[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 97 (Friday, May 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27686-27717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10210]



[[Page 27685]]

Vol. 86

Friday,

No. 97

May 21, 2021

Part II





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Parts 600 and 635





Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries 
Management; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 97 / Friday, May 21, 2021 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 27686]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 635

[Docket No. 210510-0103]
RIN 0648-BI08


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna 
Fisheries Management

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing to modify Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 
(HMS) bluefin tuna (bluefin) management measures applicable to the 
incidental and directed bluefin fisheries through an amendment to the 
2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP). Specifically, the proposed measures would make 
several changes to the Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program, 
including the distribution of IBQ shares to only active vessels, 
implementation of a cap on IBQ shares that may be held by an entity, 
and implementation of a cost recovery program. The proposed measures 
would also make changes to bluefin fisheries by discontinuing the Purse 
Seine category and reallocating that bluefin quota to other directed 
quota categories; capping Harpoon category daily bluefin landings; 
modifying the recreational trophy bluefin areas and subquotas; 
modifying regulations regarding electronic monitoring of the pelagic 
longline fishery as well as green-stick use; and modifying the 
regulation regarding permit category changes.

DATES: Written comments must be received by July 20, 2021. Public 
hearings and webinars associated with this rulemaking will be announced 
in a separate document.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by 
NOAA-NMFS-2019-0042, by electronic submission. Submit all electronic 
public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NMFS-2019-0042, click the ``Comment'' 
icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments. 
Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, 
or received after the close of the comment period, may not be 
considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and generally will be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, 
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender 
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter 
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). 
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Written comments regarding the 
burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information 
requirements contained in this proposed rule may also be submitted via 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information 
collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for Public 
Comments'' or by using the search function.''
    Copies of the supporting documents--including the draft 
environmental impact statement (DEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), the Three-Year Review 
of the IBQ Program, and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments 
are available from the HMS website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species or by contacting Tom Warren 
([email protected]).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Warren--(978) 281-9260 
([email protected]) or Karyl Brewster-Geisz--(301) 427-8503 
([email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Atlantic bluefin fisheries are managed under the dual authority 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). 
The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of 
this proposed rule is provided below. Additional information regarding 
bluefin management can be found in the DEIS accompanying this proposed 
rule, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the annual HMS 
Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at: 
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species.
    In 2015, Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) 
(79 FR 71510; December 2, 2014) implemented substantial changes to the 
regulation of bluefin fisheries. Amendment 7 focused on regulating 
incidental catch of bluefin in the pelagic longline fishery and 
implemented the IBQ Program, but also made regulatory changes affecting 
the other bluefin fisheries. Amendment 7 measures were wide in scope 
and included: the IBQ Program; modification of bluefin allocations 
across all quota categories; gear restricted areas in the Atlantic and 
Gulf of Mexico; and reporting and monitoring requirements for both the 
incidental and directed fisheries.
    Since the implementation of Amendment 7 in 2015, there have been 
new data that documented changing conditions in the directed and 
incidental bluefin fisheries, and suggestions from the public and HMS 
Advisory Panel regarding management of the bluefin fisheries. In 
Amendment 7, NMFS announced that it would conduct a formal evaluation 
of the IBQ Program after three years and consider changes to the 
Program in light of that evaluation. NMFS completed its Three-Year 
Review of the Individual Bluefin Quota Program (referred to hereafter 
as the ``Three-Year Review'') in 2019. The Three-Year Review found that 
the IBQ Program was successful in limiting bluefin bycatch in the 
pelagic longline fishery, and providing flexibility in the IBQ system; 
however, it is likely that the IBQ Program also contributed to reduced 
revenue and fishing effort during 2015 to 2017. Further, the Three-Year 
Review noted that a different method of IBQ share distribution may 
warrant consideration.
    The principal changes in the directed fisheries have been the 
continued inactivity (or extremely low activity) of the purse seine 
fishery over the past 15 years, and the continuing evolution of the 
handgear fisheries, which are extremely dynamic. Currently, there are 
no purse seine vessels with Purse Seine category permits, and the last 
year a set was made in the purse seine fishery was in 2015. During the 
few years prior to Amendment 7, the purse seine fishery was operating 
at a minimal level. From 2005 through 2012 there was no purse seine 
fishing activity. In 2013 through 2015, only one Purse Seine category 
participant fished, making only a few sets, and accounting for only a 
small percentage of total annual bluefin landings each year (6, 5, and 
4 percent, in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively). Furthermore, that 
participant fished pursuant to an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) from 
NMFS, to investigate and gather data on reducing discards in the purse 
seine fishery, with terms that

[[Page 27687]]

exempted the vessel activity from certain regulations. During the same 
period of time, and since 2015, the total catch from the handgear 
fisheries has been increasing, there have been periods of very high 
bluefin availability on the fishing grounds, and there has been public 
concern about perceived changes in the socioeconomics of the fishery. 
The socioeconomic changes in the fishery include increased 
participation, increasing availability of bluefin, market saturation, 
and curtailed fishing opportunities in other non-HMS directed fisheries 
pursued by many commercial fishermen.
    As a result of the changes in the bluefin fishery, new information 
on the fisheries noted above (during the five-year period from 2015 to 
2019), and the findings of the analyses in the Three-Year Review, in 
2019 NMFS began formal consideration of changes to the management of 
Atlantic bluefin through the process of scoping, including development 
of an Issues and Options Paper for Amendment 13 to the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP. During this public process, NMFS considered a 
range of issues and objectives, as well as possible options for future 
bluefin management. The management options presented were not intended 
to be comprehensive with respect to potential modifications to the 
regulations, but offered a basis for further discussion and refinement 
of the potential objectives and measures.
    On May 21, 2019, NMFS published a Notice of Intent in the Federal 
Register that provided formal notice to the public that NMFS intended 
to prepare an environmental impact analysis; announced the availability 
of the Issues and Options Paper and the start of the public scoping 
process (with a comment period of May 21 through July 31, 2019); and 
solicited public comments (84 FR 23020). On May 22, 2019, NMFS 
published a notice that provided the dates and locations of 10 scoping 
meetings, including a webinar, pertaining to Amendment 13 (84 FR 
23519). Also on May 22, 2019, NMFS conducted scoping during the spring 
HMS Advisory Panel meeting. In the notice, NMFS announced the 
availability of Draft Amendment 13 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 
(Draft Amendment 13), including a DEIS, Draft RIR, an IRFA, and a Draft 
Social Impact Analysis (see ADDRESSES for how to get a copy of Draft 
Amendment 13) and its proposed implementing regulations. Draft 
Amendment 13 contains a complete description and analysis of the range 
of alternatives analyzed. The preferred alternatives in Draft Amendment 
13 are the measures proposed in this rule, described below. A 
description of the significant alternatives to the proposed measures is 
provided later in this preamble in the summary of the IRFA.

Proposed Measures

    The objectives of this rulemaking are to: (1) Evaluate and optimize 
the allocation of U.S. bluefin quota among bluefin quota categories 
considering historical allocations and use, and recent fishery 
characteristics and trends, to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a 
reasonable opportunity to harvest the U.S. quota established by ICCAT, 
facilitate the ability for active HMS directed permit categories to 
harvest their full bluefin quota allocations, and facilitate directed 
fishing for species other than bluefin in the pelagic longline fishery 
while accounting for incidental bluefin catch; (2) Maintain flexibility 
of the regulations to account for the highly variable nature of the 
bluefin fisheries, and maintain fairness among permit/quota categories; 
(3) Continue to manage the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery consistent 
with the IBQ Program objectives in Amendment 7 and consistent with the 
conservation and management objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 
and its amendments, and consistent with all applicable laws; and (4) 
Modify the management of the pelagic longline fishery in response to 
the Three-Year Review and in response to important relevant prevailing 
trends (e.g., declining fishing effort and revenue for target species).
    The proposed measures reflect agency consideration of the Draft 
Amendment 13 objectives, the Issues and Options Paper, public input 
from scoping discussions and related written comments, and subsequent 
analysis in Draft Amendment 13. Draft Amendment 13 analyzes a variety 
of management alternatives designed to balance achievement of its 
diverse objectives. In response to public comment on this proposed rule 
and Draft Amendment 13, the final rule may modify the proposed measures 
or adopt different or additional alternatives that are not proposed in 
this rule but would fall within the scope of, or are a logical 
outgrowth of, the alternatives considered in this proposed rule. A 
description of the proposed management measures follows:

Pelagic Longline Fishery

Annual IBQ Share Determination

    Under this proposed rule, NMFS would modify the IBQ Program by 
implementing a dynamic determination of IBQ shares. Instead of the 
existing method for designating IBQ shareholders as implemented by 
Amendment 7, this measure would annually distribute IBQ shares only to 
currently active vessels based on specific target species landings as 
the measure of fishing effort. Other aspects of the IBQ Program would 
remain the same as follows: An IBQ share is the percentage of the 
Longline category quota that is associated with an eligible vessel/
permit, based upon the IBQ share formula and the relevant vessel 
history. A shareholder's IBQ allocation is the amount (in metric tons 
(mt) or pounds) that is distributed to a permitted vessel, based upon 
its relevant IBQ share and the annual Longline category bluefin quota. 
Vessels must meet two requirements to be eligible to receive IBQ 
shares: (1) The vessel must have had a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permit; and (2) the vessel must be deemed to be recently 
``active.''
    Specifically, this measure would annually define IBQ shareholders 
and percentage shares based upon each individual permitted vessel's 
fishing effort, represented by the total weight of each individual 
vessel's target species landings. In order to have a standardized 
method of characterizing fishing effort, only certain target species 
would count in the determination of IBQ shares, with the relevant 
species termed ``designated species.'' The designated species would be 
defined as swordfish, and yellowfin, bigeye tuna, albacore, and 
skipjack tunas, the species that are most frequently targeted by 
pelagic longline fishermen. Specifically, the measure of fishing effort 
would be the total weight of each individual vessel's designated 
species landings relative to the total amount, by weight, of designated 
species landings by the pelagic longline fleet. This list of designated 
species differs from the Amendment 7{XE ``Amendment 7''{time}  
designated species list by removing dolphin, wahoo, shortfin mako, 
porbeagle, and thresher sharks. Although dolphin and wahoo are targeted 
by some vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, they are not 
among the most frequently targeted by pelagic longline fishermen. 
Furthermore, these species are not managed under the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP, but are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the Atlantic (South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council). Dolphin and wahoo comprise a relatively low 
portion (by weight) of the total landings (i.e., swordfish, and 
yellowfin, bigeye tuna,

[[Page 27688]]

albacore, and skipjack tunas, including wahoo and dolphin), with wahoo 
representing one percent and dolphin representing six percent of the 
total, based on 2016 to 2018 logbook data. Further, it would be 
difficult for NMFS to compile and analyze the dolphin and wahoo data 
annually in an accurate and timely manner, because the data must be 
matched with vessels across separate databases. Certain shark species 
are not included in the list of designated species because, under 
current regulations, shortfin mako and porbeagle sharks cannot be 
landed by vessels with pelagic longline gear on board unless the sharks 
are dead at haulback. Additionally, ICCAT{XE ``ICCAT''{time}  
Recommendation 09-07 specifies that member countries should strongly 
endeavor to ensure that vessels flying their flag do not undertake a 
directed fishery for species of thresher sharks. Thus, these sharks are 
not among the species most frequently targeted by PLL fishermen and are 
not included in the designated species list.
    The time period used for determination of eligible vessels would be 
the three most recent years (36 months) of available data. If, for 
example, the total amount of designated species landings by the pelagic 
longline fleet over the previous three years were 6,500,000 lb and a 
particular vessel accounted for 150,000 lb of designated species 
landings during that three-year period (i.e., 2.3 percent of 6,500,000 
lb) the vessel's IBQ share would be based upon that percentage. NMFS 
proposes to assign individual vessels into one of four IBQ share 
percentages rather than assign each vessel a ``customized'' share 
percentage. NMFS would assign individual vessels one of four assigned 
share percentages, determined annually based upon a vessel's individual 
percentage and the range of percentages for all the active vessels. The 
four assigned IBQ share percentages are based upon analysis of the 
range of individual vessel percentages (sorting by vessel percentage 
and calculating the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 100th percentiles of the 
vessel percentages), the number of vessels in each quartile, and the 
sum of the percentages in each quartile. For example, based on data 
from 2016 to 2018, the four assigned IBQ share percentages would be 
2.09, 1.18, 0.64, and 0.12 percent, and a vessel with 2.3 percent of 
the total designated species landings would be assigned an IBQ share of 
2.09 percent. A more detailed explanation of the mathematical steps 
that result in the proposed determination of IBQ shares is contained in 
the DEIS. In the development of a system to assign share percentages to 
individual vessels, NMFS determined that it would be better to assign 
individual vessels to one of four share percentage values based on 
quartiles, rather than assign each vessel a ``customized'' percentage. 
There were several reasons for this determination: (1) A system of four 
assigned share percentages is simpler for NMFS to implement accurately 
and would facilitate communication with the fishery; (2) designation of 
shares using quartiles eliminates very large and very small percentage 
shares, which are problematic. Under a customized system and using 2016 
to 2018 data, the largest individual percentage share would be 3.11 
percent and the smallest would be 0.002 percent. A shareholder with a 
very small individual percentage such as 0.002 percent may be 
distributed less than the requisite amount of IBQ{XE ``IBQ''{time}  
allocation{XE ``IBQ allocation''{time}  under quarterly accountability 
(e.g., 551 lb of GOM designated IBQ allocation). Further, for 
shareholders with the largest percentage shares, the incentives 
associated with IBQ allocations and the IBQ Program to reduce the 
likelihood of bluefin interactions may be eroded.
    This system differs from the current IBQ share distribution system 
where vessels determined to be eligible to receive IBQ shares and the 
resulting annual IBQ allocation were those vessels that had a valid 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit (as of August 21, 2013) and 
were deemed to be ``active,'' defined as vessels that made at least one 
set using pelagic longline gear from 2006 through 2012 based on HMS 
logbook data. The formula used to assign IBQ shares to eligible vessels 
is based on the weight of designated species landings and the ratio of 
bluefin catch to designated species landings, and IBQ shares are 
assigned according to tiers. The Low tier receive a share equivalent to 
at least two bluefin (at 0.25 mt each), the Medium tier share is 
equivalent to three bluefin, and the High tier share is equivalent to 
six bluefin. Further, the current IBQ share distribution system is 
static, and does not reflect recent fishing activity.
    Under this proposed measure, IBQ allocation would not be 
distributed to shareholders with permits that are in either an invalid 
or NOVESID permit status (i.e., the permit has not been renewed, or is 
not currently associated with a vessel). Shareholders with permits in 
invalid or NOVESID status as of January 1 (when IBQ allocations are 
distributed to shareholders with permitted vessels), would be eligible 
to receive their percentage of the Longline category quota later that 
year if/when the relevant permit is renewed or associated with a 
vessel. New entrants joining the fishery subsequent to the annual 
determination of shareholders would have to lease IBQ allocation from 
other pelagic longline participants to participate in the fishery, but 
would be eligible shareholders the following year (based on their level 
of fishing effort), and would then be eligible to receive a percentage 
of the Longline category quota in that subsequent year. The timing of 
NMFS' receipt of finalized landings data is relevant to the precise 
three-year range of available data that would be utilized to document 
designated species landings. In other words, NMFS will utilize the most 
recent 36 months of available data (in contrast to data for particular 
calendar years). If NMFS transfers bluefin quota inseason from the 
Reserve category to the Atlantic Tunas Longline category (in accordance 
with the criteria for inseason transfers of bluefin quota under Sec.  
635.27(a)(8)) such bluefin quota distributions would be in equal 
amounts either to all qualified IBQ share recipients or to only 
permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline vessels with recent fishing activity 
(during the current or previous year), whether or not they are 
associated with IBQ shares.
    Under this proposed measure, during the last quarter of each year, 
NMFS would notify Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders via electronic 
methods (such as an email) and/or letter to inform them of their IBQ 
share, allocation, and the regional designations of those shares and 
allocations for the subsequent fishing year. This notification would 
represent the initial administrative determination (IAD) of the permit 
holder's IBQ share and allocation. An Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permit holder may submit a written petition of appeal of the following 
aspects of the IAD: (1) Eligibility for quota shares 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; (2) IBQ share amount; (3) IBQ allocation; (4) vessel's amount 
of designated species landings; and (5) assignment of target species 
landings to the vessel owner/permit holder. Appeals must be filed with 
the National Appeals Office (NAO) within 45 days after the date the IAD 
is issued, and will be governed by NAO rules of procedures at 15 CFR 
part 906.
    NMFS permit records would be the sole basis for determining permit 
transfers. Documentation of legal landings of designated species during

[[Page 27689]]

the timeframe analyzed by NMFS would be via official NMFS logbook 
records or weighout slips for landings. Landings data are required to 
be submitted within 7 days of landing under the applicable regulations. 
Recognizing that 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 of landing. NMFS would count only those designated 
species landings that were landed legally when the owner had a valid 
permit.
    Appeals based on landings data or permit history would be based on 
NMFS logbook data and permit records, and weighout slips (including 
verifiable sales slips, receipts from registered dealers, state 
landings records). No other proof of catch history would be considered. 
Photocopies of the written documents would be acceptable; NMFS may 
request the originals at a later date. NMFS would refer any submitted 
materials that are of questionable authenticity to the NMFS Office of 
Law Enforcement for investigation. Appeals based on hardship factors 
would not be considered. Consistent with most limited effort and catch 
share programs, hardship would not be 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. NMFS 
may utilize some bluefin quota from the Reserve category to accommodate 
permitted vessels that are deemed eligible for shares through the 
appeals process, to provide a permitted vessel an increased quota 
share.
    This proposed measure would give separate consideration to 
participants in the Deepwater Horizon Oceanic Fish Restoration Project 
(OFRP). The Deepwater Horizon OFRP is a program conducted as a 
partnership between NOAA, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, 
and pelagic longline fishermen to restore damage caused by the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The OFRP program began after Amendment 7, 
and was therefore not a consideration in the determination of IBQ 
shares in Amendment 7. More information about the Deepwater Horizon 
OFRP may be found at https://www.nfwf.org/programs/deepwater-horizon-oceanic-fish-restoration-project. Deepwater Horizon OFRP participants, 
who voluntarily do not fish with pelagic longline gear for set periods 
of time (months of ``Repose'' during January through June), would not 
be disadvantaged under this proposed measure. A proxy amount of effort 
would be utilized for participating vessels during the years that they 
participated in the Deepwater Horizon OFRP. The proxy amount of effort 
would represent an estimate of pelagic longline fishing effort that 
each participating vessel would have had if it were not participating 
as a partner in the Deepwater Horizon OFRP, i.e., the average weight of 
designated species landings by a pelagic longline vessel in the Gulf of 
Mexico during the months of January through June (the months of the 
Repose) during the relevant years.
    The proxy amount of effort would be added to the participating 
vessels' actual effort during the years of participation (in July 
through December). This proposed provision for Deepwater Horizon OFRP 
participants would only be necessary for a limited number of years. The 
Deepwater Horizon OFRP will conclude when its restoration goals are 
achieved (likely in approximately three to five years depending on 
participation levels). As such, the proxies for effort in dynamic 
determination of IBQ shares would only be needed for relevant years of 
data used to calculate IBQ shares. After the years of participation in 
the Deepwater Horizon OFRP are no longer part of the effort 
calculation, then the proxy effort level would no longer be used. NMFS 
is soliciting public comment on whether this proposed method for 
Deepwater Horizon OFRP vessels is appropriate, in the context of the 
proposed method of annual IBQ share determination.

