hooks:
    (1) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 
10[deg]; and/or,
    (2) 16/0 or larger non-offset circle hooks.
    (i) For purposes of paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of this 
section, the outer diameter of an 18/0 circle hook at its widest point 
must be no smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm), and the outer diameter of 
a 16/0 circle hook at its widest point must be no smaller than 1.74 
inches (44.3 mm), when measured with the eye of the hook on the 
vertical axis (y-axis) and perpendicular to the horizontal axis (x-
axis). The distance between the hook point and the shank (i.e., the 
gap) on an 18/0 circle hook must be no larger than 1.13 inches (28.8 
mm), and the gap on a 16/0 circle hook must be no larger than 1.01 
inches (25.8 mm). The allowable offset is measured from the barbed end 
of the hook, and is relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or 
shank, of the hook when laid on its side. The only allowable offset 
circle hooks are those that are offset by the hook manufacturer. In the 
Gulf of Mexico, as described at Sec.  600.105(c) of this chapter, 
circle hooks also must be constructed of corrodible round wire stock 
that is no larger than 3.65 mm in diameter.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) If green-stick gear, as defined at Sec.  635.2, is onboard, a 
vessel may possess up to 20 J-hooks. J-hooks may be used only with 
green-stick gear, and no more than 10 hooks may be used at one time 
with each green-stick gear. J-hooks used with green-stick gear may be 
no smaller than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) when measured in a straight line 
over the longest distance from the eye to any other part of the hook. 
If green-stick gear is onboard, artificial bait may be possessed, but 
may be used only with green-stick gear.
    (iv) Approval of sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear. NMFS will file 
with the Office of the Federal Register for publication an initial list 
of required sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear that NMFS has approved 
as meeting the minimum design standards specified under paragraph 
(c)(5)(i) of this section. Other devices proposed for use as line 
clippers or cutters or dehookers, as specified under paragraphs 
(c)(5)(i)(A), (B), (C), (G), (H), and (K) of this section, must be 
approved as meeting the minimum design standards before being used. 
NMFS will examine new devices, as they become available, to determine 
if they meet the minimum design standards, and will file with the 
Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of any new 
devices that are approved as meeting the standards.
    (d) Bottom longlines. (1) If bottom longline gear is onboard a 
vessel issued a permit under this part, persons aboard that vessel may 
not fish or deploy any type of fishing gear in the following areas:
    (i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed area from January 1 through July 
31 each calendar year;
    (ii) The areas designated at Sec.  622.33(a)(1) through (3) of this 
chapter, year-round; and
    (iii) The areas described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iii)(A) through (H) 
of this section, year-round.
    (A) Snowy Grouper Wreck. Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 
order, the following points: 33[deg]25' N. lat., 77[deg]04.75' W. 
long.; 33[deg]34.75' N. lat., 76[deg]51.3' W. long.; 33[deg]25.5' N. 
lat., 76[deg]46.5' W. long.; 33[deg]15.75' N. lat., 77[deg]00.0' W. 
long.; 33[deg]25' N. lat., 77[deg]04.75' W. long.
    (B) Northern South Carolina. Bounded on the north by 32[deg]53.5' 
N. lat.; on the south by 32[deg]48.5' N. lat.; on the east by 
78[deg]04.75' W. long.; and on the west by 78[deg]16.75' W. long.
    (C) Edisto. Bounded on the north by 32[deg]24' N. lat.; on the 
south by 32[deg]18.5' N. lat.; on the east by 78[deg]54.0' W. long.; 
and on the west by 79[deg]06.0' W. long.
    (D) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef. Bounded by rhumb lines 
connecting, in order, the following points: 32[deg]04' N. lat., 
79[deg]12' W. long.; 32[deg]08.5' N. lat., 79[deg]07.5' W. long.; 
32[deg]06' N. lat., 79[deg]05' W. long.; 32[deg]01.5' N. lat., 
79[deg]09.3' W. long.; 32[deg]04' N. lat., 79[deg]12' W. long.
    (E) Georgia. Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 
following points: 31[deg]43' N. lat., 79[deg]31' W. long.; 31[deg]43' 
N. lat., 79[deg]21' W. long.; 31[deg]34' N. lat., 79[deg]29' W. long.; 
31[deg]34' N. lat., 79[deg]39' W. long; 31[deg]43' N. lat., 79[deg]31' 
W. long.
    (F) North Florida. Bounded on the north by 30[deg]29' N. lat.; on 
the south by 30[deg]19' N. lat.; on the east by 80[deg]02' W. long.; 
and on the west by 80[deg]14' W. long.
    (G) St. Lucie Hump. Bounded on the north by 27[deg]08' N. lat.; on 
the south by 27[deg]04' N. lat.; on the east by 79[deg]58' W. long.; 
and on the west by 80[deg]00' W. long.
    (H) East Hump. Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 
following points: 24[deg]36.5' N. lat., 80[deg]45.5' W. long.; 
24[deg]32' N. lat., 80[deg]36' W. long; 24[deg]27.5' N. lat., 
80[deg]38.5' W. long; 24[deg]32.5' N. lat., 80[deg]48' W. long.; 
24[deg]36.5' N. lat., 80[deg]45.5' W. long.
    (2) The operator of a vessel required to be permitted under this 
part and that has bottom longline gear on board must undertake the 
following bycatch mitigation measures to release sea turtles, 
prohibited sharks, or smalltooth sawfish, as appropriate.
    (i) Possession and use of required mitigation gear. The equipment 
listed in paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section must be carried on board 
and must be used to handle, release, and disentangle hooked or 
entangled sea turtles, prohibited sharks, or smalltooth sawfish in 
accordance with requirements specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (ii) Handling and release requirements. Sea turtle bycatch 
mitigation gear, as required by paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, 
must be used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtle as stated 
in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This mitigation gear should 
also be employed to disengage any hooked or entangled species of 
prohibited sharks as listed under heading D of Table 1 of appendix A of 
this part, any hooked or entangled species of sharks that exceed the 
retention limits as specified in Sec.  635.24(a), and any hooked or 
entangled smalltooth sawfish. In addition, if a smalltooth sawfish is 
caught, the fish should be kept in the water while maintaining water 
flow over the gills and the fish should be examined for research tags. 
All smalltooth sawfish must be released in a manner that will ensure 
maximum probability of survival, but without removing the fish from the 
water or any research tags from the fish.
    (3) If a vessel issued or required to be issued a permit under this 
part is in a closed area designated under paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section and has pelagic longline gear onboard, the vessel may not, at 
any time, possess or land any demersal species listed in Table 3 of 
Appendix A to this part in excess of 5 percent, by weight, of the total 
weight of pelagic and demersal species possessed or landed, that are 
listed in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this part.
    (e) Purse seine--(1) Mesh size. A purse seine used in directed 
fishing for bluefin tuna must have a mesh size equal to or smaller than 
4.5 inches (11.4 cm) in the main body (stretched when