Regional IBQ Designations

    In conjunction with the dynamic share and subsequent allocation 
distribution measures, NMFS also proposes to modify regional Gulf of 
Mexico and Atlantic designations, while maintaining a cap on allowable 
bluefin catch from the Gulf of Mexico. Under the current IBQ Program 
established by Amendment 7, IBQ shares and subsequent associated 
allocation were designated as either ``Gulf of Mexico'' (GOM) or 
``Atlantic'' (ATL) based on the geographic location of sets used in the 
determination of allocations. Only Gulf of Mexico allocation could be 
used to account for bluefin caught in the Gulf of Mexico, while either 
Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico allocation could be used to account for 
bluefin caught in the Atlantic. Amendment 7 allocations resulted in 35 
percent of the total Longline category quota designated as GOM, and 65 
percent designated as ATL. In other words, at most 35 percent of the 
total IBQ allocation could be caught in the Gulf of Mexico, although 
that quota could also be used in the Atlantic. The maximum amount was 
based upon the proportion of total pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of 
Mexico during the period 2006 through 2012. The purpose of setting a 
maximum percentage of IBQ that could be used in the Gulf of Mexico was 
to avoid increased effort in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Under the proposed measure, regional designations of IBQ shares and 
subsequent allocations would be determined on an annual basis as part 
of the annual dynamic allocation process, and the accounting rules for 
the regional IBQ allocations would remain the same. Specifically, 
regional designations would be based on the location of the relevant 
pelagic longline fishing activity that took place in the three years 
used as the basis for annual determination of shares and subsequent 
allocations under the proposed measure described above (dynamic 
allocation based on designated species landings). If a vessel had 
79,000 lb of designated species landings (during the relevant three-
year period), with 67,000 lb from the Gulf of Mexico, and 12,000 lb 
from the Atlantic, the IBQ share designations for that vessel would be 
split 85 percent GOM and 15 percent ATL. Under this system, if a vessel 
does not receive GOM designated IBQ shares and resulting allocation 
(because the vessel had no designated species landings from the Gulf of 
Mexico during the previous three years), but wishes to fish in the Gulf 
of Mexico, they would need to lease GOM designated IBQ allocation 
initially, and then could receive GOM designated IBQ shares and 
resulting allocation for the following year.
    The area designations at an individual vessel level described above 
are important because the total amount of effort (represented by 
designated species landings) by all pelagic longline vessels that 
fished in the Gulf of Mexico will determine the total amount of GOM-
designated IBQ shares. For example, if the total amount of designated 
species landings fishery wide is 20,000,000 lb, and 15,000,000 lb are 
from the Atlantic and 5,000,000 lb are from the Gulf of Mexico, then 
the relative amounts of ATL and GOM designated IBQ shares would be 75 
percent and 25 percent, respectively. The GOM-designated IBQ would be 
complemented by establishing a cap on the amount of bluefin catch in 
the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed measure would specify that the default 
GOM cap is 35 percent and cannot exceed 35 percent, the same percent as 
under Amendment 7. Although Amendment 7 noted the intent to control 
fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico, the focus of these proposed 
measures is on limiting bluefin catch, consistent with the objectives 
of the IBQ

[[Page 27690]]

Program, and because fishing effort in the pelagic longline fishery has 
been declining for many years, and the dead discards of bluefin in the 
Gulf of Mexico have been low since 2015 (Three-Year Review of IBQ 
Program; Table 6.24).
    NMFS proposes to implement a regulatory mechanism for adjusting the 
35 percent default cap to values lower than 35 percent for all of the 
calendar year, or the remainder of it, as appropriate. Such a 
determination would be based upon consideration of the existing 
determination criteria used in making inseason or annual adjustments to 
quota, which include a wide range of criteria including consistency 
with the FMP objectives (Sec.  635.27(a)(8)). These considerations 
include (but are not limited to): (v) Effects of the adjustment on 
bluefin rebuilding and overfishing; (vi) Effects of the adjustment on 
accomplishing the objectives of the fishery management plan; and (vii) 
Variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration patterns 
of bluefin. NMFS would notify the public of changes to the 35 percent 
default cap and publish any modification to the cap in the Federal 
Register and would specify the basis for any decreases to the cap.
    During the process of the annual calculation of IBQ shares, if NMFS 
determines that the amount of GOM-designated IBQ shares (based on 
designated species landings) would be greater than the 35 percent (or 
lower) cap, NMFS would reduce the GOM-designated IBQ shares to equal 
the IBQ share cap in effect. The reduction in total GOM share 
percentage would be achieved through equal proportional reductions 
among IBQ shareholders with GOM designated IBQ shares across the four 
share percentages. The ATL shares would be increased in an analogous 
manner, so that the total share percentages add up to 100 percent. NMFS 
would notify affected permit holders of any reductions in their IBQ 
share percentage resulting from this adjustment. This adjustment would 
not be subject to appeal, because it is not a determination based on 
the data associated with an individual shareholder, but based upon the 
need to reduce the total amount of allocated IBQ across all 
shareholders with GOM designated shares.
    For example, in a given year, if 38 percent of fishing effort based 
on designated species landings analyzed for the determination of annual 
allocations were from the Gulf of Mexico (i.e., 38 percent of landings 
of swordfish, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and skipjack tunas) were 
from the Gulf of Mexico), only 35 percent of the IBQ allocation would 
be designated as GOM. NMFS would adjust the share percentages downward, 
equally across the four share percentages, to reflect the maximum 
amount of shares that can be issued for the Gulf of Mexico. In this 
example, each GOM IBQ share would be reduced by multiplying the share 
percent by 35/38, or 0.92; thus, a 2.1 percent GOM IBQ share would be 
reduced to 1.9 percent. The ATL shares would be increased in an 
analogous manner, so that the total share percentages add up to 100 
percent.

Cap on IBQ Shares Held or Acquired

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS must ensure that 
limited access privilege holders do not acquire an excessive share of 
the total limited access privileges by establishing a maximum share 
that a privilege holder is permitted to hold, acquire, or use. Existing 
permit regulations limit the ownership/control of HMS permits to no 
more than five percent of vessels for which limited access permits have 
been issued (Sec.  635.4(l)(2)(iii)), which in effect established a 
maximum share for a privilege holder. Those regulations remain 
unchanged, but under this proposed rule, NMFS would cap the percentage 
of IBQ shares that an entity could hold or acquire at 25 percent of the 
total IBQ shares and the corresponding amount of IBQ allocation 
associated with the IBQ shares. The proposed cap is intended to limit 
acquisition of IBQ shares via acquisition of permits, or changes in the 
allocation of shares among active permit holders, to prevent a single 
entity from holding a disproportionate amount of either IBQ shares or 
allocations. An ``entity'' is defined in this context as an Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category permit holder where that holder is an 
individual, corporation, partnership, or other entity. A cap under this 
proposed measure would apply to the sum of shares or IBQ allocations an 
entity controls, whether the entity is associated with a single or 
multiple Atlantic Tunas longline permits.
    Although IBQ shares are not severable from permits, and may not be 
sold, entities may be issued multiple Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permits and transfer them among vessels. The maximum share amount would 
apply to accrual of shares through the ownership of multiple Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category permits. NMFS would enforce this restriction 
based on the best available information such as data submitted in 
support of permit and IBQ Program requirements. Based on current data, 
setting a cap at 25 percent of the total amount of IBQ shares would 
represent a level four times the current maximum level of IBQ shares 
held by a single entity (between five and six percent), and would set a 
maximum level that would preclude additional consolidation above that 
amount. The 25 percent cap would balance the need to address the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to cap shares with the need to provide 
flexibility for fishery participants. The 25 percent cap would address 
concerns about consolidation, which may not be fully addressed with a 
higher cap, and enable fishery participants to operate in a manner that 
allows bluefin bycatch to be accounted for. Further, it would allow for 
various business models, including cooperatives and limited 
consolidation that enhance efficiencies, to remain profitable and 
competitive in the international seafood market.

IBQ Program Dealer Reporting Requirements

    This proposed rule would modify two aspects of the dealer reporting 
requirements for the IBQ Program. First, this measure would remove the 
existing requirement that any pelagic longline vessel owner/operator 
who discarded dead bluefin enter dead discard information from the trip 
by coordinating with the dealer and entering that trip's dead discard 
information into the Catch Shares On-line System via the dealer 
account. This existing requirement is redundant with another existing 
requirement that vessel operators must report bluefin dead discards 
while at sea through the VMS set report, which is integrated into the 
Catch Shares On-line System. The dealer would continue to be required 
to enter the data on bluefin landings into the Catch Shares On-line 
System via the dealer account.
    Secondly, this proposed measure would eliminate the current 
requirement that vessel operators/owners enter the PIN associated with 
the vessel account to confirm that the landings report information 
entered into the Catch Shares On-line System by the dealer is accurate. 
The intent of the PIN requirement was to provide an opportunity for 
vessel operators to ensure accurate information regarding bluefin 
transactions with the dealer and correct accounting of bluefin in the 
Catch Shares On-line{XE ``IBQ''{time}  System and IBQ vessel accounts. 
In practice, most vessel owners have not entered their PIN into the 
Catch Shares On-line System at the time of offloading. Vessel operators 
have instead provided their vessel's PIN to the dealer with whom they 
usually conduct business to enable the dealer to retain the PIN and

[[Page 27691]]

enter the number each time a bluefin landing (from that particular 
vessel) occurs, to streamline logistics and communication during 
offloading.
    This proposed measure would be combined with a new email 
notification by NMFS via the Catch Shares On-line System (or a message 
within the System) that would inform the vessel owner when a dealer 
conducts a bluefin landings transaction with that vessel's IBQ account, 
to provide a means of vessel operator oversight of dealer transactions 
with their IBQ vessel account.

Measures Related to Electronic Monitoring (EM)

    This proposed rule would require that the vessel operator mail the 
electronic monitoring system's hard drive(s) within 48 hours after the 
completion of every other trip (every second trip), instead of after 
each pelagic longline fishing trip. This requirement would reduce the 
amount of time and costs required of vessel operators as associated 
with the EM{XE ``EM''{time}  Program. Currently, hard drives are not 
typically full of data at the completion of one trip, and there is 
adequate room for the data from more than one trip to be stored on a 
single hard drive. An exception to this requirement would be if the 
hard drive is at capacity after one trip, as indicated by the EM 
System; in that case, the vessel operator must mail the hard drive at 
the end of that trip. Vessel operators would need to ensure that hard 
drives have the capacity for the trip(s) they are departing on.
    This proposed rule would also clarify the regulations to require 
installation of hardware, if necessary to mount and install video 
cameras at locations on vessels to obtain optimal views. Further, the 
proposed measure would allow NMFS, working in conjunction with the 
vessel owner/operator, to make relatively minor modifications to the 
vessel structure to mount cameras in locations that provide required 
views of the vessel and adjacent areas. For example, NMFS may request 
the installation of the rail camera in a particular location on the 
vessel's structure, or installation of hardware such as a boom on a 
structure near the vessel's rail for the purpose of obtaining a 
different camera angle necessary to adequately view where the gear and 
fish are hauled out of the water. A boom would likely be a customized 
piece of hardware that is fixed or movable (e.g., extended or lowered 
prior to fishing activities starting). Currently, the rail camera is 
mounted on the vessel's existing structure at the rail or slightly 
inboard of the rail, and itypically provides only a partial view of the 
seaward area of the vessel as a result of the low camera angle (to the 
side of the vessel). Therefore, the current rail camera configuration 
usually provides a limited view of the seaward area of the rail where 
gear is hauled from the water, and where fish capture and some of the 
discard events occur. This proposed measure would improve the detection 
of fish (especially fish that are hooked, but not brought aboard the 
vessel) by the EM{XE ``EM''{time}  System, and improve the accuracy of 
resulting data.
    Finally, this proposed rule would require more specific fish 
handling procedures and the installation/placement of a measuring grid 
on deck, in view of one of the cameras. As instructed and specified by 
NMFS, the vessel crew would be required to place retained fish on a mat 
with grid lines or a grid painted on deck in view of the processing 
camera, so the video recording included images of the fish on the mat. 
The mat or grid would be a standardized size with lines of standard 
intervals. With the use of a grid measuring tool, size estimation would 
be less affected by camera placement and angle with respect to fish, 
and the estimation of size and species identification may be improved. 
Additionally, a standardized reference grid may facilitate the 
development and use of computer algorithms and automation of video 
analysis.

Cost Recovery Program

    Cost recovery, a required element of limited access privilege 
programs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, was not initially implemented 
at the start of the IBQ Program in 2015 in order to gather information 
about the operation of the fishery under the IBQ Program and reduce 
initial costs and uncertainty given the bycatch dynamic of the program. 
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS the authority for recovering 
fees paid by limited access privilege holders of up to three percent of 
the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under the limited access 
privilege program to cover the incremental costs (incurred by NMFS) 
directly related to and in support of management, data collection and 
analysis, and enforcement activities for the program (e.g., the IBQ 
Program).
    Under this proposed rule, NMFS would implement a flexible cost 
recovery program. No fees would be charged if the costs of collecting 
the fees exceed estimated fees to be recovered. Annually, NMFS would 
estimate its incremental costs associated with the IBQ Program 
(including costs associated with the cost recovery program) and the 
total ex-vessel value of bluefin sold from the pelagic longline fishery 
(including bluefin caught with green-stick gear), and notify the public 
whether a cost recovery fee would be charged for the year. If NMFS 
determines the annual cost recovery fee is warranted, NMFS would notify 
the permit holders that landed bluefin, including those caught with 
green-stick gear (based on dealer landings data), of any fees to be 
charged. Permit holders would be billed based on the ex-vessel value of 
the bluefin purchased. Permit holders would pay the cost recovery fee 
through the Catch Shares On-line System website and the associated 
pay.gov link.
    The incremental costs to NMFS of implementing the IBQ Program are 
principally costs associated with labor, both NMFS staff and contracted 
entities. The types of costs include those associated with IBQ Program 
oversight, customer service, database maintenance, computer programming 
(maintenance and development), the EM Program, data monitoring, 
preparation of fleet communications, providing status reports to the 
HMS Advisory Panel, preparation of Federal Register documents, and 
enforcement related activities. NMFS would estimate the incremental 
costs incurred to NMFS of implementing the IBQ Program on an annual 
basis, including an estimate of the costs of the cost recovery program 
itself (i.e., the activities associated with the annual process of 
implementing the cost recovery program).
    In the case of the IBQ Program, the relevant ex-vessel value is the 
value of bluefin landed, not the ex-vessel value of the targeted or 
designated species that are not managed under the IBQ Program, such as 
swordfish and yellowfin tuna, which comprise the majority of the value 
of the fishery. NMFS would determine the fee associated with each 
pelagic longline vessel that harvests bluefin, based on the total 
dressed weight of bluefin sold to dealers by a vessel and the total 
amount of fees that may be recovered fishery-wide. For example, if 
based on an ex-vessel price of $4.12 per pound, the total recoverable 
costs are $20,682 (not including NED landings) and the total pounds 
landed is 167,000, then the fee per pound would be $0.124.
    Recoverable fees would be capped at three percent of the total ex-
vessel value of bluefin harvested under the IBQ Program. If the 
estimated recoverable fees are similar to or less than the incremental 
costs of the Program, no cost recovery fee would be collected. Given 
the relatively small total ex-vessel value of bluefin landed by pelagic 
longline vessels, and the incremental

[[Page 27692]]

NMFS costs associated with the IBQ Program, NMFS anticipates that cost 
recovery fees would generally be three percent or less of the ex-vessel 
value of bluefin sold.
    Annually, NMFS will determine whether a cost recovery fee is 
warranted, and if so, provide formal notice through the Federal 
Register. NMFS would calculate individual fees, notify Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit holders, and provide relevant information on 
the amount owed and instructions for payment through the Catch Shares 
On-line System and pay.gov. NMFS will also communicate with permit 
holders in the fishery to educate them about the process, and conduct 
oversight of collection of fees including follow-up and enforcement. 
Permit holders who fail to pay the fee or who are delinquent in payment 
would be subject to relevant non-compliance penalties, enforcement 
actions, and possible permit revocation.
    Given the potential economic impacts of the annual cost recovery 
fee, and the importance of transparency, NMFS would prepare an annual 
report, made available to the public, which would summarize relevant 
fishery-wide information on the cost recovery program.

Modification of Bluefin Quota Category Allocation Percentages

    This proposed rule would simplify the mathematical method used in 
the annual quota allocation process. Under current regulations, each 
quota category (including the Longline category) is annually allocated 
a percentage of the U.S. bluefin quota after 68 mt (i.e., the 
historical 68-mt dead discard allowance, as described in Amendment 7) 
is subtracted from the baseline quota and allocated to the Longline 
category. This process was intended to have all bluefin quota 
categories contribute proportionally to 68 mt provided to the Longline 
category annually. This proposed rule would eliminate the two-step 
process and, instead, make slight revisions to the category allocation 
percentages.
    For example, under the current regulatory formula, the percentage 
of the U.S. baseline quota for the Longline category is 8.1 percent, 
and once the 68 mt amount is included, it is 13.1 percent, in effect. 
The proposed rule would thus revise the Longline category percentage to 
13.1 percent, and the other category allocation percentages would be 
slightly modified accordingly. For example, for the General category, 
instead of having an annual deduction of 32.1 mt (47.1 percent of 68 
mt) and a baseline quota percentage of 47.1 percent, the General 
category would have a baseline quota percentage of 44.1 percent (and no 
deduction of 32.1 mt). In the same manner, the baseline Harpoon 
category quota would change from 3.9 percent to 3.7 percent of the 
total U.S. quota, the Purse Seine category quota would change from 18.6 
percent to 17.6 percent, the Trap category quota would remain 0.1 
percent, the Angling category quota would change from 19.7 percent to 
18.6 percent, and the Reserve category quota would change from 2.5 
percent to 2.4 percent. This methodology would apply regardless of the 
annual quotas. These category quotas would be further modified under 
this proposed rule, as described below in the Purse Seine category 
section. Note that the United States also receives an annual allocation 
of 25 mt from ICCAT for incidental catch of bluefin related to directed 
longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), 
which is defined at 50 CFR 635.2.

Purse Seine Category

    Under this proposed rule, NMFS would discontinue the Purse Seine 
category through redistribution of Purse Seine category quota effective 
upon implementation of the Amendment 13 final rule. NMFS would remove 
purse seine from the list of authorized gears and remove other 
references in the regulations to the purse seine fishery, including 
references to Purse Seine category quota, permits, nets, sets, vessels, 
and participants. The Purse Seine category is, in effect, allocated 
17.6 percent of the U.S. baseline bluefin quota (as discussed above), 
yet the purse seine fishery has been largely inactive over the past 15 
years, and there are no longer any historical Purse Seine category 
participants actively fishing. There have been no landings from the 
purse seine fishery since 2015. One purse seine vessel fished in 2014 
and 2015 under an exempted fishing permit. The intent of the exempted 
fishing permit was to determine if modification to the retention limit 
of the smaller size range bluefin (smaller than the target size range) 
would result in the reduction of discarded fish. All of the Purse Seine 
category participants have sold their vessels, likely along with purse 
seine gear and associated equipment, as they are customized to a vessel 
and would have been expensive to remove. Discontinuation of the Purse 
Seine category and reallocation of the quota upon implementation of 
Amendment 13 would provide additional quota to active fisheries that 
are, at times, quota-limited, increase the likelihood that more of the 
U.S. quota will be utilized, and address various types of uncertainty 
that result from the inactive status of the Purse Seine category.
    Further, NMFS proposes to reallocate the Purse Seine category quota 
(which is currently allocated 18.6 percent of the quota) proportionally 
to the other directed bluefin quota categories (General, Angling, and 
Harpoon) and the Reserve category. Purse Seine category quota (a 
directed fishing category) would not be reallocated to the Longline or 
Trap categories that catch bluefin incidentally. The increase in 
percentages for each directed quota category would be based on the 
current percentages associated with each quota category, so that the 
size of the increase reflects the relative size of the current quota 
categories. For each category, the current and proposed quota 
percentages, respectively, are as follows: General category: 47.1 
percent, 55.8 percent; Angling category: 19.7 percent, 23.4 percent; 
Harpoon category: 3.9 percent, 4.6 percent; and Reserve category: 2.5 
percent, 3.0 percent. Under the currently-established and codified 
quota, the proposed bluefin category quotas that would result from 
reallocation from the Purse Seine category and reflect the proposed 
change to the mathematical method used in the annual quota allocation 
(described above) would be: General category 696.9 mt (55.8 percent of 
the overall quota), Angling category 291.5 mt (23.4 percent), Harpoon 
category 57.7 mt (4.6 percent), and Reserve category 37 mt (3 percent). 
The Longline and Trap category percentages would be those resulting 
from the proposed change to the mathematical method used in the annual 
quota allocation, described above: Longline category 163.5 mt (13.1 
percent, versus current level of 8.1 percent), and Trap category 1.2 mt 
(0.1 percent rounded, versus current level of 0.1 percent).
    As noted above, the Longline category allocation is intended to be 
used to account for incidental catch of bluefin. The IBQ Program 
balances incentives to avoid bluefin and reduce dead discards with 
providing flexibility to fish for target species and maintain 
profitability. Based on the Three-Year Review, it appears that the 
relative amount of IBQ allocation distributed, in combination with the 
flexibility for vessels to lease additional IBQ allocation through the 
IBQ Program were adequate for vessels to account for bluefin during 
directed fishing operations for target species. Specifically, the 
relative amount enabled vessels to account for bluefin landings and 
dead discards, as well as support a successful leasing market (not-
withstanding the distributional

[[Page 27693]]

issues and costs associated with the Amendment 7 allocation method, 
noted in the Three-Year Review). Therefore, a substantive increase in 
the amount of Longline category quota through an increase in its 
percentage of the overall quota is not proposed. In fact, NMFS has 
sought ways to facilitate reasonable opportunities to catch the 
currently available Longline category quota (see, e.g., 85 FR 18812; 
April 2, 2020) while maintaining incentives to avoid bluefin during 
directed fishing operations through maintenance of the Longline 
category quota at the relatively low level determined to be appropriate 
in Amendment 7. This approach not only is consistent with the objective 
of the IBQ Program (i.e., accountability for bluefin landings and dead 
discards, and reducing levels of incidental catch from historical 
levels), but also ensures that the amount of IBQ allocated is at a 
level that maintains strong incentives for vessels to modify fishing 
behavior to avoid interactions with bluefin.

Angling Category

    Under this proposed rule, NMFS would modify the current Angling 
category Trophy North subquota areas and allocations specified at 50 
CFR 635.27(a)(1), by dividing the northern area into two zones: North 
and south of 42[deg] N lat. (off Chatham, MA); these newly-formed areas 
would be named the Gulf of Maine trophy area and the Southern New 
England trophy area, respectively. The net result would be that the 
Trophy quota would be divided among four geographic areas (in the 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) and each area would receive an equal 
amount of quota (i.e., the Angling category trophy quota would be 
divided equally four ways).
    To create the new trophy suballocation for the Gulf of Maine trophy 
area, NMFS would increase the allocation for trophy bluefin. Because 
the amount of school bluefin (27''-<47'') is limited in the codified 
regulations, and in compliance with the ICCAT bluefin recommendation to 
no more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota, any 
increase to the trophy subquota would need to be balanced with an 
equivalent reduction of the subquota for large school/small medium 
bluefin subquota (47''-<73''), which is the remainder of the Angling 
category quota once the school bluefin subquota and trophy subquotas 
are subtracted. For example, referring to the current Angling category 
quota regulations, NMFS would increase the portion of the Angling 
category quota allocated for trophy bluefin from 2.3 percent to 3.1 
percent. This would result in a minor decrease in the amount of 
allocation for large school/small medium bluefin (measuring 47-<73''). 
Creation of a Gulf of Maine area and an allocation equivalent to the 
allocations for the existing areas could provide additional 
opportunities for anglers fishing north of 42[deg] N Lat. where bluefin 
are available in summer and fall, including those fishing on HMS{XE 
``HMS''{time}  Charter/Headboat-permitted vessels. In recent years the 
northern trophy area has closed between late May and early August, with 
the quota largely filled with bluefin caught off the states of New York 
and New Jersey, south of 42[deg] N Lat.

Harpoon Category

    Under this proposed rule, NMFS would set an overall Harpoon 
category daily retention limit of 10 commercial-sized bluefin per day 
or trip (i.e., the combined limit of large medium (73''-<81'') and 
giant (81'' or greater) would be 10 fish), and would maintain the 
current regulations regarding retention of large medium bluefin (73''-
<81'') (i.e., the range of two (default) to four fish, adjustable 
through inseason action). For example, if the default limit of two 
large medium bluefin were in effect, as a result of the overall daily 
limit of 10 fish, a vessel would be limited to eight giant bluefin.
    Current Harpoon category regulations limit the number of large 
medium bluefin that may be retained to two to four fish, with two fish 
as the default, but there is no limit on the number of giant bluefin 
that may be retained. This measure would set an overall limit on the 
combined number of bluefin (large medium and giant) that may be 
retained in order to extend Harpoon category fishing opportunities over 
time within the available quota (i.e., extend the season) and among a 
larger number of Harpoon category participants. NMFS is soliciting 
public comment on this measure, including a particular aspect of this 
measure. The measure as proposed would not make a change to the current 
retention large medium bluefin limit (range). Currently, NMFS may set 
the limit of large medium bluefin within a range of two to four fish 
via inseason action. NMFS requests comment on whether the range of two 
to four large medium bluefin should be modified to a range of zero to 
four fish, as well as on whether there should be a range of zero to 10 
commercial-sized bluefin per day or trip, that could be modified via 
inseason action following consideration of the determination criteria 
at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8). For comparison, NMFS currently has the ability 
to use inseason authority to amend the General category daily retention 
within the range of zero to five fish per day/trip.

Permit Category Change Restrictions

    This proposed rule would allow Atlantic tunas permit holders in the 
General, Harpoon, or Trap category, or Atlantic HMS permit holders in 
the Angling or Charter/Headboat category, to change permit categories 
any time during the fishing year, provided the vessel has not landed a 
bluefin. Current regulations only allow permit changes from 45 days 
after permit issuance. This measure would not allow vessels to land 
bluefin from multiple quota categories in a year, thereby preserving 
the objective of this regulation, but would give vessel owners more 
flexibility to change their permit type or correct an error in their 
selection of permit category. The majority of vessel owners that 
request NMFS to waive the current 45-day requirement did not fish, and 
are not attempting to circumvent the regulations and/or quota system. 
Requests for permit category changes are predominately made because the 
applicant, or someone obtaining the permit on the owner's behalf, made 
a mistake on the permit application, and/or did not fully understand 
the requirements associated with a particular permit type. NMFS may 
incur some administrative burden associated with verifying that vessels 
have not landed bluefin.

Green-Stick Gear by Pelagic Longline Vessels

    NMFS issued a rule in 2008 that authorized green-stick gear for the 
harvest of Atlantic tunas (73 FR 54721, September 23, 2008). Green-
stick gear was allowed to be used by vessels with longline gear on 
board. See 50 CFR 635.2 (defining green-stick gear and pelagic 
longline). Allowing the use of green-stick gear while pelagic longline 
gear was also onboard was intended to provide vessel operators 
flexibility to employ fishing strategies with multiple gear types to 
optimize their business in a highly dynamic fishery.
    Under this proposed rule, NMFS would clarify retention and 
reporting requirements for bluefin caught with green-stick gear by 
vessels with Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits to allow the 
retention of one bluefin per trip (73'' or greater CFL) taken 
incidentally while fishing for other target species and with additional 
regulations applying to such trips. Vessels would be required to submit 
a VMS set report for each green-stick retrieval that interacts with 
bluefin and report information on the location of the

[[Page 27694]]

set and numbers and length of bluefin within 12 hours (in addition to 
the VMS reports for pelagic longline sets). This VMS requirement 
differs from the VMS requirement associated with the use of pelagic 
longline gear, which requires submission of a report after each pelagic 
longline set. Regardless of whether sets are made with green-stick gear 
or pelagic longline gear, vessels would be required to comply with HMS 
logbook requirements and comply with the IBQ Program requirements 
regarding accounting for bluefin using IBQ allocation, quarterly 
accountability, and other applicable regulations. Vessels would 
continue to be required to monitor the retrieval of longline sets with 
the EM System, and comply with other monitoring and reporting 
regulations that are triggered by the presence of pelagic longline 
gear. However, the use of EM Systems would not be required for haulback 
with green-stick gear or to record an image of a bluefin caught with 
green-stick gear, because catch of bluefin caught with green-stick gear 
are likely to be a rare event, and application of the EM requirement to 
green-stick gear would increase the complexity and cost of the EM 
Program.
    Under current regulations, pelagic longline vessels must discard 
bluefin caught on green-stick gear instead of landing and accounting 
for them via the IBQ Program. The proposed rule would support the 
minimization of dead discards by allowing the incidental retention of 
one green-stick caught bluefin per trip. Requiring VMS set reporting, 
logbook reporting, and IBQ Program participation is consistent with the 
intent of the 2008 rule that authorized green-stick gear.

Minor/Technical Regulatory Changes

    Amendment 13 proposes minor regulatory changes (such as minor 
corrections and clarifications; the removal or modification of obsolete 
cross-references; and minor changes to definitions and prohibitions) 
that would improve the administration and enforcement of HMS 
regulations. 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.  635.2, Definitions, abbreviations were added for 
Curved Fork Length, Northeast Distant Area, Bluefin Tuna, Electronic 
Monitoring and Individual Bluefin Tuna Program. A definition for Vessel 
Monitoring Plan was added, and the definition of Curved Fork Length was 
clarified.
    Under Sec.  635.23(a)(4) and (b)(3), which address the process for 
inseason changes to the BFT retention limits, the minimum 3-day period 
between filing an action with the Office of Federal Register and the 
effective date of the action would be eliminated to provide for 
additional flexibility, as warranted and supported. The 3-day period 
has been in regulations since at least 1999. This rule proposes to 
remove that minimum period to provide for greater flexibility in 
management response for the General category. The General category is 
very dynamic: fish may swim from Massachusetts to Virginia in three 
days, there is limited quota and seasonal allocations, and high and 
variable levels of fishing pressure. Given all of this, NMFS may need 
flexibility to more swiftly implement a measure that may provide 
additional opportunity (in the case of an increased trip limit), or 
take swift action to slow a catch rate (in the case of a lowered 
retention limit). NMFS will continue to consider each adjustment on a 
fact-specific basis, consistent with Administrative Procedure Act 
requirements and providing for as much notice as possible. Under Sec.  
635.27, the subquota period previously referred to as the ``January'' 
subquota period will be changed to ``January through March'' subquota 
period to reflect the actual duration of the January subquota period, 
which is not changing.

Request for Comments

    NMFS is requesting comments on the proposed measures, alternatives, 
and analyses described in this proposed rule and contained in the DEIS, 
IRFA, and RIR. Written comments may be submitted via http://www.regulations.gov (see DATES and ADDRESSES). Comments may also be 
submitted at a public hearing (see Public Hearings below).

Public Hearings

    Public hearings, which will be announced through a separate notice 
in the Federal Register, may be in person or via conference call, and 
will be held during the public comment period.

Classification

    Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant 
Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to 
further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS 
prepared a DEIS for this proposed rule that discusses the impact on the 
environment that would result from this rule. A copy of the DEIS is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A Notice of Availability of the 
DEIS is publishing in the Federal Register on May 21, 2021. A summary 
of the impacts of the alternatives considered is described below.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for 
this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this 
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of this 
analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the 
analysis follows.
    Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the 
action is being considered. NMFS is amending the 2006 Consolidated HMS 
FMP to address bluefin tuna management due to recent trends and 
characteristics of the bluefin fishery. Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA 
requires Agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for, the 
proposed action. The objectives of this Amendment are: (1) Evaluate and 
optimize the allocation of U.S. bluefin quota among bluefin quota 
categories, considering historical allocations and use, and recent 
fishery characteristics and trends, to provide U.S. fishing vessels 
with a reasonable opportunity to harvest the U.S. quota established by 
ICCAT, facilitate the ability for active HMS directed permit categories 
to harvest their full bluefin quota allocations, and facilitate 
directed fishing in the pelagic longline fishery while accounting for 
incidental bluefin catch; (2) Maintain flexibility of the regulations 
to account for the highly variable nature of the bluefin fisheries, and 
maintain fairness among permit/quota categories; (3) Continue to manage 
the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery consistent with the IBQ Program 
objectives implemented by Amendment 7, consistent with the conservation 
and management objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 
amendments, and consistent with all applicable laws; and (4) Modify the 
management of the pelagic longline fishery in response to the Three-
Year Review of the IBQ Program, and in response to important relevant

[[Page 27695]]

prevailing trends (e.g., declining fishing effort and revenue for 
target species).
    Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires Agencies to provide an 
estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. 
For RFA compliance purposes, NMFS established a small business size 
standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in 
the commercial fishing industry (NAICS code 11411). NMFS considers all 
HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual 
receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing. SBA has 
established size standards for all other major industry sectors in the 
United States, including the scenic and sightseeing transportation 
(water) sector (NAICS code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/
party boat entities. SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity 
as one with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $8.0 
million.
    Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by the 
preferred alternatives, the maximum annual revenue for any pelagic 
longline vessel between 2006 and 2016 was less than $1.9 million, well 
below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing 
businesses of $11 million. In 2016, there were 280 Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permits, and 85 vessels were actively fishing based 
on logbook records.
    Other non-pelagic longline HMS commercial fishing vessels typically 
earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels, and none have annual 
revenue of $11 million or more. Therefore, NMFS considers all Atlantic 
HMS commercial permit holders to be small entities (i.e., they are 
engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or 
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have 
combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its 
affiliated operations worldwide). The other (non-Atlantic Tunas 
Longline) preferred commercial alternatives would apply to 2,721 
General category permit holders, 3,769 Charter/Headboat category permit 
holders, 20 Harpoon category permit holders, and 34 seafood dealers 
that purchase bluefin (based on 2019 data). There are no Purse Seine 
category permits issued currently, although the five historical 
participants in the purse seine fishery have been annually allocated a 
portion of Purse Seine category bluefin quota based on their previous 
year's fishing activity, if any, and have been allowed to lease that 
portion through the IBQ Program to pelagic longline vessels, although 
it is not IBQ allocation.
    NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not 
likely directly affect any small organizations or small government 
jurisdictions defined under the RFA, nor would there be 
disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities.
    Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new 
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. This 
proposed rule contains revised or new collection-of-information 
requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These 
requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. Public reporting 
burden for these collections of information, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information, are estimated below (see Paperwork Reduction 
Act).
    Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the 
extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in 
these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements, 
domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include, 
but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas 
Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 
Endangered Species Act, NEPA, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 
Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed action has been determined 
not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
    One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant 
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated 
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. NMFS cannot 
establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small 
entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of 
it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered 
small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small 
entities. NMFS did incorporate performance standards when developing 
several of the IBQ dynamic allocation alternatives. As described below, 
NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed 
rulemaking, and provided rationales for identifying the preferred 
alternatives to achieve the desired objectives. The alternatives 
considered and analyzed are described below.

Modifications to IBQ Share Eligibility, Distribution and Allocation 
Methods

    Alternative A1, the No Action Alternative, would make no changes to 
the current method of determining IBQ share eligibility, and the 
distribution of IBQ allocations, including regional designations. This 
alternative would not result in any changes in the economic impacts to 
small entities associated with the IBQ Program under Amendment 7. Under 
the No Action Alternative there would continue to be the inefficiency 
associated with annual IBQ allocations that are neither used to account 
for bluefin catch, nor leased to other shareholders, which would be a 
minor, adverse impact.
    Alternative A2 is composed of four sub-alternatives that consider 
various annual dynamic determination methods for allocating IBQ shares. 
Under these alternatives, IBQ shareholders would be determined 
annually, based on the application of eligibility criteria intended to 
define a pool of recently active vessels. As explained in DEIS section 
2.1.1, the intent is to distribute IBQ shares and allocations to 
vessels that are active and that need to account for bluefin incidental 
catch, not to encourage leasing by inactive fishermen. However, to 
estimate and compare economic impacts, the average cost of leasing IBQ 
allocation is used in the analyses of the sub-alternatives. Under Sub-
Alternatives A2a, A2b and A2c, participants in the Deepwater Horizon 
OFRP would have their fishing effort include a proxy amount of landings 
used in the calculation of their IBQ shares in years they participated 
in the project, to ensure that there are no negative impacts associated 
with voluntary participation in that restoration project.
    Sub-Alternative A2a would define IBQ shareholders annually based on 
the relative number of hooks fished as the measure of fishing effort. 
The overall economic impact would be minor and beneficial. For most 
active IBQ shareholders, who are small business entities, the economic 
impact of this alternative would be positive. Some shareholders would 
have larger share percentages and some would have smaller share 
percentages compared to the No Action Alternative, but with more 
shareholders benefitting from this alternative. One adverse impact for 
shareholders may be a slightly reduced ability for business planning 
due to the potential annual variability in share percentages. It should 
be noted, however, that shareholders would be

[[Page 27696]]

aware that a substantive change in their amount of fishing effort may 
result in slight changes in their share percentage in the following 
year. Adverse impacts on a shareholder could be partially mitigated 
through leasing IBQ allocation. Such adverse impacts would only be 
partially mitigated because of the cost of leasing IBQ allocation. 
There would be a total of 97 defined shareholders based on the total 
number of vessels that submitted VMS bluefin reports from 2016 through 
2018. Overall, there would be a net increase in IBQ allocation value. 
Based on the analysis of the data, 66 vessels would have IBQ 
allocations larger than compared to the No Action Alternative, and be 
in a better economic position with respect to the amount of IBQ 
allocation they have (expressed in terms of potential leases costs 
avoided, or leasing benefits accrued). Using a weighted average cost 
per pound of leased IBQ allocation from 2017 through 2019 of $1.70 per 
pound, the average lease value of IBQ allocation gained would be 
approximately $4,015 per shareholder with a range of $201 to $10,331. 
Thirty-one vessels would have IBQ allocations smaller when compared to 
the No Action Alternative, and would be in a worse economic position 
with respect to the amount of IBQ allocation they have. Using the same 
weighted average cost per pound of leased IBQ allocation of $1.70 per 
pound, the average lease value of IBQ allocation lost would be 
approximately $3,174 per shareholder with a range of $1,224 to $6,302. 
It should be noted that IBQ shares and allocations are subject to 
change each year (based on fishing effort/number of hooks fished), all 
active vessels would receive IBQ allocation, and the leasing market is 
likely to continue to function well, with a price similar to or lower 
than recent prices, because most vessel allocations would increase. 
Furthermore, the economic costs associated with reduced allocations 
would only be realized if shareholders need to lease IBQ allocation to 
account for bluefin catch in excess of their allocations. The most 
notable trend is that under dynamic allocation based on hooks, vessels 
generally would be distributed more IBQ allocation than under the No 
Action Alternative (with the exception of shareholders in the first 
quartile). The number of IBQ shareholders would be reduced from 136 to 
97, and dynamic allocation would reduce dissatisfaction among active 
fishery participants that results from the current regulations under 
which a relatively large number of permit holders who are not active 
receive an annual IBQ allocation because they are IBQ shareholders 
(with a permitted vessel).
    Sub-Alternative A2b would define IBQ shareholders annually based on 
the relative number of pelagic longline sets as the measure of fishing 
effort. The overall economic impact would be minor and beneficial. For 
most IBQ shareholders, who are small business entities, the economic 
impact of this alternative would be positive and similar to Sub-
Alternative A2a. There would be 97 defined shareholders based on the 
total number of vessels that submitted VMS bluefin reports from 2016 
through 2018. Overall, there would be a net increase in IBQ allocation 
value. Based on the data, 66 vessels would have IBQ allocations larger 
than compared to the No Action Alternative, and be in a better economic 
position with respect to the amount of IBQ allocation they have 
(expressed in terms of potential leases costs avoided, or leasing 
benefits accrued). Using $1.70 cost per pound (explained under Sub-
Alternative A2a), the average lease value of IBQ allocation gained 
would be approximately $4,028 per shareholder with a range of $957 to 
$11,331. Thirty-one vessels would have IBQ allocations smaller when 
compared to the No Action Alternative, and would be in a worse economic 
position with respect to the amount of IBQ allocation they have. Using 
the same $1.70 cost per pound, the average lease value of IBQ 
allocation lost would be approximately $3,203 per shareholder with a 
range of $1,226 to $6,304. However, as with Sub-Alternative A2a, it 
should be noted that IBQ shares and allocations are subject to change 
each year (based on fishing effort/number of sets), all active vessels 
would receive IBQ allocation, and the leasing market is likely to 
continue to function well. The most notable trend is that under dynamic 
allocation based on sets vessels are generally distributed more IBQ 
allocation than under the No Action Alternative (with the exception of 
shareholders in the first quartile). The number of IBQ shareholders 
would be reduced from 136 to 97, and dynamic allocation would reduce 
dissatisfaction among active fishery participants that results from the 
current regulations under which a relatively large number of permit 
holders who are not active receive an annual IBQ allocation because 
they are IBQ shareholders (with a permitted vessel).
    Sub-Alternative A2c, the preferred alternative, would define IBQ 
shareholders annually based upon the total amount by weight of each 
individual permitted vessel's designated species landings relative to 
the total amount of designated species landings by pelagic longline 
fleet, as the measure of fishing effort. The overall economic impact 
would be minor and beneficial. For most active IBQ shareholders, who 
are small business entities, the economic impact of this alternative 
would be positive and similar to Sub-Alternative A2a. Overall, there 
would be a net increase in IBQ allocation value. Based on the analysis 
of the data, 57 vessels would have IBQ allocations larger than compared 
to the No Action Alternative, and be in a better economic position with 
respect to the amount of IBQ allocation they have (expressed in terms 
of potential leases costs avoided, or leasing benefits accrued). Using 
$1.70 cost per pound (explained under Sub-Alternative A2a), lease value 
of IBQ allocation gained would be approximately $4,884 per shareholder 
with a range of $248 to $12,844. Forty-two vessels would have IBQ 
allocations smaller when compared to the No Action Alternative, and 
would be in a worse economic position with respect to the amount of IBQ 
allocation they have. Using the same $1.70 cost per pound, the average 
lease value of IBQ allocation lost would be approximately $2,836 per 
shareholder with a range of $136 to $6,620. However, as with Sub-
Alternative A2a, it should be noted that IBQ shares and allocations are 
subject to change each year (based on fishing effort/designated species 
landings), all active vessels would receive IBQ allocation, and the 
leasing market is likely to continue to function well, with a price 
similar to or lower than recent prices, because most vessel allocations 
would increase. Furthermore, the economic costs associated with reduced 
allocations would only be realized if shareholders need to lease IBQ 
allocation to account for bluefin catch in excess of their allocations. 
The exclusion of dolphin and wahoo from the list of designated species 
affected the IBQ share percentages of eight vessels. Compared to the 
IBQ share percentages that they would have received if the dolphin and 
wahoo were included, four vessels would increase in share percentage 
and four vessels would decrease. The difference in percentage shares 
was relatively minor, with vessel shares moving from one quartile to an 
adjacent quartile. The most notable trend is that under dynamic 
allocation based on designated species landings, vessels generally 
would be distributed more IBQ allocation than under the No Action 
Alternative (with the exception of shareholders in the first quartile). 
The number of IBQ shareholders would be reduced from 136 to 99, and 
dynamic