[[Page 71601]]

wet) and must have at least 24-count thread throughout the net.
    (2) Inspection of purse seine vessels. Persons that own or operate 
an Atlantic Tunas purse seine vessel must have their fishing gear 
inspected for mesh size by an enforcement agent of NMFS prior to 
commencing fishing for the season in any fishery that may result in the 
harvest of Atlantic tunas. Such persons must request such inspection at 
least 24 hours before commencement of the first fishing trip of the 
season. If NMFS does not inspect the vessel within 24 hours of such 
notification, the inspection requirement is waived. In addition, at 
least 24 hours before commencement of offloading any bluefin tuna after 
a fishing trip, such persons must request an inspection of the vessel 
and catch by notifying NMFS. If, after notification by the vessel, NMFS 
does not arrange to inspect the vessel and catch at offloading, the 
inspection requirement is waived.
    (f) Rod and reel. Persons who have been issued or are required to 
be issued a permit under this part and who are participating in a 
``tournament,'' as defined in Sec.  635.2, that bestows points, prizes, 
or awards for Atlantic billfish must deploy only non-offset circle 
hooks when using natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure 
combinations, and may not deploy a J-hook or an offset circle hook in 
combination with natural bait or a natural bait/artificial lure 
combination.
    (g) Gillnet. (1) Persons fishing with gillnet gear must comply with 
the provisions implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 
Plan, the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan, the Harbor Porpoise 
Take Reduction Plan, and any other relevant Take Reduction Plan set 
forth in Sec. Sec.  229.32 through 229.35 of this title. If a listed 
whale is taken, the vessel operator must cease fishing operations 
immediately and contact NOAA Fisheries as required under part 229 of 
this title.
    (2) While fishing with a gillnet for or in possession of any of the 
large coastal, small coastal, and pelagic sharks listed in section A, 
B, and/or C of table 1 of appendix A of this part, the gillnet must 
remain attached to at least one vessel at one end, except during net 
checks.
    (3) Vessel operators fishing with gillnet for, or in possession of, 
any of the large coastal, small coastal, and pelagic sharks listed in 
sections A, B, and/or C of table 1 of appendix A of this part are 
required to conduct net checks every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and 
remove any sea turtles, marine mammals, or smalltooth sawfish. 
Smalltooth sawfish should not be removed from the water while being 
removed from the net.
    (h) 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.
    (i) Speargun fishing gear. Speargun fishing gear may only be 
utilized when recreational fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas and only 
from vessels issued either a valid HMS Angling or valid HMS Charter/
Headboat permit. Persons fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas using speargun 
gear, as specified in Sec.  635.19, must be physically in the water 
when the speargun is fired or discharged, and may freedive, use SCUBA, 
or other underwater breathing devices. Only free-swimming BAYS tunas, 
not those restricted by fishing lines or other means, may be taken by 
speargun fishing gear. ``Powerheads,'' as defined at Sec.  600.10 of 
this chapter, or any other explosive devices, may not be used to 
harvest or fish for BAYS tunas with speargun fishing gear.
    (j) Green-stick gear. Green-stick gear may only be utilized when 
fishing from vessels issued a valid Atlantic Tunas General, Swordfish 
General Commercial, HMS Charter/Headboat, or Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit. The gear must be attached to the vessel, actively 
trolled with the mainline at or above the water's surface, and may not 
be deployed with more than 10 hooks or gangions attached.

0
13. In Sec.  635.23, the section heading and paragraphs (d), (e) and 
(f) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.23  Retention limits for bluefin tuna.

* * * * *
    (d) Harpoon category. Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 
Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category may retain, possess, or land an 
unlimited number of giant bluefin tuna per day. An incidental catch of 
two large medium bluefin tuna per vessel per day may be retained, 
possessed, or landed, unless the retention limits is increased by NMFS 
through an inseason adjustment to three, or a maximum of four, large 
medium bluefin tuna per vessel per day, based upon the criteria under 
Sec.  635.27(a)(8). NMFS will implement an adjustment via publication 
in the Federal Register. If adjusted upwards to three or four large 
medium bluefin tuna per vessel per day, NMFS may subsequently decrease 
the retention limit down to the default level of two, based on the 
criteria under Sec.  635.27(a)(8).
    (e) Purse Seine category. Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category may retain giant bluefin tuna (81 
inches and larger), and smaller bluefin, as restricted by paragraphs 
(e)(1) and (2) of this section, up to the amount of individual quota 
allocated under Sec.  635.27(a)(4)(ii). Purse seine vessel owners who, 
through landing and/or leasing, have no remaining bluefin tuna quota 
allocation may not use their permitted vessels in any fishery in which 
Atlantic bluefin tuna might be caught, regardless of whether bluefin 
tuna are retained, unless such vessel owners lease additional 
allocation through the Individual Bluefin Quota Allocation Leasing 
Program, under Sec.  635.15(c). Persons aboard a vessel permitted in 
the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category,
    (1) May retain, possess, land, or sell large medium bluefin in 
amounts not exceeding 15 percent, by weight, of the total amount of 
giant bluefin landed during that fishing year.
    (2) May retain, possess, or land bluefin smaller than the large 
medium size class that are taken incidentally when fishing for skipjack 
tuna in an amount not exceeding 1 percent, by weight, of the skipjack 
tuna and yellowfin tuna landed on that trip. Landings of bluefin 
smaller than the large medium size class may not be sold and are 
counted against the Purse Seine category bluefin quota allocated to 
that vessel.
    (3) May fish for yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, or skipjack tuna at 
any time; however, landings of bluefin tuna taken