[[Page 27697]]

allocation would reduce dissatisfaction among active fishery 
participants that results from the current regulations under which a 
relatively large number of permit holders who are not active receive an 
annual IBQ allocation because they are IBQ shareholders (with a 
permitted vessel).
    Sub-Alternative A2d would define IBQ shareholders annually, and 
distribute IBQ allocation in equal amounts to eligible permitted 
vessels. The overall economic impact would be minor and beneficial. An 
eligible vessel would be any vessel that landed designated species 
during recent years (i.e., at least one of the three most recent years 
of available data). For most active IBQ shareholders, who are small 
business entities, the economic impact of this alternative would be 
positive and similar to Sub-Alternative A2a. There would be 98 defined 
shareholders based on current data for eligible vessels. Based on the 
analysis of the data, 61 vessels would have IBQ allocations larger than 
compared to the No Action Alternative, and be in a better economic 
position with respect to the amount of IBQ allocation they have 
(expressed in terms of potential leases costs avoided, or leasing 
benefits accrued). Using $1.70 cost per pound (explained under Sub-
Alternative A2a), lease value of IBQ allocation gained would be 
approximately $3,305 per shareholder with a range of $2,589 to $6,256. 
Thirty-seven vessels would have IBQ allocations smaller when compared 
to the No Action Alternative, and would be in a worse economic position 
with respect to the amount of IBQ allocation they have. Using the same 
$1.70 cost per pound, the average lease value of IBQ allocation lost 
would be approximately $1,083 per shareholder. The most notable trend 
is that under dynamic allocation based equal allocation, vessels 
currently in the medium and low tiers (93 vessels combined (i.e., under 
the No Action Alternative, that have 2,157 lb and 1,330 lb, 
respectively)) would have a larger IBQ share percentage and be 
distributed more IBQ allocation under this alternative based on equal 
allocation (3,680 lb), while vessels currently in the high tier (43 
vessels) (with 4,317 lb) would have a lower IBQ share percentage and be 
distributed less IBQ allocation (3,680 lb) under this alternative. The 
number of IBQ shareholders would be reduced from 136 to 98, and this 
alternative would reduce dissatisfaction among fishery participants 
that results from the current regulations under which a relatively 
large number of permit holders who are not active receive an annual IBQ 
allocation because they are IBQ shareholders (with a permitted vessel).
    Alternative A3 would distribute IBQ allocation using the same 
formula used in Amendment 7, but instead of using data during the 
period from 2006 through 2012, the alternative would define eligible 
vessels as those that reported making at least one set using pelagic 
longline gear (based on logbook data, as in Amendment 7) from 2016 
through 2018, and the relevant catch data used to designate IBQ 
shareholders to one of three tiers would also be based on 2016 through 
2018. The use of the years 2016 to 2018 is intended to include the 
years following initial implementation of Amendment 7, and reflect 
participation in the fishery during that time period, in contrast to 
the No Action Alternatives and the dynamic alternatives.
    The number of tiers (three) would remain the same (high, medium, 
and low), but the IBQ share percentages would be higher for all tiers. 
For example, the low tier share percentage under this alternative would 
be 0.5 percent instead of 0.37 percent and result in a larger annual 
IBQ allocation. The overall economic impact would be minor and 
beneficial. Although the defined IBQ share percentages would all be 
larger, because the alternative entails recalculation of the complex 
Amendment 7 formula based on more recent data (i.e., 2016 to 2018), for 
all vessels, some permit holders would change tiers, going either `up' 
or `down' with the net result that under this alternative, some permit 
holders would have a larger IBQ share percentage and other permit 
holders would have a smaller IBQ share percentage when compared to the 
No Action Alternative. Based on the analysis of the data, 71 vessels 
would have IBQ allocations larger than compared to the No Action 
Alternative, and be in a better economic position with respect to the 
amount of IBQ allocation they have (expressed in terms of potential 
leasing costs avoided, or leasing benefits accrued). Using $1.70 cost 
per pound (explained under Sub-Alternative A2a), lease value of IBQ 
allocation gained would be approximately $3,181 per shareholder with a 
range of $805 to $10,086. Twenty-eight vessels would have IBQ 
allocations smaller when compared to the No Action Alternative, and 
would be in a worse economic position with respect to the amount of IBQ 
allocation they have. Using the same $1.70 cost per pound, the average 
lease value of IBQ allocation lost would be approximately $1,404 per 
shareholder with a range of between $601 and $4,273. The distribution 
of allocation among vessels is similar for the two alternatives, but 
for the revised Amendment 7 alternative, there are a higher number of 
vessels that receive larger distributions. For example, under the No 
Action Alternative, 56 vessels would be allocated the equivalent of 
between 6 and 10 bluefin, whereas under this alternative (A3), 42 
vessels would be allocated between 11 and 15 bluefin. The number of IBQ 
shareholders would be reduced from 136 to 99, and this alternative 
would reduce dissatisfaction among active fishery participants that 
results from the current regulations under which a relatively large 
number of permit holders who are not active, receive an annual IBQ 
allocation because they are IBQ shareholders (with a permitted vessel).

Modifications to Rules Closely Linked to IBQ Allocations

    The economic impacts of Alternative B1, the No Action Alternative, 
would be neutral, and mean continuation of the current IBQ 
shareholders, associated share percentages, and regional designations. 
Vessels that currently do not have GOM designated IBQ allocation but 
would like to fish in the Gulf of Mexico would continue to be required 
to lease GOM IBQ allocation. The costs associated with vessels leasing 
GOM designated IBQ allocation would continue.
    Alternative B2, the elimination of the regional designations in 
conjunction with continuing to limit bluefin catch from the Gulf of 
Mexico to a defined cap (set at 35 percent of the Longline category 
quota) may have beneficial and adverse economic impacts. There may be a 
beneficial impact on vessels that under the current regulations (No 
Action Alternative) have only ATL designated IBQ allocation, and 
currently must lease GOM designated IBQ allocation in order to fish in 
the Gulf of Mexico. Such vessels would be able to fish in the Gulf of 
Mexico without the need to lease, which may reduce or eliminate the 
need for leasing IBQ allocation by such vessels. Facilitation of 
fishing opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico may result in increased 
revenue for such vessels. For vessels that already fish exclusively in 
the Gulf of Mexico, with all or most of their IBQ allocation designated 
as GOM, this alternative may have adverse economic impacts. Such 
vessels that currently have GOM designated IBQ allocation may face 
increased competition for fishing grounds or markets due to any 
increased fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico, or face a smaller 
market for leasing their GOM allocation to other vessels.

[[Page 27698]]

    Alternative B3, the preferred alternative, would modify regional 
GOM and ATL designations for a dynamic allocation system (Sub-
Alternatives A2a through A2d) and cap allowable bluefin catch from the 
Gulf of Mexico. The overall economic impact would be minor and 
beneficial. Under this alternative, vessels would receive annual GOM-
designated shares as a result of fishing with pelagic longline gear in 
the Gulf of Mexico during the previous year. For vessels that currently 
only have ATL-designated shares, this alternative would enable them to 
fish without necessarily needing to lease GOM-designated allocations. 
Historical fishery participants in the Gulf of Mexico would continue to 
receive GOM designated IBQ share based on their level of activity (in 
the Gulf of Mexico). If the number of vessels fishing in the Gulf of 
Mexico increased, there may be minor, adverse economic impacts to those 
entities due to increased competition. However, based on the few 
vessels with homeports in the Atlantic that have fished in the Gulf of 
Mexico during the past few years, the potential for any adverse 
economic impact on vessels with home ports in the Gulf of Mexico is 
very low. In summary, the economic impacts are expected to be minor, 
short-term and beneficial, as a result of the increased flexibility for 
vessels currently without GOM designated IBQ allocation.
    Alternative B4, the preferred alternative, is the No Action 
Alternative with respect to how data on fishing activity in the 
Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED) is used in calculating IBQ 
shares (in conjunction with the allocation alternatives). See 50 CFR 
635.2 (defining NED). This alternative would maintain the inclusion of 
any data associated with fishing in the Northeast Distant Area (NED) as 
part of formulas that determine IBQ shares (and associated 
allocations),{XE ``Amendment 7''{time}  and maintain the current IBQ{XE 
``IBQ''{time}  catch accounting rules for fishing in the NED (i.e., 
vessels fishing in the NED do not have to use IBQ allocation to account 
for bluefin catch until after the 25 mt NED quota is utilized). For 
example, under the dynamic allocation alternatives, vessels that fish 
in the NED would continue to be able to fish there with no impact on 
their associated IBQ share calculation the next year, since that 
fishing effort (in the NED) would continue to count toward their 
fishing activity.
    Alternative B5 would not include NED fishing activity as part of 
the data used in calculating IBQ shares. This alternative could have 
short-term to long-term minor, adverse economic impacts on vessels that 
fish in the NED, if excluding NED fishing data results in vessels 
receiving a lower IBQ share percentage. For example, under Alternative 
B5 in conjunction with Alternative A2a (dynamic allocation based on 
hooks), excluding NED fishing activity would mean a substantial 
reduction in the number of hooks used to determine IBQ shares for the 
nine vessels that fished in the NED during 2016 to 2018. However, 
shares are determined based on quartiles, and only one of those nine 
vessels would have a lower percentage share as a result of excluding 
NED fishing data. The NED fishery is unique and highly variable, and 
therefore only a few vessels fish there intermittently. If a vessel 
fished in the NED during a particular year, their share percentage may 
be reduced during subsequent years as a result, whether or not any 
bluefin were caught during that year, and whether or not the vessel 
chooses to fish in the NED during subsequent years. If those operating 
in the NED receive a lower IBQ share percentage relative to their total 
fishing effort than other vessels, this may put them at a competitive 
disadvantage.

Sale of IBQ Shares

    Preferred Alternative C1 would continue the current regulations 
under which no sale of IBQ{XE ``IBQ''{time}  shares{XE ``IBQ 
shares''{time}  are allowed. This alternative is expected to have minor 
beneficial economic impacts. There is little need for Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit holders to accumulate additional IBQ shares, 
because for most permit holders, a situation with annual allocations 
combined with a minimal amount of leasing is likely to be sufficient 
for permit holders to account for bluefin catch. Continued prohibition 
on sale of IBQ shares would reduce uncertainty in the IBQ allocation{XE 
``IBQ allocation''{time}  leasing market in both the short term and 
long term, which would be beneficial to the IBQ Program overall.
    Alternative C2 would allow sale of IBQ{XE ``IBQ''{time}  shares{XE 
``IBQ shares''{time} . This alternative is expected to have minor, 
adverse economic impacts overall. Some impacts may be beneficial and 
some adverse, with the net socioeconomic impacts being minor and 
adverse. Sale of IBQ shares provides Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permit holders an alternative means of participating in the IBQ leasing 
market that enables management of their IBQ allocation{XE ``IBQ 
allocation''{time}  and business planning on a longer time scale than a 
single year. Permit holders may be able to save money through a single 
IBQ share transaction instead of via annual IBQ allocation lease 
transactions, a beneficial impact. On the other hand, allowing sale of 
IBQ shares would introduce uncertainty in the IBQ allocation leasing 
market, which is otherwise robust as described in the Three-Year 
Review{XE ``Three-Year Review''{time} , and that uncertainty could have 
an adverse impact on the IBQ Program overall. An example of increased 
uncertainty in the fishery may be a result of the IBQ leasing market. 
There may be a concern about an individual entity purchasing an amount 
of IBQ shares that results in a negative impact on other shareholders 
or on the ability of fishery participants to lease IBQ. There is no 
demonstrated need for Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit holders 
to accumulate additional IBQ shares over multiple years, because for 
most permit holders, annual allocations combined with a minimal amount 
of leasing is likely to be sufficient for permit holders to account for 
bluefin catch. Furthermore, sale of IBQ shares would not be consistent 
with the dynamic allocation alternatives.

Cap on IBQ Shareholder Percentage or IBQ Allocation Use

    Sub-Alternative D1a, the No Action Alternative, would not place a 
cap on the amount of IBQ shares a single entity may own. This 
alternative is expected to have neutral economic impacts on small 
entities. The IBQ Program has been functioning under these regulations 
since 2015, and there have been no reported or observed issues relating 
to excessive accumulation of IBQ shares. In 2015-2019, the highest 
level of IBQ share ownership by one entity was between five and six 
percent of total IBQ shares, and this percentage remained the same 
throughout that time period. Overall, IBQ share ownership has been 
fairly stable over time. In addition, the preferred alternatives under 
the IBQ allocation alternatives (A alternatives) are designed to update 
and more closely align the distribution of IBQ shares with the current 
fishing activity and need for IBQ allocation of the pelagic longline 
fleet, which could reduce the likelihood that entities would seek to 
buy additional Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits with IBQ 
shares, or buy additional IBQ shares if allowed under this Amendment.
    Sub-Alternative D1b, which would cap the allowable accumulated sum 
of IBQ shares that could be held by a single entity at seven percent, 
is expected to have minor, adverse economic impacts on small entities. 
In 2015-2019, the highest level of IBQ share `ownership' by one entity 
was

[[Page 27699]]

between five and six percent of total IBQ shares, and this percentage 
remained the same throughout that time period. Under the allocation 
method described under the preferred `A' alternatives, NMFS estimates 
that the highest level of IBQ shares that a single entity would acquire 
on an annual basis would be between six and seven percent of total 
shares. If this trend continues and the maximum percent ownership 
remains stable over time, implementing a cap at seven percent would not 
impact the fleet. However, there is the possibility that entities could 
have business plans to acquire additional shares in the short-term that 
would be above a seven-percent cap, in which case there could be short-
term minor and adverse economic impacts.
    In the long-term, if entities have business plans to acquire 
additional Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits, they would need to 
determine whether their intended purchase, in combination with their 
current level of shares, would exceed the share cap of seven percent of 
the total shares. The entity would be limited by the regulations to 
either buying a permit that does not cause them to reach the seven 
percent cap, or to buying a permit with no IBQ shares. Since seven 
percent is a low cap, it is more likely that an entity could be faced 
with that limitation in the long-term. Another impact could occur if, 
under the preferred ``A'' alternatives, the number of active vessels 
decreases and therefore the IBQ share percentage to each vessel 
increases. At a seven-percent cap, an entity could have to forgo 
purchases (of permits or shares, if allowed) in order to avoid 
exceeding the cap and being in violation of the regulations. By 
indirectly limiting the number of Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permits an entity could hold (outside of the five-percent vessel limit 
discussed above at Sec.  635.4(l)(2)(iii)), or limiting the amount of 
annual IBQ shares an entity could receive (or buy, under Alternative 
C2), the seven-percent cap could in turn limit the amount of fishing 
activity. If an entity owned many vessels and caught a large percentage 
of designated species landings (under the dynamic allocation 
alternatives), it is possible that a seven percent share cap would 
result in a disproportionately low percentage share of bluefin could 
affect their ability to fish for their target species, and prevent 
increases in lawful fishing activity. It is also possible that, if the 
overall fishing effort declines, the relative share holdings of an 
entity would increase, even if they made no changes to the level of 
their ownership of permits, or in their level of fishing effort. For 
these reasons, Sub-Alternative D1b could have long-term adverse 
economic impacts.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative D1c, cap amount of IBQ shares that may be 
held at 25 percent, is expected to have neutral economic impacts. Based 
on the same information, analyses and trend discussed in the first 
paragraph of Sub-Alternative D1b above, a 25 percent cap would not 
impact the fleet. This cap level would allow flexibility in entities' 
business planning to acquire more shares, either by acquiring 
additional Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits or under 
Alternative C2. In addition, it is not likely that an entity would 
reach a 25-percent cap through the annual IBQ shares they would receive 
under the A alternatives. Therefore, impacts would be neutral. However, 
there is the possibility that entities could have business plans to 
acquire additional shares that, in the long-term, would be above a 25-
percent cap, in which case there could be long-term minor, adverse 
economic impacts. On the other hand, implementing a cap to prevent 
acquisition of excessive IBQ shares would prevent a single entity from 
controlling a portion of the market that may be considered excessive.
    Sub-Alternative D1d, which would cap the allowable amount of IBQ 
shares held by a single entity at 50 percent, is expected to have 
neutral economic impacts. Based on the same information, analyses and 
trend discussed in the first paragraph of Sub-Alternative D1b above, a 
cap at 50 percent would not impact the fleet. This cap level would 
allow flexibility in entities' business planning to acquire more 
shares, by acquiring additional Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
permits or through the purchase of shares as allowed under Alternative 
C2. In addition, it is not likely that an entity would reach a 50-
percent cap through the annual IBQ shares they would receive under the 
A alternatives. Therefore, impacts would be neutral. In the long-term, 
Sub-Alternative D1a could have minor, adverse economic impacts if the 
high cap level of 50 percent is insufficient to prevent acquisition of 
excessive IBQ shares, allowing a single entity to control an excessive 
portion of the market. On the other hand, there is the possibility that 
entities could have business plans to acquire additional shares that, 
in the long-term, would be above a 50-percent cap, which could also 
have a long-term minor, adverse economic impact, although this is not 
likely with the high 50 percent cap level.

Adjustments to Other Aspects of the IBQ Program

    Sub-Alternative E1a, No Action on modifying dealer reporting 
requirements that were implemented by Amendment 7, would have minor, 
adverse economic impacts because it requires vessel operators and 
dealers to collaborate in submitting information that is also supplied 
independently by the vessel operators by way of VMS. Fishermen and 
dealers have expressed frustration with the requirement that fishermen 
submit a PIN when dealers enter landings data. Fishermen were 
frequently either not available when dealers entered the data, or did 
not have access to their PIN. As a result, fishermen chose to provide 
their PINs to dealers, which allowed the data to be entered, but did 
not provide the data verification that was originally intended.
    Sub-Alternative E1b, the preferred alternative that would modify 
dealer reporting requirements for the IBQ Program, has minor, 
beneficial, economic impacts for dealers because it would remove the 
dealer dead discard reporting requirement and the PIN requirement, thus 
reducing labor costs with these tasks. The requirement has been 
redundant since the automatic integration of the VMS dead discard data 
into the Catch Shares Online System database, dealers have been non-
compliant with the dead discard reporting aspect of the regulations, 
and NMFS does not believe the PIN requirement is needed for accurate 
and secure reporting. During the time-period when it collected dead 
discard information via two data streams, NMFS was able to verify the 
information that was collected, and determine that VMS was the best 
approach for submitting a single stream of dead discard data. Instead 
of the PIN requirement, this alternative would provide vessel owner 
oversight over dealer transactions through an email notification to 
vessel owners from the Catch Shares Online System, when dealers account 
for bluefin landings from their vessels and their account is debited 
IBQ allocation. Dead discards would still be reported by vessel 
operators at sea via the VMS units, as required under current 
regulations.
    Sub-Alternative E2a, the No Action Alternative, would continue the 
current requirement that electronic monitoring system hard drives be 
submitted after each trip that used pelagic longline gear. This 
alternative would have minor, adverse economic impacts when compared to 
the preferred alternative. Currently, vessel owners or operators

[[Page 27700]]

must pull, package and ship hard drives to NMFS after each fishing 
trip, which results in a higher cost and time burden than the preferred 
alternative.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative E2b would require that the vessel 
operator mail the hard drives at the completion of every two trips, 
instead of after each trip fishing with pelagic longline gear. This 
alternative would have a minor, beneficial economic impact by reducing 
the costs and time associated with mailing electronic monitoring hard 
drives. This would reduce the number of shipments by half. Considering 
the high vessel average number of 34 shipments per year, this would 
reduce the high average to 17 shipments. Each active vessel would still 
ship at least one hard drive per year, as NMFS would require any data 
recorded in a given year be submitted to NMFS prior to the next fishing 
year. Assuming a shipping cost of $20 per transaction, this reduction 
in shipping frequency would save operators an average of $120 per year. 
Reducing shipping frequency also saves vessel operators additional time 
and logistics, by only having to pull, package and ship hard drives 
after every other trip. The time savings provided by this alternative 
are difficult to quantify, as vessel operators shipping methods will 
influence the amount of time saved; however, this would provide a minor 
beneficial impact by providing time savings to the vessel operators.
    Sub-Alternative E3a, the No Action Alternative, would retain the 
current procedures regarding camera installation. The economic impacts 
of Sub-Alternative E3a would be neutral compared to the preferred 
alternative. The No Action Alternative maintains the current camera 
array requirements and therefore would not provide NMFS the authority 
to require vessels to install or mount structures that would optimize 
the placement of the cameras. There would not be any downtime for 
vessels required for installation of new hardware. This alternative 
would not cause any behavioral changes for the fleet, vessel operators 
would not be required to install a boom and would not have to deploy 
the boom during fishing activity. Vessel operators would continue to 
operate as they have since implementation of the Electronic Monitoring 
system requirements in Amendment 7.
    Sub-Alternative E3b, the preferred alternative, would provide the 
authority to NMFS to require installation of hardware such as a boom, 
to mount and install video cameras at locations on vessels as necessary 
to ensure views of fish as currently required under 50 CFR 635.9, and 
allow NMFS, working in conjunction with the vessel owner/operator, to 
make relatively minor modifications to the vessel structure to mount 
cameras in locations that provide views of the vessel and adjacent 
areas as required under Sec.  635.9. The economic impacts of modifying 
the camera installation and placement would be minor and adverse for 
these small entities. Vessel crew would be required to extend, lower, 
or raise the boom mounted camera during fishing activities if needed. 
Additional logistics required may represent an increased time burden 
and a slight increase in the complexity of their fishing operation. 
Overall, this time burden would only be a couple of minutes to extend, 
lower or raise the boom at the start and end of each fishing trip. Crew 
may also be required to access the camera during the trip to clean the 
lens. The process of cleaning the lens may be more difficult if the 
camera is mounted on a boom. The cost associated with the booms, 
including installation, would be paid by NMFS, thus minimizing impacts 
on small entities. Since NMFS would cover the cost of installations of 
the boom and re-mounting the camera, there would be no economic burden 
on the fleet for initial installation of booms.
    Sub-Alternative E4a, the No Action Alternative regarding specifying 
additional fish handling protocols for electronic monitoring, would 
have neutral economic impacts. No additional handling requirements or 
measurement tools would be required and there would be no additional 
labor or equipment costs to vessel operators.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative E4b would require more specific fish 
handling procedures and the installation/placement of a measuring grid 
on deck, in view of one of the cameras. This alternative may increase 
costs in terms of the time required to process fish or costs associated 
with a measurement tool, such as a processing mat or painted grid on 
the deck. Non-skid deck paint costs between about $35 and $85 per 
gallon. A 4 foot by 8 foot all-weather mat, custom printed with a grid 
may cost approximately $225 per mat. The crew would need to modify 
their fish handling procedures to place all fish on the grid. Although 
the requirement would be in place for the long-term, it is anticipated 
that the impacts would reduce over time as crew practiced the new 
handling procedure and therefore would have neutral long-term impacts 
on operations.
    Sub-Alternative E5a would make no changes to the current 
regulations, under which there is no cost recovery program in place for 
the IBQ Program. Therefore, it would not have any economic costs on 
small entities.
    Sub-Alternative E5b, the preferred alternative, would implement a 
cost recovery program. A cost recovery fee, if implemented, would have 
a minor, adverse economic impact on permit holders that land bluefin. 
They would incur up to a three percent fee on any sale of bluefin to 
dealers. The long-term impacts are uncertain given that the fee would 
not be charged if the costs of collecting the fees exceed estimated 
recovered costs, and therefore may only be charged intermittently.

Modifications to the Purse Seine Category Management Measures and Other 
Category Quota Allocations

    Alternative F1 and its sub-alternatives consider changes to the 
mathematical method used in the annual quota allocation process to 
reflect the current annual 68 mt allocation to the Longline category. 
Economic impacts of Sub-Alternative F1a (the ``No Action'' alternative) 
are expected to be neutral because the current method remains 
unchanged: 68 mt is subtracted from the baseline quota then allocation 
percentages for the different categories are applied. Preferred Sub-
Alternative F1b would simplify that two-step process and simply modify 
the currently codified allocation percentages to incorporate the 68-mt.
    Sub-Alternative F1b would have neutral economic impacts to each 
category because the overall quota and amount of quota (in mt) 
distributed to each category would not change from the status quo under 
the current ICCAT quota. If the ICCAT quota increased in the future, 
this alternative would have minor, positive economic impacts for 
Longline category participants and minor, negative economic impacts for 
other categories when compared to the status quo because the Longline 
category would be allocated slightly more quota than under the No 
Action Alternative. Conversely, in the event of an ICCAT quota 
decrease, the impacts for the Longline category would be minor and 
negative, with minor and positive impacts to the other categories 
compared to the status quo.
    Alternative F2 and its sub-alternatives consider options related to 
the timing of discontinuing the Purse Seine category and reallocating 
the quota to other categories. Methods of reallocation are discussed 
under Alternatives F3 (a and b) and F4. Sub-Alternative 2a, the No 
Action Alternative, would maintain all aspects of the current quota 
allocation among categories (subject to quota allocation alternatives 
considered in Sections G, H, and I, regarding the

[[Page 27701]]

General and Harpoon categories) and Purse Seine category regulations. 
The Purse Seine category fishery participants would continue to receive 
quota based on their previous year's fishing activity level and could 
either fish or lease out their annual quota distribution through the 
IBQ system. The economic impacts of this alternative would be neutral, 
but there would continue to be the loss of fishing opportunity 
associated with the unused Purse Seine category quota.
    Sub-Alternative F2b, a preferred alternative, would discontinue the 
Purse Seine category and reallocate quota upon the effective date of 
Amendment 13. The ability of vessels to obtain an Atlantic tunas Purse 
Seine category permit would also end. NMFS would remove purse seine 
from the list of authorized gears and remove other references in the 
regulations to the purse seine fishery, purse seine gear, purse seine 
nets, purse seine sets, purse seine vessels, and Purse Seine category, 
including references to Purse Seine category quota, permits, and 
participants. This alternative could be implemented in conjunction with 
one of the methods of reallocation described under Alternatives F3 (a 
and b) and F4, and is intended only to address the timing of the 
discontinuation of the Purse Seine category.
    Sub-Alternative F2b would have moderate adverse economic impacts to 
Purse seine category participants compared to the status quo. Under 
this alternative, quota allocations would no longer be distributed to 
Purse Seine category participants, so neither fishing for bluefin nor 
leasing via the IBQ system would be allowed after the effective date of 
Amendment 13. The economic impacts are estimated based on the loss of 
potential revenue from these two activities.
    Leasing of purse seine annual distributions of quota in the online 
IBQ System has provided additional revenue for purse seine vessels. The 
potential annual value of purse seine-related leases can be estimated 
using leasing data from the last five years (2015-2019). The weighted 
price per lb for purse seine-related leases shows a declining trend 
over the last five years, so the most recent cost of $1.25 per lb was 
used to estimate likely potential loss. The greatest amount of purse 
seine category quota leased was 47.7 percent in 2019. Using the average 
amount of quota leased each year over the time series (30,713 lb) 
multiplied by $1.25 per lb, there would be an estimated loss of $38,391 
per year category-wide or $7,678 per participant. The average amount of 
quota leased over this five year period was used as a basis for this 
estimate because the amount of purse seine related IBQ quota leased was 
variable, and showed no discernable trend. Although unlikely, the 
theoretical maximum annual loss would be a total of $151,568 ($30,314 
per participant), assuming all allocated Purse Seine category quota 
(121,254 lb) would be leased at $1.25 per lb.
    The other potential negative impact of this alternative is the loss 
of potential fishing revenue. Purse Seine category participants last 
landed fish during 2013-2015. It is unlikely that Purse Seine category 
participants would choose to fish again because of such limited 
activity over the last 15 years. Purse Seine category participants are 
not currently economically dependent upon bluefin landings. If they did 
choose to fish in the future, the value of landings can be estimated 
using historical data and applying the quota adjustments based on 
previous year's catches. Dead discards could also be estimated using 
the observer data collected during the 2013-2015 season. The average 
annual dead discard estimate is 28.4 percent of catch, or conversely, 
Landings = Catch x 71.6 percent. Applying those percentages to the 
current adjusted quota of 55 mt results in an estimated 39.4 mt in 
landings and discards up to 15.6 mt, depending upon the number of 
participants fishing. Catch of 55 mt equates to 11 mt per vessel, which 
is 25 percent of the 43.9 mt annual allocation. Based on that level of 
catch, under current regulations (where the annual allocation is based 
upon the level of catch during the previous year), the allocation for 
each vessel in the following year would be 50 percent of the base quota 
level.
    The average price for Purse Seine category landings for the three 
most recent years of activity (2013-2015) was $4.66 per lb round 
weight. The most likely estimate of Purse Seine category fishing 
activity over the next five years is for zero mt landings since the 
category has not fished since 2015. However, the maximum amount the 
Purse Seine category could harvest annually (based on the highest level 
of quota possible and five participants), and as a result the maximum 
revenue lost for this alternative, taking into consideration dead 
discards, is estimated to be 1.61 million category-wide, or $0.32 
million per participant. This estimate is based on the maximum Purse 
Seine category quota (220 mt total, and 157 mt landings) instead of the 
adjusted Purse Seine category quota (55 mt).
    Sub-Alternative F2c would discontinue the Purse Seine category and 
reallocate quota at a future (sunset) date i.e., the end of Year 2 
after Amendment 13 is implemented. Two aspects of this sub-alternative 
are under consideration: Whether to allow Purse Seine category 
participants the option of leasing, and whether to allow participants 
the option of fishing against quota until the sunset date is reached. 
Sub-Alternative F2c1 would allow leasing and fishing until the sunset 
date, while Sub-Alternative F2c2 would only allow leasing until the 
sunset date. Economic impacts for Sub-Alternative F2c1 would be 
moderate and adverse, the same as Sub-Alternative F2b (discontinue 
Purse Seine category upon implementation of Amendment 13), but delayed 
by two years since both fishing and leasing activity would be allowed 
under this alternative until the end of Year 2. Annual losses for Purse 
Seine category leasing are estimated to be $38,391 category-wide and 
$7,678 per participant, based on the average amount of quota leased 
since 2015.
    Sub-Alternative F2c2 would discontinue the Purse Seine category at 
a sunset date (end of Year 2) and only allow leasing until the sunset 
date. Specifically, this alternative would adjust the Purse Seine 
category quota to 4.4 percent of the bluefin quota (25 percent of the 
17.6 percent allocation that would be provided under Alternative F1b). 
The remaining 75 percent of the Purse Seine category quota would be 
reallocated to the other bluefin quota categories in accordance with 
one of the reallocation alternatives. This alternative would result in 
a set annual quota percentage, in contrast to the No Action alternative 
(F2a), which considers the previous year's catch by Purse Seine 
category participants in determining the amount of quota available to 
each participant in the current year.
    Economic impacts for Sub-Alternative F2c2 would be moderate and 
adverse, the same as Sub-Alternative F2c1, but since only leasing 
activity would be allowed under this alternative until the end of Year 
2, revenue losses for subsequent years would apply. Like Sub-
Alternative F2c1, annual losses for Purse Seine category leasing are 
estimated to be $38,391 category-wide and $7,678 per participant, based 
on the average amount of quota leased since 2015. Potential loss of 
fishing revenue is similar to that estimated for Sub-Alternative F2b, 
since fishing would not be allowed under this alternative. The most 
likely estimate of Purse Seine category fishing activity over the next 
five years is for zero mt landings

[[Page 27702]]

because the category has not fished since 2015. However, the maximum 
amount the Purse Seine category could harvest (based on the highest 
level of quota possible and five participants), and as a result the 
theoretical maximum revenue lost for this alternative, taking into 
consideration dead discards, is estimated to be $1.61 million category-
wide, or $0.32 million per participant.
    NMFS considered two sub-alternatives that would reallocate the 
Purse Seine category quota proportionally to all other quota 
categories. For the Longline category, sub-Alternative F3a would apply 
the increase to all areas, while Sub-Alternative F3b would only allow 
the Longline category increase to be fished in the Atlantic (not the 
Gulf of Mexico). All of the Purse Seine participants have sold their 
vessels, likely along with their Purse seine gear and associated 
equipment, thus anticipated economic impacts of the sub-alternatives 
would be related to quota leasing.
    Economic impacts for Sub-Alternative F3a would be moderate and 
beneficial, and include estimated increases in revenue for the 
commercial quota categories that would receive the redistributed quota 
after the Purse Seine category was terminated. Annual revenue increases 
are estimated as follows: $1,696,758 for the General category, $386,516 
for Longline, $131,548 for Harpoon, and $93,204 for Reserve, resulting 
in a combined total of $2,301,026. Annual revenue loss depends on 
whether quota is reallocated immediately (Sub-Alternative F2b) or in 
the future (Sub-Alternative F2c). When combined with Sub-Alternative 
F2b (immediate reallocation), F3a would have moderately beneficial 
economic impacts on fishery participants as a result of increased 
bluefin quota and associated revenue (approximately $2.15 million 
annually) and estimated annual revenue loss to the Purse Seine category 
from leasing of $0.15 million annually. Revenue from leasing rather 
than fishing was used to calculate net value, because Purse Seine 
category participants have not fished since 2015, but have been 
actively leasing quota through 2019.
    When combined with Sub-Alternative F2c (delayed reallocation), F3a 
would result in neutral short-term economic impacts, since there would 
be no immediate change from the status quo. However, once Purse Seine 
category quota is reallocated after two years, there would be gains for 
the categories receiving quota and losses for the Purse Seine category.
    Sub-Alternative F3b places a restriction on the regional use of 
such quota by the Longline category, which catches bluefin in the 
context of the IBQ Program. Specifically, that portion of the 
reallocated Purse Seine category quota that would be allocated to the 
Longline category would be designated as ATL IBQ allocation, and could 
not be used to account for bluefin caught in the Gulf of Mexico. The 
average price per pound for bluefin caught by vessels in the Longline 
category, purchased during 2017-2019 in the Gulf of Mexico ($5.11) was 
slightly higher than Atlantic-caught bluefin ($5.02/lb); however, only 
a total of 14.5 mt out of 365.8 mt (3.9 percent) was landed in the Gulf 
during this time period. The reduction in annual revenue if all bluefin 
were landed in the Atlantic at the lower price is approximately $274 
per year for the Longline category.
    When combined with Sub-Alternative F2b (immediate reallocation of 
Purse Seine category quota), the socioeconomic impacts for Alternative 
F3b would be moderately beneficial for participants, with some indirect 
benefits to dealers and fishery related businesses, except for pelagic 
longline vessels that fish in the Gulf of Mexico. The calculated 
economic impacts are the same as described for Sub-Alternative F3a: 
Beneficial economic impacts of approximately 2.15 million annually and 
an estimated $0.15 million annual revenue loss from foregone Purse 
Seine category leasing.
    Preferred Alternative F4 would redistribute Purse Seine category 
quota only to the directed categories. Economic impacts for Alternative 
F4 would be moderate and beneficial, and include estimated increases in 
revenue for the commercial quota categories that would receive the 
redistributed quota after the Purse Seine category was terminated. 
Annual revenue increases would be $2,011,770 for the General category, 
$147,046 for the Harpoon category, and $109,894 for the Reserve 
category, for a total revenue increase of $2,268,710. Economic impacts 
vary depending on whether reallocation of the Purse Seine category 
quota occurs immediately or is delayed.
    Immediate reallocation of Purse Seine category quota (Preferred 
Alternative F2b) would result in moderately beneficial impacts for 
directed category participants receiving quota. The estimated annual 
increase in revenue for these categories totals $2.26 million. Net 
impacts are also beneficial, because the estimated annual revenue loss 
for the Purse Seine category from loss of leasing is $0.15 million 
annually, which equals a net increase in revenue of approximately $2.11 
million annually.
    Delayed reallocation of Purse Seine category quota (Sub-Alternative 
F2c1 or F2c2) after a 2-year sunset period, would likely have a neutral 
short-term impact and a moderately beneficial long-term impact. There 
would be economic gains for the categories receiving quota when the 
sunset of the Purse Seine category occurs after two years, and losses 
for the Purse Seine category at that time. These annual gains would be 
approximately $2.26 million. The estimated annual revenue loss to the 
Purse Seine category from leasing would be $0.15 million annually.