[[Page 71602]]

incidental to fisheries targeting other Atlantic tunas or in any 
fishery in which bluefin tuna might be caught will be deducted from the 
individual vessel's quota.
    (f) Longline category. Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category are subject to the bluefin tuna 
retention restrictions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) A vessel fishing with pelagic longline gear may retain, 
possess, land and sell large medium and giant bluefin tuna taken 
incidentally when fishing for other species if in compliance with all 
the IBQ requirements of Sec.  635.15, including the requirement that a 
vessel may not declare into or depart on a fishing trip with pelagic 
longline onboard unless it has the required minimum bluefin tuna IBQ 
allocation required for the region where fishing activity will occur.
    (2) A vessel with pelagic longline gear onboard must retain all 
dead bluefin tuna that are 73 inches or greater CFL.
* * * * *

0
14. In Sec.  635.27:
0
a. Paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1) through (3), and (a)(4)(i) 
through (iv) are revised;
0
b. Paragraph (a)(4)(v) is added;
0
c. Paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), (a)(7) heading, and (a)(7)(i) are 
revised;
0
d. Paragraphs (a)(8)(x) through (xiv) are added;
0
e. Paragraphs (a)(9), and (a)(10)(i) through (iii) are revised; and
0
f. Paragraph (e) is added.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.27  Quotas.

    (a) Bluefin tuna. Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and with 
paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section, NMFS may subtract the most 
recent, complete, and available estimate of dead discards from the 
annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota, and make the remainder available to be 
retained, possessed, or landed by persons and vessels subject to U.S. 
jurisdiction. The remaining baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota 
will be allocated among the General, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, 
Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories, as described in this section. 
The baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota is 923.7 mt ww, not 
including an additional annual 25 mt ww allocation provided in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section. The bluefin quota for the quota 
categories is calculated through the following process. First, 68 mt ww 
is subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota and 
allocated to the Longline category quota. Second, the remaining quota 
is divided among the categories according to the following percentages: 
General--47.1 percent (403 mt ww); Angling--19.7 percent (168.6 mt ww), 
which includes the school bluefin tuna held in reserve as described 
under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; Harpoon--3.9 percent (33.4 
mt ww); Purse Seine--18.6 percent (159.1 mt ww); Longline--8.1 percent 
(69.3 mt ww) plus the 68 mt ww allocation (137.3 mt ww total not 
including 25 mt ww allocation from paragraph (a)(3)); Trap--0.1 percent 
(0.9 mt ww); and Reserve--2.5 percent (21.4, mt ww). NMFS may make 
inseason and annual adjustments to quotas as specified in paragraphs 
(a)(9) and (10) of this section, including quota adjustments as a 
result of the annual reallocation of Purse Seine quota described under 
paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Bluefin tuna quotas are specified 
in whole weight.
    (1) General category quota. (i) Catches from vessels for which 
General category Atlantic Tunas permits have been issued, catches from 
vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit fishing under the 
provisions of Sec.  635.21(c)(3)(vi)(B), and certain catches from 
vessels for which an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued are 
counted against the General category quota in accordance with Sec.  
635.23(c)(3). Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the amount of 
large medium and giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, 
possessed, landed, or sold under the General category quota is 403 mt 
ww, and is apportioned as follows, unless modified as described under 
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section:
    (A) January 1 through the effective date of a closure notice filed 
by NMFS announcing that the January subquota is reached, or projected 
to be reached under Sec.  635.28(a)(1), or until March 31, whichever 
comes first--5.3 percent (21.4 mt ww);
    (B) June 1 through August 31--50 percent (201.5 mt ww);
    (C) September 1 through September 30--26.5 percent (106.8 mt ww);
    (D) October 1 through November 30--13 percent (52.4 mt ww); and
    (E) December 1 through December 31--5.2 percent (21 mt ww).
    (ii) NMFS may adjust each period's apportionment based on 
overharvest or underharvest in the prior period, and may transfer 
subquota from one time period to another time period, earlier in the 
year, through inseason action or annual specifications. For example, 
subquota could be transferred from the December 1 through December 31 
time period to the January time period; or from the October 1 through 
November 30 time period to the September time period. This inseason 
adjustment may occur prior to the start of that year. In other words, 
although subject to the inseason criteria under paragraph (a)(8) of 
this section, the adjustment could occur prior to the start of the 
fishing year. For example, an inseason action transferring the 2016 
December 1 through December 31 time period subquota to the 2016 January 
1 time period subquota could be filed in 2015.
    (iii) When the General category fishery has been closed in any 
quota period specified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, NMFS 
will publish a closure action as specified in Sec.  635.28. The 
subsequent time-period subquota will automatically open in accordance 
with the dates specified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) Angling category quota. In accordance with the framework 
procedures of the Consolidated HMS FMP, prior to each fishing year, or 
as early as feasible, NMFS will establish the Angling category daily 
retention limits. In accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, the 
total amount of bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, 
and landed by anglers aboard vessels for which an HMS Angling permit or 
an HMS Charter/Headboat permit has been issued is 168.6 mt ww. No more 
than 2.3 percent (3.9 mt ww) of the annual Angling category quota may 
be large medium or giant bluefin tuna. In addition, over each 2-
consecutive-year period (starting in 2011, inclusive), no more than 10 
percent of the annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota, inclusive of the 
allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may be school 
bluefin tuna (i.e., 94.9 mt ww). The Angling category quota includes 
the amount of school bluefin tuna held in reserve under paragraph 
(a)(7)(ii) of this section. The size class subquotas for bluefin tuna 
are further subdivided as follows:
    (i) After adjustment for the school bluefin tuna quota held in 
reserve (under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section), 52.8 percent 
(40.8 mt ww) of the school bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be 
caught, retained, possessed, or landed south of 39[deg]18' N. lat. The 
remaining school bluefin tuna Angling category quota (36.5 mt ww) may 
be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 39[deg]18' N. lat.
    (ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent (36.9 mt ww) of the large 
school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota may be caught, 
retained, possessed, or landed south of 39[deg]18' N. lat. The 
remaining large school/small medium bluefin tuna Angling category quota 
(32.9 mt ww) may be caught,