Modifications to General Category Subquota Periods and/or Allocations

    Alternative G1, the preferred No Action Alternative, would not make 
any modifications to the General category {XE ``General 
category''{time}  subquota periods and/or allocations. If no action is 
taken to modify the General category subquota allocations, economic 
impacts would be neutral. The status quo subquotas assigned to the time 
periods generally reflect the historical catch patterns from the 1980s 
and 1990s as well as formalization of the winter fishery. Recent annual 
bluefin landings under the General category quota have approached or 
exceeded the base and adjusted General category quotas (i.e., they were 
149 and 101 percent of base and adjusted quotas, respectively, for 
2017; 168 and 96 percent of base and adjusted quotas for 2018; and 147 
and 104 percent base and adjusted quotas for 2019).
    Although ex-vessel prices have been variable over the last several 
years, high landings relative to quota have led to a modest total 
increase in ex-vessel gross revenues in 2016 through 2019. Revenues for 
the General category were $9.7 million in 2016 and 2018, at the highest 
level since 2002. Although the preferred alternative (G1) would result 
in slightly less annual gross revenues, (0.2 to 3.6 percent less than 
for the other alternatives), the potential for the other General 
category subquota allocation alternatives to realize increased revenue 
is strongly subject to availability of fish and fishing conditions 
during these time periods. Further, the potential gross revenue 
estimates for Alternatives G2a, G3a, and G3b are based on price 
assumptions and market dynamics that are uncertain.
    Sub-Alternative G2a would modify the General category {``XE General 
category''{time}  time periods associated with the subquotas from their 
current structure to 12 equal monthly subquota periods. To calculate 
potential changes in revenues, the amount of potential landings and the 
value of those landings associated with the current subquota

[[Page 27703]]

time period were estimated, assuming full harvest, and compared to 
estimated revenue under revised subquota periods of 12 equal months. 
NMFS used average 2017-2019 price data, by subquota time period, to 
calculate potential gross revenues. For early season (January through 
March) General category participants, an additional 109.4 mt would be 
available if the subquotas were distributed based on 12 monthly equal 
subquota periods. At $6.93 per pound as an estimate for the ex-vessel 
prices, this represents a potential revenue increase of approximately 
$1.6 million overall during the period from January through April, 
nearly five times the current amount. Potential revenues for the 
current June-August and September periods (based on 12 equal subquota 
periods) would decrease by approximately $1.9 million (50 percent) and 
$1.5 million (69 percent), respectively, given recent average price 
($6.41 and $6.66, respectively). For the months of October, November 
and December, potential revenues would increase by approximately 
$309,000 (28 percent) and $404,000 (60 percent) at $6.89 per pound and 
$10.54 per pound, respectively. Relative to the No Action Alternative 
(G1), there would generally be substantially increased revenues for 
January through March and October through December and substantially 
decreased revenues for June through September, and total annual 
revenues would increase by approximately $303,000 (3.6 percent). Thus, 
impacts are expected to be moderate, and may be beneficial or adverse, 
depending on quota and fish availability in the various time periods. 
Of the status quo alternative (G1) and those that modify the time 
period subquotas (G2a, G3a, and G3b), this alternative (G2a) would 
result in the highest potential annual gross revenues, but the amount 
is less than 4 percent greater than for the Preferred Alternative G1. 
It is important to note that the potential changes in revenues in these 
General category subquota allocation alternatives is strongly subject 
to availability of fish and fishing conditions during these time 
periods. Further, the potential gross revenue estimates are based on 
price assumptions and market dynamics that are uncertain.
    Sub-Alternative G2b, which would modify General category{XE 
``General category''{time}  time periods to extend the January through 
March subquota time period through April 30, would increase the 
likelihood that winter General category participants and Charter/
Headboat participants, when fishing commercially, would be able to 
harvest the full January subquota, particularly if NMFS increases the 
January-March subquota via an inseason transfer. Thus, impacts would be 
minor, and may be neutral or beneficial, depending upon when fishery 
participants fish. For General category participants fishing in the 
January through March period, the effects would be beneficial. The 
likelihood of these economic benefits being realized may not be high. 
For those fishing later in the year, the impacts are likely to be 
neutral. To the extent that less unused quota might roll forward to 
later periods, impacts for General category participants fishing in the 
later time periods could be slightly adverse, however the January 
subquota period has been catching most of its quota under the current, 
shorter time frame. A potential increase in the geographic and temporal 
distribution of landings may help to more closely approach optimum 
yield. Increases in positive economic impacts would depend on the 
availability of bluefin to the fishery from the beginning of April 
until the available subquota (base or adjusted, as applicable) is 
reached. Price/pound is also influenced by the amount of bluefin on the 
market. NMFS estimates the value of an unused mt of January-March 
subquota, using the January-March 2019 average price per pound of 
$6.93, at $15,277. The value of the 2019 January-March base subquota is 
estimated at $2,122,478 assuming full harvest.
    Sub-Alternative G3a modifies the General category{XE ``General 
category''{time}  allocation percentage to increase the January through 
March amount. In 2015 and 2016, June through August subperiod landings 
were less than the base quota. For the last three years, June through 
August subperiod landings have exceeded the available base quota, the 
subquota period has closed, and NMFS has not transferred additional 
quota to the General category for use in that subperiod. If quota that 
is anticipated to be unused in the first part of the summer season is 
made available to January through March period General category 
participants and bluefin are landed against the January through March 
subquota, it would potentially result in improved and fuller use of the 
General category quota. Also, because bluefin price per pound 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. It is possible, however, that an 
increase of bluefin on the market in the January through March 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 through 
March period would return to the June through August period and onward 
if not used completely during that period. Overall, impacts would be 
expected to be neutral or minor and beneficial for January through 
March fishery participants and neutral or minor and adverse impacts for 
participants in the June through December time periods.
    Sub-Alternative G3b would modify General category{XE ``General 
category''{time}  allocation percentages and increases the September 
and the October through November amounts and decreases the June through 
August amount. To the extent that quota that is anticipated to be 
unused in the first part of the summer season is made available to 
General category participants for the September and October through 
November periods and bluefin are landed against those subquotas, it 
would potentially result in improved and fuller use of the General 
category quota. In the last three years, however, the June through 
August base subquota has been exceeded, and the fishery for that time 
period was closed in 2017 and 2019 prior to August 31. Also, because 
bluefin price per pound is often higher in the September and October 
through November periods than during the June through August period, 
shifting quota to these later periods would result in beneficial 
impacts to fall General category participants. It is possible, however, 
that an increase of bluefin on the market in the fall periods could 
reduce the average price for that time of year. Participants in the 
summer fishery who may only have access to bluefin at that time may 
perceive such quota transfer to be adverse. However, summer and fall 
participants are largely the same. Additionally, any unused quota from 
the June through August subperiod rolls forward to subsequent periods. 
Overall, impacts would be expected to be neutral or minor and 
beneficial for September through November fishery participants and 
neutral or minor and adverse for participants in the June through 
August time periods. However, there is a risk in shifting quota 
allocation to later periods in the fishing year that the full General 
category quota may not be reached,

[[Page 27704]]

depending on fishing conditions and bluefin availability on the fishing 
grounds.
    Sub-Alternative G3c would modify the General category{XE ``General 
category''{time}  allocation percentages such that any increases of 
General category{XE ``General category''{time}  quota resulting from 
reallocation of Purse Seine Category quota under Alternatives F5 and 
F6, would be applied to the September and the October through November 
subquota periods.{XE ``Purse Seine''{time}  Under Sub-Alternative G3c, 
impacts would be neutral or moderate, and beneficial. An additional 
110.4 mt (based on reallocation of 75 percent of the current Purse 
Seine category{XE ``Purse Seine category''{time}  quota) or 147.3 mt 
(based on reallocation of 100 percent of the current Purse Seine 
category quota) of quota for the General category September period 
could result in additional potential annual gross revenues of over $1.6 
million (110.4 mt x $6.66 per pound) or $2.2 million (147.3 mt x $6.66 
per pound), respectively. An additional 54.2 mt (based on reallocation 
of 75 percent of the current Purse Seine category quota) or 72.2 mt 
(based on reallocation of 100 percent of the current Purse Seine 
category quota) of quota for the General category October-November 
period could result in additional potential annual gross revenues of 
over $823,000 (54.2 mt x $6.89 per pound) or $1.1 million (72.2 mt x 
$6.89 per pound), respectively.

Modifications to the Angling Category Trophy Fishery

    Alternative H1, the No Action Alternative, is expected to be 
neutral or minor and adverse, to vary by geographic area, and to be 
dependent on availability of trophy-sized bluefin on the fishing 
grounds. For charter vessels, which sell fishing trips to recreational 
fishermen, economic impacts are expected to be neutral to beneficial 
for those in the northern mid-Atlantic states and neutral to adverse 
for those north of that area, including New England states, as the 
opportunity to land a trophy bluefin may be diminished.
    Preferred Alternative H2 would modify the current Angling 
category{XE ``Angling category''{time}  Trophy North subquota areas and 
allocations specified at Sec.  635.27(a)(1), by dividing the northern 
area into two zones: North and south of 42[deg] N lat. (off Chatham, 
MA); these newly-formed areas would be named the Gulf of Maine trophy 
area and the Southern New England trophy area, respectively. The net 
result would be that the Trophy quota would be divided among four 
geographic areas (in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) and each area 
would receive the same amount of quota (i.e., the Angling category 
trophy quota would be divided equally four ways). To create the new 
trophy suballocation for the Gulf of Maine trophy area, NMFS would 
increase the allocation for trophy bluefin. Specifically, under the 
current Angling category quota, the trophy quota would increase from 
5.4 mt to 7.2 mt, and each area would be allocated 1.8 mt. This would 
allow annually up to 11 trophy bluefin to be landed in the new zone 
north of 42[deg] N lat. (the Gulf of Maine trophy area), using an 
average weight of approximately 360 lb. There would need to be an 
equivalent reduction of the subquota for large school/small medium 
bluefin subquota (47 inches to less than 73 inches) (within the Angling 
category quota). At an average 2018 weight of approximately 132 lb for 
large school/small medium bluefin, this represents a reduction of 
approximately 30 fish from the large school/small medium size class 
annually. NMFS would not expect fishing behavior to change as a result 
of this alternative, because there is already targeted recreational 
effort in that area for bluefin measuring less than 73 inches. There 
would be minor, beneficial social impacts (and economic impacts for 
charter vessels) to a small number of vessels in the new area north of 
42[deg] N lat. (the Gulf of Maine trophy area) resulting from the small 
amount of fish that would be allowed to be landed. There would be 
neutral to minor, adverse social impacts (and economic impacts for 
charter vessels) for those fishing for large school/small medium 
bluefin due to the slight reduction in allocation for those size 
classes. Overall, NMFS anticipates minor, beneficial economic impacts 
from Alternative H2.

Modifications to Other Handgear Fishery Regulations

    Preferred Sub-Alternative I1a would maintain the current authorized 
gears applicable to the Atlantic tunas permit categories. This 
alternative would have neutral economic impacts on permitted HMS 
Charter/Headboat vessels, which could continue to fish under the 
Atlantic Tunas General and Angling category regulations using existing 
authorized gear, and neutral impacts on Atlantic Tunas General category 
permitted vessels. Total Atlantic Tunas General category revenues, 
which included sale of commercial-sized bluefin by HMS Charter/Headboat 
category permitted vessels, for the 2019 fishing year were 
approximately $8.3 million. General category fishing year bluefin base 
quotas have been reached annually for the last five years.
    Sub-Alternative I1b would add harpoon gear as an authorized gear 
for the HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels. The addition 
of this gear would only apply to vessels with the ability to carry six 
or fewer passengers for hire. Harpoon gear could be used on commercial 
trips by Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels with the 
commercial sale endorsement. This alternative would have minor, 
beneficial economic impacts, specifically for those vessels that have 
success in harpooning bluefin that may be available at the water's 
surface. Landings data and information from fishermen indicate that 
there are times when the feeding behavior of commercial sized bluefin 
makes hooking a fish difficult. To the extent that a fisherman could 
harpoon bluefin when the fish are present at the surface, Alternative 
I1b could increase the potential of filling the General category 
bluefin daily retention limit and of gaining more ex-vessel revenue per 
trip. NMFS anticipates that the number of bluefin that would be caught 
with harpoon gear by HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted vessels is 
very low. Alternative I1b may have slightly negative economic impacts 
for existing HMS Charter/Headboat operators due to the potential for 
Atlantic Tunas General or Harpoon category permit holders to change to 
the HMS Charter/Headboat category, potentially increasing HMS Charter/
Headboat completion for clients. This alternative would provide 
consistency in the regulations regarding authorized handgear used 
historically for commercial harvest of bluefin, and would increase 
opportunities for commercial handgear fishermen to attain the bluefin 
Atlantic Tunas General category quota.
    Sub-Alternative I1c would eliminate harpoon as gear authorized for 
use by General category permitted vessels. This alternative would 
result in minor, adverse impacts because it would reduce opportunity 
for vessels with General category permits that fish with harpoon gear 
and reduce flexibility and efficiency in harvesting the General 
category quota. Although NMFS has received comments from General 
category (quota) participants that harpoon activity fills the available 
General category quota more quickly, thus reducing opportunities for 
rod and reel fishermen, an examination of 2019 General category 
landings data show that 125 fish (less than five percent of the 2,612 
fish landed by General category vessels) were reported as harpooned. At 
an average June through

[[Page 27705]]

August ex-vessel General category price per lb of $5.12 and a 366-lb 
average General category fish weight for rod-and-reel caught bluefin, 
this amount of fish could be estimated to represent a potential 
increase of $234,240 to General category participants using rod-and-
reel gear (i.e., including HMS Charter/Headboat category permitted 
vessels with a commercial sale endorsement landing bluefin 
commercially) if harpoon use was prohibited. For General category quota 
participants using harpoon gear, with an average June through August 
ex-vessel price per lb of $5.84 and a 280-lb average fish weight, the 
inability to land this amount of fish could represent a loss of 
$164,979.
    Sub-Alternative I2a would maintain the current Harpoon category 
retention limit regulations: An unlimited number of giant bluefin per 
day (measuring 81'' curved fork length or greater), and two large 
medium bluefin per vessel per day unless the large medium bluefin 
retention limit is increased by NMFS through an inseason adjustment to 
a maximum of four per vessel per day. The economic impact of the No 
Action Alternative is expected to be neutral to slightly adverse, 
because participants would continue to be limited to the default of two 
large medium bluefin (and maximum of four if NMFS were to make an 
inseason adjustment) if caught while targeting giant bluefin.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative I2b would set an overall Harpoon category 
daily retention limit of 10 commercial-sized bluefin per day or trip 
(i.e., the combined limit of large medium (73''-<81'') and giant (81'' 
or greater) would be 10 fish), and would maintain the current 
regulations regarding retention of large medium bluefin (73''-<81'') 
(i.e., the range of two (default) to four fish, adjustable through 
inseason action). This alternative would have neutral or minor, adverse 
impacts as a result of a few trips being constrained by a ten-fish 
limit (adverse), but also a potentially longer Harpoon category season 
(beneficial). On a per-trip basis, impacts would depend on several 
factors including bluefin fishing conditions and fish availability, the 
large medium retention limit (default of two but up to four through 
inseason action), and ex-vessel price, which is subject to numerous 
factors including fish handling and quality and market saturation. 
There could be minor, adverse impacts as a result of foregone revenue. 
For example, using 2019 successful trip data, if the daily limit were 
set at 10 bluefin, the revenue loss for the fishery as a whole could be 
that associated with up to 10 bluefin for the season. The revenue loss 
is small, because only a few trips would be constrained by a ten-fish 
limit. At an average 2019 weight of 306 lb and an average price of 
$5.37/lb for the Harpoon category, a loss of one to 10 fish would be 
approximately $1,640 to $16,402 for the Harpoon category as a whole for 
the year. Using average of 2017-2019 price data (an average of $6.28 
for the Harpoon category), the range of potential revenue loss would be 
$1,922 to $19,220 for the year.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative I2c would set an overall daily limit of 
10 commercial-sized bluefin per day or trip (i.e., the combination of 
large medium (73''-<81'') and giant (81'' or greater) would be 10 
fish). Secondly, this alternative would allow NMFS to set the daily 
retention limit of large medium bluefin (73''-<81'') over a range of 
zero to five fish (adjustable through inseason action) instead of the 
current range of between two and four large medium fish per day or 
trip. NMFS would maintain the default large medium bluefin limit at two 
fish. Because a higher limit of large mediums would result in less 
potential for landing giants per day or trip, ex-vessel revenues could 
be decreased relative to Sub-Alternative I2b due to less overall weight 
of fish sold (all other things equal, such as shape, meat quality, 
etc.). Overall, the impacts are expected to be neutral, because the 
likelihood of such a change in revenue is low, due to the low 
likelihood of a trip scenario where the retention of five large medium 
fish would limit the ability for the vessel to retain giant bluefin.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative I3a would maintain the June 1 start date 
and November 15 closure date for the Harpoon category season. This 
alternative may have both minor and beneficial, and adverse social and 
economic impacts, but overall the impacts would be minor and 
beneficial. The beneficial impacts could be attributed to the Harpoon 
category season remaining consistent with prior years. A June 1 start 
date for the Harpoon category means that the Harpoon and General 
Category seasons start at the same time. The Harpoon and General 
category seasons starting together would facilitate enforcement and 
business planning, and provide greater certainty to participants 
regarding opportunities, participation/effort, and potential impact on 
market prices. Participants would continue to have the potential to 
harvest the same percentage of the quota and earn the equivalent share 
of total ex-vessel revenues. The adverse impacts may result from lost 
opportunities. To the extent that bluefin may be available to harpoon 
gear prior to June 1, opportunities to harpoon fish may be lost, both 
from the harvest of the fish and the potential for better ex-vessel 
prices when there may be fewer fish on the market, particularly from 
the General category, which would not begin until June 1. To the extent 
that opportunities could extend deeper into the summer, more Harpoon 
category participants could benefit. It is possible that the No Action 
Alternative would have some adverse socioeconomic impacts on fishermen, 
dealers, and the support industries located in New England, where 
harpoon use has historically occurred, primarily on the fishing grounds 
off Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
    Sub-Alternative I3b would lengthen the season for the Harpoon 
category by implementing a May 1 start date for the fishery instead of 
the current start date of June 1. The November 15 closure date would 
remain the same. The overall impacts would be both minor and adverse, 
and beneficial. The relative magnitudes of the adverse and beneficial 
impacts are unknown. Starting the Harpoon category season in advance of 
the General category season (which would remain at June 1) could result 
in adverse impacts from increased uncertainty for enforcement, business 
planning, fishing opportunities, participation/effort, and potential 
impact on market prices. However, this alternative would increase the 
likelihood of Harpoon category participants being able to harvest the 
full Harpoon category quota and thus would be minor and beneficial. A 
potential increase in the geographic and temporal distribution of 
landings may help to more closely approach optimum yield. Increases in 
positive economic impacts would depend on the availability of bluefin 
to the fishery from the beginning of May until the Harpoon category 
quota (base or adjusted, as applicable) is reached. Recently, the price 
for Harpoon category bluefin has been higher in June than later in the 
season, so an earlier start date could be beneficial, although price 
per pound is also influenced by the amount of bluefin on the market. 
The value of an unused metric ton of Harpoon category landings is 
estimated at $11,838 using the 2019 average ex-vessel price of $5.37/
lb, and $13,845 using the average 2017-2019 price ($6.28).
    Sub-Alternative I4a would maintain the current provision that 
allows permit holders to change their Atlantic tunas or HMS permit 
category once within 45 days of the issuance of their permit, as long 
as they have not landed a bluefin.

[[Page 27706]]

The number of permit holders who might be impacted by this alternative 
is small, and any impacts would only be for one fishing season. 
However, for a subset of these permit holders, the impact can be very 
adverse, if an incorrect permit is obtained that prohibits a commercial 
fisherman from selling fish or a charter/headboat fisherman from taking 
paying passengers (e.g., Angling category permit). In these instances, 
the impact is adverse, but minimal on a fishery-wide basis.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative I4b would extend the ability to change 
permit categories from 45 days to the full fishing year as long as the 
vessel has not landed a bluefin. For the same reasons described under 
Sub-Alternative I4a, any impacts of this sub-alternative would be 
minimal on a fishery-wide basis, but would promote increased 
flexibility and could be beneficial for a small subset of permit 
holders.
    Sub-Alternative I5a would make no changes to the current 
regulations that preclude vessels authorized to fish with pelagic 
longline gear from retaining bluefin caught with green-stick gear. An 
analysis of self-reported logbook data from sets made with green-stick 
gear suggest that a small number of vessels use this gear, although the 
number of unique pelagic longline vessels that use green-stick gear has 
increased with time. There were no sets reported in 2015 that were 
attributed to the use of this gear type. The economic impacts of the No 
Action Alternatives would be minor and adverse for a small number of 
vessels. Based on logbook data, in 2016 only as single pelagic longline 
vessels fished with green-stick gear.
    Sub-Alternative I5b would clarify retention and reporting 
requirements for bluefin caught with green-stick gear by vessels with 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits, to allow the retention of one 
bluefin per trip (73'' or greater), provided that pelagic longline gear 
is not onboard, and that vessels comply with additional regulations 
applicable to such trips (i.e., VMS set reports, HMS logbook 
requirements, and IBQ program requirements). This alternative is 
anticipated to have minor and adverse economic impacts to fishermen, 
who may want the flexibility to adapt fishing strategies to the 
conditions on a particular trip. However, as noted above, there appears 
to be only a very small number of fishermen wishing to use both green-
stick and pelagic longline gear, and there is little information 
regarding the costs and benefits of having different types of gear 
onboard. Relevant factors for selecting one gear type may include 
target species, market factors, available deck space, cost of the gear, 
and trip length. Green-stick gear selection by fishermen targeting 
yellowfin could maximize economic returns and efficiency, or reflect 
adherence to specific requirements if fishing under the Deepwater 
Horizon OFRP in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative I5c clarifies retention and reporting 
requirements for bluefin caught with green-stick gear (by vessels with 
Longline category permits), to allow the retention of one bluefin per 
trip (of 73'' or greater CFL) and with additional regulations (i.e., 
VMS set reports, HMS logbook requirements, IBQ program requirements) 
applying to such trips. This alternative would allow both green-stick 
and pelagic longline gear on the same vessel at the same time. In 
comparison to the No Action Alternative, this alternative would have 
minor, beneficial economic impacts because a vessel would be able to 
retain a legal-sized bluefin that may otherwise be discarded dead due 
to a de facto prohibition on bluefin retention. Retention of such fish 
would reduce waste, augment revenue, and reduce the frustration 
associated with regulatory discarding. Allowing the use of green-stick 
gear while pelagic longline gear is onboard is intended to provide 
vessel operators flexibility to employ fishing strategies with multiple 
gear types to optimize their business in a highly dynamic fishery. 
Green-stick gear selection by fishermen targeting yellowfin could 
maximize economic returns and efficiency, or reflect participation in 
the Deepwater Horizon OFRP in the Gulf of Mexico and the associated 
gear requirement that prohibit use of pelagic longline gear during the 
period of participation. As noted above, there appears to be only a 
very small number of fishermen wishing to use both green-stick and 
pelagic longline gear, and there is little information regarding the 
costs and benefits of having different types of gear onboard.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) 
(PRA). An agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of 
information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement, 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    This rule would change the existing requirements for collection-of-
information under OMB Control Number 0648-0372 by modifying the VMS 
reporting requirement for vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline 
permit that are fishing with green-stick gear. Such vessels would be 
required to submit a VMS set report for each green-stick retrieval that 
interacts with bluefin and report information on the location and the 
numbers, length range, and disposition of bluefin within 12 hours 
(caught using green-stick gear, in addition to the VMS reports for 
pelagic longline sets). This requirement would increase the number of 
responses by only 18 per year, because of the low number of vessels 
expected to use green-stick gear (up to 3 vessels), and the low rate of 
bluefin incidental catch. This requirement would not change the total 
number of respondents and would have a de minimus impact on total 
costs. Public reporting burden for bluefin catch and effort is 
estimated to average 5 minutes per individual response, including the 
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Secondly, this proposed rule would remove collection of information 
approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0372 and associated with the 
requirements for vessels fishing with purse seine gear to report 
bluefin information through VMS, because this rule would eliminate the 
provisions that allow fishing with purse seine gear. The removal of 
this requirement would reduce the total burden by six hours and reduce 
the estimated burden cost by two thousand dollars.
    This rule would revise the existing requirements for collection-of-
information approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0040 by removing two 
aspects of the dealer reporting requirements for the IBQ Program. 
First, this rule would eliminate the current requirement that vessel 
operators or owners confirm that the landing report information entered 
into the IBQ system by the dealer is accurate, by entering the PIN 
associated with the vessel account. Secondly, this rule would remove 
the requirement that any pelagic longline vessel owner or operator who 
discarded dead bluefin is required to also enter dead discard 
information from the trip by coordinating with the dealer and entering 
that trip's dead discard information into the online IBQ system via the 
dealer account. The vessel operator will continue to be required to 
report dead discard information via VMS while at sea. NMFS estimates 
that the number of small entities that would

[[Page 27707]]

be subject to these requirements would include participants in the 
Longline category. As of March 2020, a total of 280 Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category limited access permits have been issued. It is likely 
that the number of vessels that would actually be affected by these 
requirements would not be larger than 60 vessels. Since 2017, no more 
than 58 different pelagic longline vessels have landed bluefin tuna.
    This rule would implement new collection-of-information 
requirements for Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders that land 
bluefin. Annually, NMFS would estimate its incremental costs associated 
with the IBQ Program (including costs associated with the cost recovery 
program) and the total ex-vessel value of bluefin harvested under the 
Program, and notify the public whether a cost recovery fee will be 
charged for the year. If NMFS determines an annual cost recovery fee is 
warranted, NMFS would send bills to permit holders that sold bluefin to 
dealers. Permit holders would be billed based on the ex-vessel value of 
the bluefin sold by that vessel, and would pay the cost recovery fee 
through the Catch Shares On-line Program website and the associated 
pay.gov link. NMFS estimates that the number of small entities that 
could be subject to new cost recovery requirements would include all 
Atlantic tuna longline permit holders than landed bluefin, which is not 
likely to exceed 60 vessels, based on 2017 through 2019 IBQ Program 
data. Public reporting burden for cost recovery is estimated to average 
15 minutes per individual response, including the time for logging onto 
the relevant online website, reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing the collection of information. The total burden is 
estimated to be 15 hours.
    NMFS seeks public comment on: Whether these proposed collection-of-
information requirements are necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of NMFS, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and ways to minimize the burden of the information, including through 
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. Comments on these or any other aspects of the 
collection-of-information may be submitted with comments to this rule 
(see ADDRESSES section above) or via www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 600

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign 
relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Statistics.

50 CFR Part 635

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

    Dated: May 10, 2021.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 635 
are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 600--MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Sec.  600.725  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  600.725,amend the table in paragraph (v), under heading 
``IX. Secretary of Commerce,'' by removing the entry for ``Tuna purse 
seine fishery''.

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. Add in alphabetical order the definition of ``BFT'';
0
b. Revise the definition for ``CFL'';
0
c. Add in alphabetical order, the definitions of ``Electronic 
Monitoring (EM) system'', and ``IBQ'';
0
d. Revise the definition of ``Northeast Distant gear restricted area'';
0
e. Add in alphabetical order the definition of ``Vessel Monitoring Plan 
(VMP)''.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    BFT means Atlantic bluefin tuna as defined in Sec.  600.10 of this 
part.
* * * * *
    CFL (curved fork length) means the length of a fish measured from 
the tip of the upper jaw to the fork of the tail along the contour of 
the body in a line that runs along the top of the pectoral fin and the 
top of the caudal keel (i.e., in dorsal direction above caudal keel).
* * * * *
    Electronic monitoring (EM) system means a system of video cameras 
and recording and other related equipment installed on a vessel.
* * * * *
    IBQ (Individual Bluefin Quota) refers to limited access privileges 
under the IBQ Program (Sec.  635.15), implemented for the management of 
Atlantic bluefin tuna incidentally caught by Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category LAP holders.
* * * * *
    Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED) means the Atlantic 
Ocean area bounded by straight lines connecting the following 
coordinates in the order stated: 35[deg]00' N lat., 60[deg]00' W long.; 
55[deg]00' N lat., 60[deg]00' W long.; 55[deg]00' N lat., 20[deg]00' W 
long.; 35[deg]00' N lat., 20[deg]00' W long.; 35[deg]00' N lat., 
60[deg]00' W long.
* * * * *
    Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP) means an on-board, EM system reference 
document required by Sec.  635.9(e)(1).
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  635.4:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (d)(1) and (2);
0
b. remove paragraph (d)(5); and
0
c. Revise paragraph (j)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) The owner of each vessel used to fish for or take Atlantic 
tunas commercially or on which Atlantic tunas are retained or possessed 
with the intention of sale must obtain an HMS Charter/Headboat category 
permit with a commercial sale endorsement issued under paragraph (b) of 
this section, an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit issued 
under paragraph (o) of this section, or an Atlantic tunas permit in 
one, and only one, of the following categories: General, Harpoon, 
Longline, or Trap.
    (2) Persons aboard a vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas, HMS 
Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat, or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small 
Boat permit may fish for, take, retain, or possess Atlantic tunas, but 
only in compliance with the quotas, catch

[[Page 27708]]

limits, size classes, and gear applicable to the permit or permit 
category of the vessel from which he or she is fishing. Persons may 
sell Atlantic tunas only if the harvesting vessel has a valid permit in 
the General, Harpoon, Longline, or Trap category of the Atlantic Tunas 
permit, a valid HMS Charter/Headboat category permit with a commercial 
sale endorsement, or an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit.
* * * * *
    (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 at any time during 
the fishing year, provided the vessel has not landed BFT during that 
fishing year as verified by NMFS via landings data.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  635.5, revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (6), and (b)(2)(i)(A) 
to 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, as instructed 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 accounted 
against the quota category according to the permit category of the 
vessel from which it was landed.
* * * * *
    (6) Atlantic Tunas Longline category permitted vessels. The owner 
or operator of a vessel issued, or that should have been issued, an 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit is subject to the VMS reporting 
requirements under Sec.  635.69(e)(4) and the applicable Individual 
Bluefin Quota Program and/or leasing requirements under Sec.  
635.15(a).
    (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 BFT received from a U.S. fishing vessel. Such reports must be 
submitted as instructed by NMFS not later than 24 hours after receipt 
of the BFT. Landing reports must include the name and permit number of 
the vessel that landed the BFT and other information regarding the 
catch as instructed by NMFS. When purchasing BFT from eligible IBQ 
Program participants, permitted Atlantic Tunas dealers must enter 
landing reports into the Catch Shares Online System established under 
Sec.  635.15, not later than 24 hours after receipt of the BFT. The 
dealer must inspect the vessel's permit to verify that it is a 
commercial category, that the required vessel name and permit number as 
listed on the permit are correctly recorded in the landing report, and 
that the vessel permit has not expired.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  635.9:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a), (b)(2) introductory text, (c)(1)(ii), (c)(6);
0
b. Add paragraph (c)(7); and
0
c. Revise paragraph (e).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.9  Electronic Monitoring.

* * * * *
    (a) Applicability. An owner and/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, are required to have installed and maintain at all times during 
fishing trips, a fully operational EM system on the vessel, as 
specified in this section. Vessel owners and/or operators can contact 
NMFS or a NMFS-approved contractor for more details on procuring an EM 
system.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Vessel owners and/or operators, as instructed by NMFS, may be 
required to coordinate with NMFS or a NMFS approved contractor to 
schedule a date or range of dates, and/or may be required to steam to a 
designated port for EM work on specific NMFS-determined dates. Such EM 
work may include, but is not limited to EM system installation, repair, 
or modifications; modifications to vessel equipment to facilitate 
installation or operation of EM systems, such as installation of a 
fitting for the pressure-side of the line of the drum hydraulic system; 
installation, repair or modification to a power supply or power 
switches/connections for the EM system; installation of additional 
lighting; or installation of mounting structure(s) for the camera(s) to 
provide views of areas and fish consistent with paragraphs (c)(1)(i)-
(ii).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (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 required 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 provide views of 
the area from the rail to the water surface, where the gear and fish 
are hauled out of the water. NMFS or the NMFS-approved contractor will 
determine the number and placement of cameras needed to achieve the 
required view, based on the operation and physical layout of the 
vessel.
* * * * *
    (6) EM software. The EM system must have software that enables the 
system to be tested for functionality and that records the outcome of 
the tests.
    (7) Standardized Reference Grid. The vessel must have a 
standardized grid on deck in view of the haulback station camera(s) in 
such a way that the video recording includes an image of each fish on 
the grid in order to provide a size reference. The standardized grid 
may be on a removable mat that is placed on the deck before the fish 
are brought on board, or be painted directly on the deck. The 
standardized reference grid must have accurate dimensions and grid line 
intervals as instructed and specified by NMFS via electronic methods, 
such as email and/or a letter. The vessel owner and/or operator is 
responsible for ensuring compliance with NMFS instructions and 
specifications and for

[[Page 27709]]

ensuring accurate, straight, clear and complete grid lines with no 
missing, incomplete, blurry or smudged lines.
* * * * *
    (e) Operation. 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.
    (1) Vessel monitoring plan. The vessel owner and/or operator must 
have available onboard a written VMP for its system. At a minimum, VMPs 
must include: 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; periodic checks of the 
monitor during the retrieval of gear to verify proper functioning; and 
reporting procedures. The VMP should minimize to the extent practicable 
any impact of the EM systems on the current operating procedures of the 
vessel, and should help ensure the safety of the crew.
    (2) Handling of fish and duties of care. The vessel owner and/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 
BFT occurs in accordance with relevant regulations and the operational 
procedures outlined in the VMP. The vessel owner or operator must 
ensure that each retained fish is placed on the standardized reference 
grid in view of cameras in accordance with NMFS instructions and the 
operational procedures outlined in the VMP.
    (3) Additional duties of care. The vessel owner and/or operator is 
responsible for ensuring the proper continuous functioning of all 
aspects 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 functioning and cleaned 
routinely; the hydraulic and gear sensors must be operational; the GPS 
signal must be functioning; and EM system components must not be 
tampered with.
    (4) Completion of trip(s). Except when at capacity after one trip 
or otherwise stated by NMFS in writing, EM hard drives may be used to 
record up to two trips. Within 48 hours of completing a second fishing 
trip, or within 48 hours of completing one trip in the case where the 
hard drive does not have sufficient capacity for a second trip, the 
vessel owner and/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 and/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 sender. Prior to 
departing on any trip, the vessel owner and/or operator must ensure an 
EM system hard drive(s) is installed that has the capacity needed to 
enable data collection and video recording for the entire trip. The 
vessel owner and/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.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec.  635.15 to read as follows:


Sec.  635.15  Individual bluefin tuna quotas (IBQs).

    (a) General. This section describes the IBQ Program. As described 
below, under the IBQ program, NMFS will assign eligible Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category LAP holders annual IBQ shares and resulting 
allocations. IBQ allocations are required for vessels with Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category permits to fish with pelagic longline or green-
stick gear. IBQ allocations may be leased by IBQ shareholders and other 
eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP holders using the Catch 
Shares Online System.
    (b) Eligibility--(1) Vessels determined to be active. Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category LAP holders whose valid permit is associated 
with a vessel that is determined by NMFS to be ``active'' at any time 
during the most recent 36 months of available data, is eligible to 
receive an annual IBQ share. The three-year period is a rolling period 
that changes annually. ``Active'' vessels are those vessels that have 
used pelagic longline or greenstick gear and have designated species 
landings (swordfish and yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and skipjack 
tunas), based on data that NFS determines to be the best available data 
(such as dealer and vessel reported data). In determining a permitted 
vessel's annual IBQ share eligibility and calculating the annual IBQ 
share, NMFS will use the data associated with the qualifying vessel's 
history (and not the permit). If the relevant data indicates that a 
particular vessel used pelagic longline or green-stick gear and had 
designated species landings during the relevant three-year period 
period, and the vessel was issued a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category LAP when the landings occurred, the current permit holder is 
qualified to receive an annual IBQ share.
    (2) Vessels determined to be inactive. The current Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category LAP holder is not eligible to receive an annual IBQ 
share for a vessel, unless the data associated with that vessel's 
history supports the determinations under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section. For that vessel, any fishing with pelagic longline gear by the 
current permit holder on a different vessel is irrelevant. Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category LAP holders that are ineligible to receive an 
annual IBQ share need to lease IBQ allocation per paragraph (e) of this 
section, as well as meet all other applicable requirements, before the 
vessel could fish with or possess pelagic longline or green-stick gear 
onboard.
    (3) New Entrants. New entrants to the fishery need to obtain an 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP, as well as other required LAPs, 
as described under Sec.  635.4(l), and would need to lease IBQ 
allocations per paragraph (e) of this section if the Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category LAP acquired did not qualify for an annual IBQ share.
    (c) Annual IBQ Share Determination. During the last quarter of each 
year, NMFS will review the available data for each permitted vessel's 
landings of designated species during the relevant three-year period, 
and assign IBQ shares based on the criteria described in this 
paragraph.
    (1) IBQ Share Calculations. With the exception of permit holders 
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, for each eligible 
vessel, NMFS will calculate IBQ shares using the following multi-step 
process. First, based upon the total weight of each vessel's designated 
species landings during the relevant three-year period, NMFS will 
calculate the relative amount (as a percentage) those landings 
represent compared to the total amount of designated species landings 
by all eligible vessels. Second, NMFS will rank the percentages 
associated with each vessel, and assign each vessel to one of four 
quartiles. Third, NMFS will calculate the IBQ share percentage 
associated with each quartile, based upon the percentage of total 
landings in each quartile and number of vessels in each quartile.

[[Page 27710]]

NMFS will assign each quartile's IBQ share percentage to each eligible 
vessel owner in that quartile, who is now a share recipient, as the 
vessel owner's annual IBQ share percentage, unless adjusted under 
paragraph (c)(3)(ii) or paragraph (e) of this section. This annual IBQ 
share percentage is used to calculate the annual IBQ allocation (see 
paragraph (d) of this section).
    (2) Proxy calculation for Deepwater Horizon Oceanic Fish 
Restoration Project participants. For valid participants in this 
Project, the annual IBQ shares will be calculated as described in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, except that a proxy for designated 
species landings will be added to the participating vessel's history 
during the time of its participation. The proxy will be based upon non-
participant designated species landings during the time that 
participants fished under the Project.
    (3) Regional designations of IBQ shares. All IBQ shares and 
resultant allocations are designated as either ``GOM'' (Gulf of Mexico) 
or ``ATL'' (Atlantic), based upon whether eligible vessels' designated 
species landings during the relevant three-year period came from the 
Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic region. The overall percentage of designated 
species landings for each region, unless modified by the GOM share cap 
described below, will determine each region's total shares and 
resultant allocations. Per Sec.  635.28(a)(1), NMFS will file a closure 
action when a region's IBQ allocations have been caught or are 
projected to be caught. For the purposes of this section, the Gulf of 
Mexico region includes all waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone 
(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 
including fishing taking place in the NED defined at Sec.  635.2. If a 
permitted vessel had fishing history in both the Gulf of Mexico and 
Atlantic, it could receive both GOM and ATL shares. If NMFS determines 
that a permit holder's regional IBQ share would result in a regional 
allocation that is less than the minimum amount required to fish in an 
area (i.e., less than 0.125 mt for the Atlantic or less than 0.25 mt 
for the Gulf of Mexico as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this 
section), NMFS would redesignate the share and allocation to the other 
regional designation.
    (i) GOM share cap. The maximum amount of designated GOM IBQ shares 
among all shareholders is capped at 35 percent of the baseline Longline 
category quota. Based on the criteria and process under Sec.  
635.27(a)(7), NMFS may make an inseason or annual adjustment to reduce 
the cap for all, or the remainder of a calendar year.
    (ii) Adjustment of GOM shares to match the GOM share cap. If NMFS 
determines that the total amount of GOM-designated IBQ shares would be 
greater than the GOM share cap, NMFS will reduce the total amount of 
GOM shares in order to equal the GOM share cap. The reduction in total 
GOM shares will be achieved through equal proportional reductions among 
all GOM shareholders. NMFS will adjust the GOM share percentages 
downward, equally across the four share percentages, to reflect the 
maximum amount of shares that can be issued for the Gulf of Mexico. The 
ATL shares will be increased in an analogous manner, so that the total 
share percentages for the two regions add up to 100 percent. NMFS will 
notify affected shareholders of any reductions in their GOM share or 
increases in ATL share resulting from this adjustment. This adjustment 
is not subject to appeal under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.
    (d) Annual IBQ allocations. An annual IBQ quota allocation is the 
amount of BFT (whole weight) in metric tons (mt) that an eligible IBQ 
share recipient (i.e., a share recipient who has associated their 
permit with a vessel) is allotted to account for incidental landings 
and dead discards of BFT during a specified calendar year. Unless 
otherwise required under paragraph (f)(4) of this section, an Atlantic 
Tunas Longline permitted vessel's annual IBQ allocation for a 
particular year is derived by multiplying its IBQ share percentage 
(calculated under paragraph (c) of this section) by the baseline 
Longline category quota for that year.
    (e) Notification of IBQ shares and allocations, appeals, and 
adjustments. During the last quarter of each year, NMFS will notify 
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders via electronic methods (such as 
an email) and/or letter to inform them of their IBQ share, their IBQ 
allocation, and the regional designations of those shares and 
allocations for the subsequent fishing year. This notification 
represents the initial administrative determination (IAD) for the 
permit holder's IBQ share and allocation. NMFS will also notify permit 
holders of any existing quota debt, and provide instructions for 
appealing the IAD. Eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP 
holders that have not completed the process of permit renewal or permit 
transfer as of December 31 will be issued IBQ allocation for the 
relevant fishing year upon completion of the permit renewal or permit 
transfer, provided the eligible permit is associated with a vessel. IBQ 
shares, allocations, and regional designations may change as a result 
of the following circumstances, in which case NMFS will notify eligible 
IBQ recipients.
    (1) Appeals. Appeals will be governed by the regulations and 
policies of the National Appeals Office at 15 CFR part 906. Per those 
regulations, Atlantic Tunas Longline Permit holders may appeal the IAD 
by submitting a written request for an appeal to the National Appeals 
Office within 45 days after the date the IAD is issued. NMFS will 
provide further instructions on how to submit a request for an appeal 
when it issues the IAD.
    (i) Items Subject to Appeal and Adjustment. A permit holder may 
appeal: Eligibility for quota shares 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; IBQ 
shares; IBQ allocations; regional designations of shares and 
allocations; the vessel's amount of designated species landings; and 
assignment of designated species landings to the vessel owner/permit 
holder. Appeals based on hardship factors would 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. NMFS may utilize bluefin 
quota from the Reserve category for an adjustment needed due to an 
appeal.
    (ii) Supporting Documentation for Appeals. NMFS permit records 
would be the sole basis for determining permit transfers. Documentation 
of legal landings of designated species during the timeframe analyzed 
by NMFS in determining shareholders, would be via official NMFS logbook 
records or weighout slips for landings. 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 of landing. NMFS would count only those designated 
species landings that were landed legally when the owner had a valid 
permit. Appeals based on landings data or permit history would be based 
on NMFS logbook data, weighout slips, verifiable sales slips, receipts 
from registered dealers, state landings records, and permit records.