[[Page 71603]]

retained, possessed or landed north of 39[deg]18' N. lat.
    (iii) One third (1.3 mt ww) of the large medium and giant bluefin 
tuna Angling category quota may be caught retained, possessed, or 
landed, in each of the three following geographic areas: North of 
39[deg]18' N. lat.; south of 39[deg]18' N. lat., and outside of the 
Gulf of Mexico; and in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes of this 
section, the Gulf of Mexico region includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ 
west and north of the boundary stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c).
    (3) Longline category quota. Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 
section, the total amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna that 
may be caught, discarded dead, or retained, possessed, or landed by 
vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits is 137.3 
mt ww. In addition, 25 mt ww shall be allocated for incidental catch by 
pelagic longline vessels fishing in the Northeast Distant gear 
restricted area, and subject to the restrictions under Sec.  
635.15(b)(8).
    (4) * * *
    (i) Baseline Purse Seine quota. Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this 
section, the baseline amount of large medium and giant bluefin tuna 
that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that 
possess Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permits is 159.1 mt ww, 
unless adjusted as a result of inseason and/or annual adjustments to 
quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this section; or 
adjusted (prior to allocation to individual participants) based on the 
previous year's catch as described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this 
section. Annually, NMFS will make a determination when the Purse Seine 
fishery will start, based on variations in seasonal distribution, 
abundance or migration patterns of bluefin tuna, cumulative and 
projected landings in other commercial fishing categories, the 
potential for gear conflicts on the fishing grounds, or market impacts 
due to oversupply. NMFS will start the bluefin tuna purse seine season 
between June 1 and August 15, by filing an action with the Office of 
the Federal Register, and notifying the public. The Purse Seine 
category fishery closes on December 31 of each year.
    (ii) Allocation of bluefin quota to Purse Seine category 
participants. Annually, NMFS will make equal allocations of the 
baseline Purse Seine category quota described under paragraph (a)(4)(i) 
of this section to individual Purse Seine participants (i.e., 38.1 mt 
each), then make further determinations regarding the allocations per 
paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. Allocations of individual bluefin 
quota to individual Purse Seine participants may only be transferred 
through leasing in accordance with procedures and requirements at Sec.  
635.15(c) and other requirements under this paragraph (a)(4).
    (iii) Duration. Bluefin tuna quota allocation issued under this 
section is valid for the relevant fishing year unless it is revoked, 
suspended, or modified or unless the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 
category quota is closed per Sec.  635.28(a).
    (iv) Unused bluefin allocation. Any quota allocation that is unused 
at the end of the fishing year may not be carried forward by a Purse 
Seine participant to the following year, but would remain associated 
with the Purse Seine category as a whole, and subject to the quota 
regulations under Sec.  635.27, including annual quota adjustments.
    (v) Annual reallocation of Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 
quota. (A) By the end of each year, NMFS will determine the amount of 
quota available to each Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category participant 
for the upcoming fishing year, based on his/her bluefin catch (landings 
and dead discards). Specifically, NMFS will allocate each Atlantic 
Tunas Purse Seine category participant either 100 percent, 75 percent, 
50 percent, or 25 percent of his/her individual baseline quota 
allocation, described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, 
according to the following criteria: if the Purse Seine participant's 
catch in year one ranges from 0 to 20 percent of his/her individual 
baseline quota allocation, as described under paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of 
this section, the Purse Seine category participant would be allocated 
25 percent of his/her individual baseline quota allocation in year two, 
and 75 percent of his/her individual allocation would be reallocated to 
the Reserve category for that year. Similarly, if the Purse Seine 
participant's catch in year one is from greater than 20 percent up to 
45 percent of his/her individual baseline quota allocation, that Purse 
Seine category participant would be allocated 50 percent of his/her 
individual baseline quota allocation in year two, and 50 percent of 
his/her individual allocation would be reallocated to the Reserve 
category for that year. If the Purse Seine participant's catch in year 
one is from greater than 45 percent up to 70 percent of his/her 
individual baseline quota allocation, that Purse Seine category 
participant would be allocated 75 percent of his/her individual 
baseline quota allocation in year two, and 25 percent of his/her 
individual allocation would be transferred to the Reserve category for 
that year. If the Purse Seine participant's catch in year one is 
greater than 70 percent of his/her individual baseline quota 
allocation, that Purse Seine category participant would be allocated 
100 percent of his/her individual baseline quota allocation in year 
two, and no quota would be transferred to the Reserve category for that 
year. These criteria would apply following the same pattern in years 
two and beyond.
    (B) Purse Seine category participants may only lease to eligible 
IBQ participants allocated quota available to them that year, 
consistent with the purse seine allocation availability provisions in 
this section. For example, if a Purse Seine category participant was 
allocated 50 percent of his/her baseline quota, he/she would be able to 
catch and/or lease that allocation to an eligible IBQ participant. The 
individual participant's remaining baseline quota would not be 
available to lease but would be transferred to the Reserve category. 
Allocation of less than 100% of a participant's baseline quota (i.e., 
25 percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent) does not preclude the 
participant from leasing additional quota, as needed, consistent with 
Sec.  635.15(c).
    (C) NMFS will inform each Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 
participant annually of its determination regarding the amount of 
individual quota allocated for the subsequent year through the 
electronic IBQ system established under Sec.  635.15 and in writing via 
a permit holder letter, when NMFS has the complete catch data for the 
Purse Seine fishery.
    (5) Harpoon category quota. The total amount of large medium and 
giant bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or 
sold by vessels that possess Harpoon category Atlantic Tunas permits is 
33.4 mt ww. The Harpoon category fishery commences on June 1 of each 
year, and closes on November 15 of each year.
    (6) Trap category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant 
bluefin tuna that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by 
vessels that possess Trap category Atlantic Tunas permits is 0.9 mt ww.
    (7) Reserve category quota. (i) The total amount of bluefin tuna 
that is held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments and research 
using quota or subquotas is 21.4 mt ww, which may be augmented by 
allowable underharvest from the previous year, or annual reallocation 
of Purse Seine category quota as described under paragraph (a)(4)(v) of 
this section. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10) of 
this section, NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category 
quota for

[[Page 71604]]

inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota.
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (x) Optimize fishing opportunity.
    (xi) Account for dead discards.
    (xii) Facilitate quota accounting.
    (xiii) Support other fishing monitoring programs through quota 
allocations and/or generation of revenue.
    (xiv) Support research through quota allocations and/or generation 
of revenue.
    (9) Inseason adjustments. To be effective for all, or a part of a 
fishing year, NMFS may transfer quotas specified under this section, 
among fishing categories or, as appropriate, subcategories, based on 
the criteria in paragraph (a)(8) of this section.
    (10) Annual adjustments. (i) Adjustments to category quotas 
specified under paragraphs (a) (1) through (7) of this section may be 
made in accordance with the restrictions of this paragraph and ICCAT 
recommendations. Based on landing, catch statistics, other available 
information, and in consideration of the criteria in paragraph (a)(8) 
of this section, if NMFS determines that a bluefin quota for any 
category or, as appropriate, subcategory has been exceeded 
(overharvest), NMFS may subtract all or a portion of the overharvest 
from that quota category or subcategory for the following fishing year. 
If NMFS determines that a bluefin quota for any category or, as 
appropriate, subcategory has not been reached (underharvest), NMFS may 
add all or a portion of the underharvest to, that quota category or 
subcategory, and/or the Reserve category for the following fishing 
year. The underharvest that is carried forward may not exceed 100 
percent of each category's baseline allocation specified in paragraph 
(a) of this section, and the total of the adjusted fishing category 
quotas and the Reserve category quota are consistent with ICCAT 
recommendations. Although quota may be carried over for the Longline or 
Purse Seine categories as a whole (at the category level), individual 
fishery participants that have been allocated individual quota may not 
carry over such quota from one year to the next, as specified under 
Sec.  635.15(b)(6) and (7) for the pelagic longline fishery, and under 
paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section for the purse seine fishery.
    (ii) NMFS may allocate any quota remaining in the Reserve category 
at the end of a fishing year to any fishing category, provided such 
allocation is consistent with the determination criteria specified in 
paragraph (a)(8) of this section.
    (iii) Regardless of the estimated landings in any year, NMFS may 
adjust the annual school bluefin quota to ensure that the average take 
of school bluefin over each ICCAT-recommended balancing period does not 
exceed 10 percent by weight of the total annual U.S. bluefin quota, 
inclusive of the allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section (NED), for that period, consistent with ICCAT recommendations.
* * * * *
    (e) Northern albacore tuna--(1) Annual quota. Consistent with ICCAT 
recommendations and domestic management objectives, the total baseline 
annual fishery quota is 527 mt ww. The total quota, after any 
adjustments made per paragraph (e)(2) of this section, is the fishing 
year's total amount of northern albacore tuna that may be landed by 
persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
    (2) Annual adjustments. Consistent with ICCAT recommendations and 
domestic management objectives, and based on landings statistics and 
other information as appropriate, if for a particular year the total 
landings are above or below the annual quota for that year, the 
difference between the annual quota and the landings will be subtracted 
from, or added to, the following year's quota, respectively, or 
subtracted or added through a delayed, or multi-year adjustment. 
Carryover adjustments shall be limited to 25 percent of the baseline 
quota allocation for that year. NMFS will file with the Office of the 
Federal Register for publication any adjustment or apportionment made 
under this paragraph (e)(2).

0
15. In Sec.  635.28, paragraph (a) is revised; and paragraphs (b)(6), 
(c)(3), and (d) are added to read as follows:


Sec.  635.28  Fishery closures.

    (a) Bluefin tuna. (1) When a bluefin tuna quota specified in Sec.  
635.27(a), is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS will file a 
closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. 
On and after the effective date and time of such action, for the 
remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in 
the notice, fishing for, retaining, possessing, or landing bluefin tuna 
under that quota is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent 
quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.
    (2) If NMFS determines that variations in seasonal distribution, 
abundance, or migration patterns of bluefin, or the catch rate in one 
area, precludes participants in another area from a reasonable 
opportunity to harvest any allocated domestic category quota, as stated 
in Sec.  635.27(a), NMFS may close all or part of the fishery under 
that category. NMFS may reopen the fishery at a later date if NMFS 
determines that reasonable fishing opportunities are available, e.g., 
bluefin have migrated into the area or weather is conducive for 
fishing. In determining the need for any such interim closure or area 
closure, NMFS will also take into consideration the criteria specified 
in Sec.  635.27(a)(8).
    (3) When the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is reached, 
projected to be reached, or exceeded, or when there is high uncertainty 
regarding the estimated or documented levels of bluefin tuna catch, 
NMFS will file a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register 
for publication. On and after the effective date and time of such 
action, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period 
as indicated in the closure action, vessels that have been issued or 
are required to have a limited access permit under Sec.  635.4 and that 
have pelagic longline gear onboard are prohibited from leaving port, 
regardless of the amount of bluefin tuna quota allocation remaining to 
each vessel or the amount of fishery quota remaining for other species. 
In addition to providing notice in the Federal Register, NMFS will also 
notify vessels of any closures and their timing via VMS and may use 
other electronic methods, such as email. Vessels would be required to 
return to port prior to the closure date/time. When considering whether 
to close or reopen the Longline category quota, NMFS may consider the 
following factors:
    (i) Total estimated bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead discards) 
in relation to the quota;
    (ii) The estimated amount by which the bluefin tuna quota might be 
exceeded;
    (iii) The usefulness of data relevant to monitoring the quota;
    (iv) The uncertainty in the documented or estimated dead discards 
or landings of bluefin tuna;
    (v) The amount of bluefin tuna landings or dead discards within a 
short time;
    (vi) The effects of continued fishing on bluefin tuna rebuilding 
and overfishing;
    (vii) The provision of reasonable opportunity for pelagic longline 
vessels to pursue the target species;
    (viii) The variations in seasonal distribution, abundance or 
migration patterns of bluefin tuna; and

[[Page 71605]]

    (viii) Other relevant factors.
    (b) * * *
    (6) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is closed as 
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels that have 
pelagic longline gear on board cannot possess or land sharks.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Bluefin tuna Longline category closure. If the Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category quota is closed as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section, vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board cannot 
possess or land any North Atlantic swordfish or bluefin tuna.
    (d) Northern albacore tuna--When the annual fishery quota specified 
in Sec.  635.27(e) is reached, or is projected to be reached, NMFS will 
file a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for 
publication. When the fishery for northern albacore tuna is closed, 
northern albacore tuna may not be retained. If the Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category quota is closed as specified in paragraph (a)(4) of 
this section, vessels that have pelagic longline gear on board cannot 
possess or land any northern albacore tuna.

0
16. In Sec.  635.31, paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (c)(1) and (4), and 
(d)(1) and (2) are revised to read as follows:


Sec.  635.31  Restrictions on sale and purchase.

    (a) * * *
    (1) A person that owns or operates a vessel from which an Atlantic 
tuna is landed or offloaded may sell such Atlantic tuna only if that 
vessel has a valid HMS Charter/Headboat permit; a valid General, 
Harpoon, Longline, Purse Seine, or Trap category permit for Atlantic 
tunas; or a valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit issued 
under this part and the appropriate category has not been closed, as 
specified at Sec.  635.28(a). However, no person may sell a bluefin 
tuna smaller than the large medium size class. Also, no large medium or 
giant bluefin tuna taken by a person aboard a vessel with an Atlantic 
HMS Charter/Headboat permit fishing in the Gulf of Mexico at any time, 
or fishing outside the Gulf of Mexico when the fishery under the 
General category has been closed, may be sold (see Sec.  635.23(c)). A 
person may sell Atlantic bluefin tuna only to a dealer that has a valid 
permit for purchasing Atlantic bluefin tuna issued under this part. A 
person may not sell or purchase Atlantic tunas harvested with speargun 
fishing gear.
    (2) Dealers may purchase Atlantic tunas only from a vessel that has 
a valid commercial permit for Atlantic tunas issued under this part in 
the appropriate category and the appropriate category has not been 
closed, as specified at Sec.  635.28(a).
    (i) Dealers may purchase Atlantic bluefin tuna only from a vessel 
that has a valid Federal commercial permit for Atlantic tunas issued 
under this part in the appropriate category. Vessel owners and 
operators of vessels that have been issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit can sell bluefin tuna and dealers can purchase bluefin 
tuna from such vessels only if the Longline category is open, per Sec.  
635.28(a) and if:
    (A) The vessel has met the minimum quota allocation and accounting 
requirements at Sec.  635.15(b)(4) and (5) for vessels departing on a 
trip with pelagic longline gear aboard, and
    (B) The dealer and vessel have met the IBQ program participant 
requirements at Sec.  635.15(a)(2).
    (ii) Dealers may first receive BAYS tunas only if they have 
submitted reports to NMFS according to reporting requirements at Sec.  
635.5(b)(1)(ii), and only from a vessel that has a valid Federal 
commercial permit for Atlantic tunas issued under this part in the 
appropriate category. Vessel owners and operators of vessels that have 
been issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit can sell BAYS 
tunas and dealers can purchase BAYS tunas from such vessels only if the 
Longline category is open per Sec.  635.28(a). Individuals issued a 
valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit, and operating in the 
U.S. Caribbean as defined at Sec.  622.2 of this chapter, may sell 
their trip limits of BAYS tunas, codified at Sec.  635.24(c), to 
dealers and non-dealers. Persons may only sell albacore tuna and 
dealers may only first receive albacore tuna if the northern albacore 
tuna fishery has not been closed as specified at Sec.  635.28 (d).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Persons that own or operate a vessel that possesses a shark 
from the management unit may sell such shark only if the vessel has a 
valid commercial shark permit issued under this part. Persons may 
possess and sell a shark only to a federally-permitted dealer and only 
when the fishery for that species, management group, and/or region has 
not been closed, as specified in Sec.  635.28(b). Persons that own or 
operate a vessel that has pelagic longline gear onboard can only 
possess and sell a shark if the Atlantic Tunas Longline category has 
not been closed, as specified in Sec.  635.28(a).
* * * * *
    (4) Only dealers who have a valid a Federal Atlantic shark dealer 
permit and who have submitted reports to NMFS according to reporting 
requirements at Sec.  635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark from an 
owner or operator of a vessel that has, or is required to have, a valid 
federal Atlantic commercial shark permit issued under this part. 
Atlantic shark dealers may purchase, trade for, barter for, or receive 
a shark from an owner or operator of a vessel who does not have a 
federal Atlantic commercial shark permit if that vessel fishes 
exclusively in state waters. Atlantic shark dealers may first receive a 
sandbar shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel who has a 
valid shark research permit and who had a NMFS-approved observer on 
board the vessel for the trip in which the sandbar shark was collected. 
Atlantic shark dealers may first receive a shark from an owner or 
operator of a fishing vessel who has a valid commercial shark permit 
issued under this part only when the fishery for that species, 
management group, and/or region has not been closed, as specified in 
Sec.  635.28(b). Atlantic shark dealers may first receive a shark from 
a vessel that has pelagic longline gear onboard only if the Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category has not been closed, as specified in Sec.  
635.28(a).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Persons that own or operate a vessel on which a swordfish in or 
from the Atlantic Ocean is possessed may sell such swordfish only if 
the vessel has a valid commercial permit for swordfish issued under 
this part. Persons may offload such swordfish only to a dealer who has 
a valid permit for swordfish issued under this part; except that 
individuals issued a valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit, 
and operating in the U.S. Caribbean as defined at Sec.  622.2 of this 
chapter, may sell swordfish, as specified at Sec.  635.24(b)(3), to 
non-dealers. Persons that own or operate a vessel that has pelagic 
longline gear onboard can only possess and sell a swordfish if the 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category has not been closed, as specified in 
Sec.  635.28(a)(4).
    (2) Atlantic swordfish dealers may first receive a swordfish 
harvested from the Atlantic Ocean only from an owner or operator of a 
fishing vessel that has a valid commercial permit for swordfish issued 
under this part, and only if the dealer has submitted reports to NMFS 
according to reporting requirements of Sec.  635.5(b)(1)(ii). Atlantic 
swordfish dealers may first receive a swordfish from a vessel that has 
pelagic longline gear onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas

[[Page 71606]]

Longline category has not been closed, as specified in Sec.  
635.28(a)(4).

0
17. In Sec.  635.34, paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.34  Adjustment of management measures.

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

0
18. In Sec.  635.69, paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (4) are revised; and paragraph (e)(4) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.69  Vessel monitoring systems.

    (a) Applicability. To facilitate enforcement of time/area and 
fishery closures, enhance reporting, and support the IBQ Program (Sec.  
635.15), an owner or operator of a commercial vessel permitted, or 
required to be permitted, to fish for Atlantic HMS under Sec.  635.4 
and that fishes with pelagic or bottom longline, gillnet, or purse 
seine gear, is required to install a NMFS-approved enhanced mobile 
transmitting unit (E-MTU) vessel monitoring system (VMS) on board the 
vessel and operate the VMS unit under the circumstances listed in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section. For purposes of this 
section, a NMFS-approved E-MTU VMS is one that has been approved by 
NMFS as satisfying its type approval listing for E-MTU VMS units. Those 
requirements are published in the Federal Register and may be updated 
periodically.
    (1) Whenever the vessel has pelagic longline or purse seine gear on 
board;
* * * * *
    (4) A vessel is considered to have pelagic or bottom longline gear 
on board, for the purposes of this section, when the gear components as 
specified at Sec.  635.2 are on board. A vessel is considered to have 
gillnet gear on board, for the purposes of this section, when gillnet, 
as defined in Sec.  600.10 of this chapter, is on board a vessel that 
has been issued a shark LAP. A vessel is considered to have purse seine 
gear on board, for the purposes of this section, when the gear as 
defined at Sec.  600.10 is onboard a vessel that has been issued an 
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category permit.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) Bluefin tuna and fishing effort reporting requirements for 
vessels fishing either with pelagic longline gear or purse seine gear--
(i) Pelagic longline gear. The vessel owner or operator of a vessel 
that has pelagic longline gear on board must report to NMFS using the 
attached VMS terminal, or using an alternative method specified by NMFS 
as follows: For each set, as instructed by NMFS, the date and area of 
the set, the number of hooks and the length of all bluefin retained 
(actual), and the length of all bluefin tuna discarded dead or alive 
(approximate), must be reported within 12 hours of the completion each 
pelagic longline haul-back.
    (ii) Purse Seine gear. The vessel owner or operator of a vessel 
that has purse seine gear on board must report to NMFS using the 
attached VMS terminal, or using an alternative method specified by NMFS 
as follows: For each purse seine set, as instructed by NMFS, the date 
and area of the set, and the length of all bluefin retained (actual), 
and the length of all bluefin tuna discarded dead or alive 
(approximate), must be reported within 12 hours of the completion of 
the retrieval of each set.
* * * * *

0
19. In Sec.  635.71:
0
a. Paragraphs (a)(14), (a)(19), (a)(23), (a)(31), (a)(33), (a)(34), and 
(a)(40) are revised;
0
b. Paragraphs (a)(57) through (60) are added;
0
c. Paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(13), (b)(17), (b)(23), 
(b)(36), and (b)(38) are revised;
0
d. Paragraphs (b)(41) through (59) are added; and
0
e. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (7), (d)(12) and (13), and (e)(8), (e)(11), 
(e)(16) and (e)(18) are revised.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.71  Prohibitions

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (14) Fail to install, activate, repair, or replace a NMFS-approved 
E-MTU vessel monitoring system prior to leaving port with pelagic 
longline gear, bottom longline gear, gillnet gear, or purse seine gear 
on board the vessel as specified in Sec.  635.69.
* * * * *
    (19) Utilize secondary gears as specified in Sec.  635.19(a) to 
capture, or attempt to capture, any undersized or free swimming 
Atlantic HMS, or fail to

[[Page 71607]]

release a captured Atlantic HMS in the manner specified in Sec.  
635.21(a).
* * * * *
    (23) Fail to comply with the restrictions on use of pelagic 
longline, bottom longline, gillnet, buoy gear, speargun gear, or green-
stick gear as specified in Sec.  635.21.
* * * * *
    (31) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a 
pelagic longline on board in any closed or gear restricted areas during 
the time period specified at Sec.  635.21(c), except under the 
conditions listed at Sec.  635.21 (c)(3).
* * * * *
    (33) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with 
pelagic or bottom longline gear on board without carrying the required 
sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, as specified at Sec.  
635.21(c)(5)(i) for pelagic longline gear and Sec.  635.21(d)(2) for 
bottom longline gear. This equipment must be utilized in accordance 
with Sec.  635.21(c)(5)(ii) and (d)(2) for pelagic and bottom longline 
gear, respectively.
    (34) Fail to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtle with the 
least harm possible to the sea turtle as specified at Sec.  635.21 
(c)(5) or (d)(2).
* * * * *
    (40) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear, from a vessel with 
bottom longline gear on board, without carrying a dipnet, line clipper, 
and dehooking device as specified at Sec.  635.21(d)(2).
* * * * *
    (57) Fail to appropriately stow longline gear when transiting a 
closed or gear restricted area, as specified in Sec.  635.21(b)(2).
    (58) Fish with pelagic longline gear in the Cape Hatteras Gear 
Restricted area if not determined by NMFS to be ``qualified'' under 
Sec.  635.21(c)(3).
    (59) Fish for, retain, possess, or land any HMS from a vessel with 
a pelagic longline on board when the Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
fishery is closed, as specified in Sec.  635.28(a)(3), (b)(6), (c)(3), 
and (d).
    (60) Buy, trade, or barter for any HMS from a vessel with pelagic 
longline gear is on board when the Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
fishery is closed, as specified in Sec.  635.31(a)(2), (c), and (d).
    (b) * * *
    (5) Fail to report a large medium or giant bluefin tuna that is not 
sold, as specified in Sec.  635.5(a)(3), or fail to report a bluefin 
tuna that is sold, as specified in Sec.  635.5(a)(4).
* * * * *
    (7) Fish for, catch, retain, or possess a bluefin tuna with gear 
not authorized for the category permit issued to the vessel or to have 
such gear on board when in possession of a bluefin tuna, as specified 
in Sec.  635.19(b).
    (8) Fail to request an inspection of a purse seine vessel, as 
specified in Sec.  635.21(e)(2).
* * * * *
    (13) As a vessel with an Atlantic Tunas General category permit, 
fail to immediately cease fishing and immediately return to port after 
catching the applicable limit of large medium or giant bluefin tuna on 
a commercial fishing day, as specified in Sec.  635.23(a)(3).
* * * * *
    (17) As a vessel with an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 
permit, catch, possess, retain, or land bluefin in excess of its 
allocation of the Purse Seine category quota as specified in Sec.  
635.23(e), or fish for bluefin under that allocation prior to the 
commencement date of the directed bluefin purse seine fishery as 
specified in Sec.  635.27(a)(4).
* * * * *
    (23) Fish for, catch, possess, or retain a bluefin tuna, except as 
specified under Sec.  635.23(f), or if taken incidental to recreational 
fishing for other species and retained in accordance with Sec.  
635.23(b) and (c).
* * * * *
    (36) Possess J-hooks onboard a vessel that has pelagic longline 
gear onboard, and that has been issued, or is required to have, a 
limited access swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permit for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and 
the Gulf of Mexico, except when green-stick gear is onboard, as 
specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(2)(vii)(A) and (c)(5)(iii)(C)(3).
* * * * *
    (38) Possess more than 20 J-hooks onboard a vessel that has been 
issued, or is required to have, a limited access swordfish, shark, or 
tuna Longline category permit for use in the Atlantic Ocean, including 
the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, when possessing onboard both 
pelagic longline gear and green-stick gear as defined at Sec.  635.2.
* * * * *
    (41) Fail to report bluefin catch by pelagic longline or purse 
seine gear, through VMS as specified at Sec.  635.69(e)(4).
    (42) Fail to report all dead discards or landings of bluefin 
through the NMFS electronic catch reporting system within 24 hours of 
landing or the end of the trip as specified at Sec.  635.5(a)(4).
    (43) Fish for, retain, possess, or land albacore tuna when the 
fishery is closed, as specified in Sec.  635.28(d).
    (44) Buy, purchase, trade, or barter for albacore tuna when the 
fishery is closed, as specified in Sec.  635.31(a)(2)(ii).
    (45) Fail to comply with landing report requirements, as specified 
under Sec.  635.5(b)(2)(i)(A).
    (46) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a 
pelagic longline on board that does not have an approved and working EM 
system as specified in Sec.  635.9; tamper with, or fail to install, 
operate or maintain one or more components of the EM system; obstruct 
the view of the camera(s); or fail to handle bluefin tuna in a manner 
that allows the camera to record the fish; as specified in Sec.  635.9.
    (47) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy or fish with any fishing 
gear from a vessel with a pelagic longline on board without a minimum 
amount of IBQ allocation available for that vessel, as specified in 
Sec.  635.15(b)(3), as applicable.
    (48) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy or fish with any fishing 
gear from a vessel with a pelagic longline on board without accounting 
for bluefin caught on a previous trip as specified in Sec.  
635.15(b)(4)(ii).
    (49) Lease bluefin quota allocation to or from the owner of a 
vessel not issued a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permit or not an 
Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine participant as specified under Sec.  
635.15(c)(1).
    (50) Fish in the Gulf of Mexico with pelagic longline gear on board 
if the vessel has only designated Atlantic IBQ allocation, as specified 
under Sec.  635.15(b)(2).
    (51) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy or fish with any fishing 
gear from a vessel with a pelagic longline on board in the Gulf of 
Mexico, without a minimum amount of designated GOM IBQ allocation 
available for that vessel, as specified in Sec.  635.15(b)(3).
    (52) If leasing IBQ allocation, fail to provide all required 
information on the application, as specified under Sec.  635.15(c)(2).
    (53) Lease IBQ allocation in an amount that exceeds the amount of 
IBQ allocation associated with the lessor, as specified under Sec.  
635.15(c)(2).
    (54) Sell quota share, as specified under Sec.  635.15(d).
    (55) Fail to provide bluefin tuna landings and dead discard 
information as specified at Sec.  635.15(b)(4)(iii).
    (56) Fish with or have pelagic longline gear on board if any trip 
level quota debt associated with the vessel from a preceding trip has 
not been settled, as specified at Sec.  635.15(b)(5)(i).
    (57) Lease IBQ allocation during the period from 6 p.m. December 31 
to 2

[[Page 71608]]

p.m. January 1 (Eastern Time) as specified at Sec.  635.15(c)(3)(iv).
    (58) Lease IBQ allocation if the conditions of paragraph Sec.  
635.15(c)(2) are not met.
    (59) Fish with or have pelagic longline gear on board if any annual 
level quota debt associated with the vessel from a preceding year has 
not been settled, as specified at Sec.  635.15(b)(5)(ii).
    (c) * * *
    (1) As specified in Sec.  635.19(c), retain a billfish harvested by 
gear other than rod and reel, or retain a billfish on board a vessel 
unless that vessel has been issued an Atlantic HMS Angling or Charter/
Headboat permit or has been issued an Atlantic Tunas General category 
permit and is participating in a tournament in compliance with Sec.  
635.4(c).
* * * * *
    (7) Deploy a J-hook or an offset circle hook in combination with 
natural bait or a natural bait/artificial lure combination when 
participating in a tournament for, or including, Atlantic billfish, as 
specified in Sec.  635.21(f).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (12) Fish for Atlantic sharks with unauthorized gear or possess 
Atlantic sharks on board a vessel with unauthorized gear on board as 
specified in Sec.  635.19(d).
    (13) Fish for Atlantic sharks with a gillnet or possess Atlantic 
sharks on board a vessel with a gillnet on board, except as specified 
in Sec.  635.21(g).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) Fish for North Atlantic swordfish from, possess North Atlantic 
swordfish on board, or land North Atlantic swordfish from a vessel 
using or having on board gear other than pelagic longline, green-stick 
gear, or handgear, except as specified at Sec.  635.19(e).
* * * * *
    (11) As the owner of a vessel permitted, or required to be 
permitted, in the swordfish directed, swordfish handgear limited access 
permit category, or issued a valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 
permit and utilizing buoy gear, to possess or deploy more than 35 
individual floatation devices, to deploy more than 35 individual buoy 
gears per vessel, or to deploy buoy gear without affixed monitoring 
equipment, as specified at Sec.  635.21(h).
* * * * *
    (16) Possess any HMS, other than Atlantic swordfish, harvested with 
buoy gear as specified at Sec.  635.19 unless issued a valid HMS 
Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit and operating within the U.S. 
Caribbean as defined at Sec.  622.2 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (18) As the owner of a vessel permitted, or required to be 
permitted, in the Swordfish General Commercial permit category, possess 
North Atlantic swordfish taken from its management unit by any gear 
other than rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, green-stick, or harpoon 
gear, as specified in Sec.  635.19(e).
[FR Doc. 2014-28064 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P