[[Page 27711]]

No other proof of catch, landings and permit history would be 
considered. Photocopies of the written documents are acceptable; NMFS 
may request the originals at a later date. NMFS would refer any 
submitted materials that are of questionable authenticity to the NMFS 
Office of Law Enforcement for investigation into potential violations 
of Federal law.
    (2) Inseason quota transfers. NMFS may transfer additional quota to 
the Longline category inseason as authorized under Sec.  635.27(a), and 
in accordance with Sec. Sec.  635.27(a)(7) and (8). NMFS may distribute 
the quota that is transferred inseason to the Longline category either 
to all IBQ share recipients or to permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category LAP vessels that are determined by NMFS to have any recent 
fishing activity based on participation in the pelagic longline 
fishery. In making this determination, NMFS will consider factors for 
the subject and previous year such as the number of BFT landings and 
dead discards, the number of IBQ lease transactions, the average amount 
of IBQ leased, the average amount of quota debt, the annual amount of 
IBQ allocation, any previous inseason allocations of IBQ allocation, 
the amount of BFT quota in the Reserve category (at Sec.  
635.27(a)(6)(i)), the percentage of BFT quota harvested by the other 
quota categories, the remaining number of days in the year, the number 
of active vessels fishing not associated with IBQ share, and the number 
of vessels that have incurred quota debt or that have low levels of IBQ 
allocation. NMFS will determine if a vessel has any recent fishing 
activity based upon the best available information for the subject and 
previous year, such as logbook, vessel monitoring system, or electronic 
monitoring data. Any distribution of quota transferred inseason will be 
equal among eligible IBQ share recipients, or active vessels.
    (i) Regional designation of inseason quota distributions for share 
recipients. Regional designations described in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section will be applied to inseason quota distributed to IBQ share 
recipients, and subject to the cap specified in paragraph (c)(3)(i).
    (ii) Regional designation of inseason quota distributions for 
vessels without shares. For permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
LAP vessels with recent fishing activity that are not eligible IBQ 
share recipients, regional designations of ATL or GOM will be applied 
to the distributed quota based on best available information regarding 
geographic location of designated species landings as reported to NMFS 
during the period of fishing activity analyzed above in this paragraph, 
with the designation based on where the majority of that activity 
occurred.
    (f) Using IBQ Shares and Allocations. Unless specified otherwise, 
IBQ shares and resultant allocations will be available for use at the 
start of each fishing year. IBQ shares and allocations expire at the 
end of each calendar year. IBQ shares and allocation issued under this 
section are valid for the relevant fishing year unless revoked, 
suspended, or modified or unless the Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
quota is closed per Sec.  635.28(a).
    (1) Usage of GOM and ATL shares and allocations. GOM shares and 
resultant allocations can be used to satisfy minimum IBQ allocation 
requirements under paragraph (f)(2) of this section, or to account for 
BFT caught with pelagic longline gear in either the Gulf of Mexico or 
the Atlantic regions. ATL shares and resultant allocations can only be 
used to satisfy minimum IBQ allocation requirements under paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section, or to account for BFT caught with pelagic 
longline gear in the Atlantic region. 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 including 
fishing taking place in the NED defined at Sec.  635.2.
    (2) Minimum IBQ allocation. For purposes of this section, calendar 
year quarters start on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1.
    (i) First fishing trip in a calendar year quarter. Before departing 
on the first fishing trip in a calendar year quarter, a vessel with an 
eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit that fishes with or 
has pelagic longline or green-stick gear onboard must have the minimum 
IBQ allocation for either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic, depending on 
fishing location. The minimum GOM 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 ATL or GOM 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 the first fishing trip in a calendar year 
quarter with pelagic longline gear onboard unless the vessel has the 
relevant required minimum IBQ allocation for the region in which the 
fishing activity will occur.
    (ii) Subsequent fishing trips in a calendar year quarter. 
Subsequent to the first fishing trip in a calendar year quarter, a 
vessel owner or operator may declare into or depart on other fishing 
trips with pelagic longline gear onboard with less than the relevant 
minimum IBQ allocation for the region in which the fishing activity 
will occur, but only within that same calendar year quarter.
    (3) Accounting for bluefin tuna that were landed or discarded dead. 
The following requirements apply to Atlantic Tunas Longline permit 
holders fishing with pelagic longline or green-stick gear regarding 
accounting for all BFT landings and dead discards from a vessel's IBQ 
allocation.
    (i) Catch deduction from IBQ allocations. Except as provided under 
paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section, for vessels fishing in the NED, 
all bluefin tuna landings must be deducted from the vessel's IBQ 
allocation at the end of each trip by providing information to, and 
coordinating with the dealer. Dead discards will be deducted from the 
vessel's IBQ allocation by the Catch Shares Online System, provided the 
vessel operator reports dead discards through VMS as required under 
paragraph 635.69(e)(4)(i).
    (ii) When catch exceeds IBQ allocation. If the amount of bluefin 
tuna landed and discarded dead on a particular trip exceeds the amount 
of the vessel's IBQ allocation or results in an IBQ balance less than 
the minimum amount described in paragraph (f)(2) of this section, the 
vessel may continue to fish, complete the trip, and depart on 
subsequent trips within the same calendar year quarter. The vessel must 
resolve any quota debt (see paragraph (f)(4) of this section) before 
declaring into or departing on a fishing trip with pelagic longline 
gear onboard in a subsequent calendar year quarter by acquiring 
adequate IBQ allocation to resolve the debt and acquire the needed 
minimum allocation through leasing, as described in paragraph (g) of 
this section.
    (iii) Dealer requirements; End of year transactions. Federal 
Atlantic Tunas Dealer permit holders must comply with reporting 
requirements at Sec.  635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). 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.
    (4) Exceeding an available allocation. If the amount of BFT landed 
or discarded dead for a particular trip (as defined at Sec.  600.10 of 
this chapter) exceeds the amount of IBQ allocation available to the 
vessel, the permitted

[[Page 27712]]

vessel is considered to have a ``quota debt'' equal to the difference 
between the catch and the allocation.
    (i) Quarter level quota debt. A vessel with quota debt incurred in 
a given calendar year quarter cannot depart on a trip with pelagic 
longline gear onboard in a subsequent calendar year quarter until the 
vessel leases allocation or receives additional allocation (see 
paragraphs (e) and (g) of this section), and applies allocation for the 
appropriate region to settle the quota debt such that the vessel has 
the relevant minimum quota allocation required to fish for the region 
in which the fishing activity will occur (see paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section). For example, a vessel with quota debt incurred during January 
through March may not depart on a trip with pelagic longline gear 
onboard during April through June (or subsequent quarters) until the 
quota debt has been resolved such that the vessel has the relevant 
minimum quota allocation required to fish for the region in which the 
fishing activity will occur.
    (ii) Annual level quota debt. If, by the end of the fishing year, a 
permit holder does not have adequate IBQ allocation to settle its 
vessel's quota debt through leasing or additional allocation (see 
paragraphs (e) and (g) of this section), 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 
depart on any pelagic longline trips if it has outstanding quota debt 
from a previous fishing year.
    (iii) Association with permit. Quota debt is associated with the 
vessel's Atlantic Tunas Longline 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 
associated with one or more vessels owned, the IBQ system will apply 
any remaining unused IBQ allocation associated with that owner's other 
vessels to resolve the quota debt.
    (5) 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.
    (6) The IBQ Program and the NED. The following restrictions apply 
to vessels fishing with pelagic longline gear in the NED:
    (i) When NED BFT quota is available. Permitted vessels fishing with 
pelagic longline or green-stick gear may fish in the NED, and any BFT 
catch will count toward the ICCAT-allocated separate NED quota, and 
will not be subject to the BFT accounting requirements of paragraph 
(f)(3) of this section, until the NED quota has been filled. Permitted 
vessels fishing in the NED must still fish in accordance with all other 
IBQ Program requirements, including the relevant minimum IBQ allocation 
requirements specified under paragraph (f)(2) of this section to depart 
on a trip using pelagic longline or green-stick gear.
    (ii) When NED BFT quota is filled. Permitted vessels fishing with 
pelagic longline or green-stick gear may fish in the NED after the 
ICCAT-allocated separate NED quota has been filled but must abide by 
all IBQ Program requirements. Notably, when the NED BFT quota is 
filled, the BFT accounting requirement of paragraph (f)(3) of this 
section is applicable. BFT catch must be accounted for using the 
vessel's ATL or GOM IBQ allocation, as described under paragraphs 
(f)(1) of this section.
    (g) IBQ Allocation Leasing--(1) Eligibility. The permit holders of 
vessels issued valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAPs are eligible 
to lease IBQ allocation to and/or from each other. A person who holds 
an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP 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 Catch 
Shares Online 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 (g)(2)(iii) 
of this section, the Catch Shares Online 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 reason, including, but not limited to: The 
application is incomplete; the IBQ lessor or IBQ lessee is not eligible 
to lease per paragraph (g)(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 Catch Shares Online 
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 (g)(2) of this 
section.
    (ii) History of leased IBQ allocation use. The fishing history 
associated with the catch of BFT will be associated with the vessel 
that caught the BFT, regardless of how the vessel acquired the IBQ 
allocation (e.g., through initial allocation or lease), for the purpose 
of any relevant restrictions based upon BFT 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 on 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 year. This 
period is necessary to provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ accounts, and 
update IBQ shares and allocations for the upcoming fishing year.
    (h) Sale of IBQ shares. Sale of IBQ shares is not permitted.
    (i) 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 LAP 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 category 
LAP 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 Catch Shares Online System. A person or entity 
that holds an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP that is not 
associated with a vessel may not receive or lease IBQ allocation.
    (j) Evaluation. NMFS will conduct evaluations of the IBQ Program in 
accordance with Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for Limited Access 
Privilege Programs (Section 303(c)(1)(G)).
    (k) Property rights. IBQ shares and resultant allocations issued 
pursuant to this part may be revoked, limited, modified or suspended at 
any time

[[Page 27713]]

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.
    (l) 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, enforcement of the prohibitions in 
Sec.  635.71, and its authority to close the pelagic longline fishery 
specified under Sec.  635.28.
    (m) Cost recovery program. This program of fees is intended to 
cover costs of management, data collection and analysis, and 
enforcement activities directly related to and in support of the IBQ 
Program. This program applies to vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category LAP that harvested bluefin tuna under the IBQ 
program. NMFS will undertake the below process on an annual basis.
    (1) Estimation of recoverable cost. NMFS will calculate the 
estimated incremental cost of the IBQ Program (e.g., oversight, 
customer service, database maintenance, electronic monitoring program, 
data monitoring, preparation of fleet communications, providing status 
reports to the HMS Advisory Panel, preparation of Federal Register 
documents, and enforcement related activities), including an estimate 
of the administrative and operational cost of implementing the cost 
recovery program.
    (2) Estimation of Ex-Vessel Value of Catch Share Species. NMFS will 
calculate the ex-vessel value of BFT harvested under the IBQ Program 
using dealer data on the estimated average ex-vessel value price per 
pound (paid by the dealer to the vessel) and the total dressed weight 
of BFT sold to dealers.
    (3) Determination of Fees. NMFS will compare its incremental cost 
under paragraph (m)(1) of this section to the estimate of BFT ex-vessel 
value under paragraph (m)(2) of this section to determine the total 
amount of fees that may be recovered. Fees shall not exceed 3 percent 
of the BFT ex-vessel value estimated under paragraph (m)(2) of this 
section. NMFS will determine the fee associated with each vessel that 
harvested BFT, based on the total dressed weight of BFT sold to dealers 
by a vessel, and the total amount of fees that may be recovered 
(fishery-wide). NMFS will not assess fees, if the amount of fees that 
may be recovered is similar to or less than the estimated cost of 
implementing the cost recovery program.
    (4) Notification of fees. NMFS will file with the Office of the 
Federal Register for publication notification of its determination on 
fees, and notify Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders, specifying the 
fees amount owed, and instructions for payment through the Catch Shares 
Online System or other Federal payment system. Federally permitted 
vessels (Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders) that sold bluefin that 
do not pay the fee or are delinquent in payment would be subject to 
relevant enforcement penalties, including permit revocation.
    (5) Annual Report. NMFS will prepare a brief annual report, made 
available to the public, which summarizes relevant information 
including the estimation of recoverable costs, estimation of ex-vessel 
value of BFT, and determination of the cost recovery fee.
    (n) IBQ Shares Cap. An individual, partnership, corporation or 
other entity (collectively, ``entity'' for purposes of this paragraph 
(n) that holds an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP may not hold or 
acquire more than 25 percent of the total IBQ shares or associated IBQ 
allocations annually. The cap applies to the sum of IBQ shares or 
associated IBQ allocations an entity holds, regardless of whether the 
entity is associated with a single or multiple Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category permits.
0
9. In Sec.  635.19, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.19  Authorized gears.

* * * * *
    (b) Atlantic tunas. Primary gears are the gears specifically 
authorized in this section for fishing for, retaining, or possessing 
Atlantic BFT and BAYS.
    (1) Atlantic BFT. A person that fishes for, retains, or possesses 
an Atlantic BFT may not have on board a vessel or use on board a vessel 
any primary gear other than those authorized for the specific permit 
category issued (Atlantic tunas or HMS permit categories) listed in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
    (i) Angling category. Rod and reel (including downriggers) and 
handline (for all tunas).
    (ii) Charter/headboat category. Rod and reel (including 
downriggers), bandit gear, handline, and green-stick gear.
    (iii) General category. Rod and reel (including downriggers), 
handline, harpoon, bandit gear, and green-stick.
    (iv) Harpoon category. Harpoon.
    (v) Trap category. Pound net and fish weir.
    (vi) Longline category. Longline and green-stick.
    (2) BAYS. Subject to paragraphs (b)(1) of this section pertaining 
to BFT, a person may use the primary gears authorized for the Atlantic 
tunas or HMS permit categories listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(v) to fish for, retain, or possess BAYS.
    (i) Angling category. Speargun, rod and reel (including 
downriggers), bandit gear, handline, and green-stick gear.
    (ii) Charter/headboat category. 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.
    (iii) General category. Rod and reel (including downriggers), 
handline, harpoon, bandit gear, and green-stick.
    (iv) Harpoon category. Harpoon.
    (v) Longline category. Longline and green-stick.
    (3) A person issued an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit 
may use handline, harpoon, rod and reel, bandit gear, green-stick gear, 
and buoy gear to fish for, retain, or possess BAYS tunas in the U.S. 
Caribbean, as defined at Sec.  622.2.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec.  635.21:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(iv) introductory text, paragraphs 
(c)(5)(iii)(B) and (C); and
0
b. Remove paragraph (e) and redesignate paragraphs (f) through (k) as 
paragraphs (e) through (j).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.21  Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) In the NED at any time, unless persons onboard the vessel 
comply with the following:
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (B) Bait. Vessels fishing outside of the NED, as defined at Sec.  
635.2, that have pelagic longline gear on board, and that have been 
issued or are required to be issued a LAP under this part, are limited, 
at all times, to possessing on board and/or using only whole finfish 
and/or squid bait except that if green-stick gear is also on board, 
artificial bait may be possessed, but may be used only with green-stick 
gear.
    (C) Hook size and type. Vessels fishing outside of the NED, as 
defined at Sec.  635.2, that have pelagic longline gear on board, and 
that have been issued or are required to be issued a LAP under this 
part are limited, at all times, to possessing on board and/or using 
only

[[Page 27714]]

16/0 or larger non-offset circle hooks or 18/0 or larger circle hooks 
with an offset not to exceed 10[deg]. These hooks must meet the 
criteria listed in paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(C)(1) through (3) of this 
section. A limited exception for the possession and use of J hooks when 
green-stick gear is on board is described in paragraph 
(c)(5)(iii)(C)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec.  635.22, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.22   Recreational retention limits.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * (1) The recreational retention limit for sharks applies 
to any person who fishes in any manner on a vessel that has been issued 
or is required to have been issued a permit with a shark endorsement, 
except as noted in paragraph (c)(7) of this section. The retention 
limit can change depending on the species being caught and the size 
limit under which they are being caught as specified under Sec.  
635.20(e). A person on board a vessel that has been issued or is 
required to be issued a permit with a shark endorsement under Sec.  
635.4 is required to use non-offset, corrodible circle hooks as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  635.21(e) and (j) in order to retain sharks per 
the retention limits specified in this section.
* * * * *
0
12. In Sec.  635.23:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(4), (b)(3), (d),
0
b. Remove paragraph (e);
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (f) and (g) as (e) and (f);
0
d. Revise newly redesignated paragraph (e) introductory text; and
0
e. Add paragraph (e)(3).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  635.23  Retention limits for bluefin tuna.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) To provide for maximum utilization of the quota for BFT, NMFS 
may increase or decrease the daily retention limit of large medium and 
giant BFT over a range from zero (on RFDs) to a maximum of five per 
vessel. Such increase or decrease will be based on the criteria 
provided under Sec.  635.27(a)(7). NMFS will adjust the daily retention 
limit specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section by filing an 
adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. 
Previously designated RFDs may be waived effective upon closure of the 
General category fishery so that persons aboard vessels permitted in 
the General category may conduct tag-and-release fishing for BFT under 
Sec.  635.26(a).
    (b) * * *
    (3) Changes to retention limits. To provide for maximum utilization 
of the quota for BFT over the longest period of time, NMFS may increase 
or decrease the retention limit for any size class of BFT, or change a 
vessel trip limit to an angler trip limit and vice versa. Such increase 
or decrease in retention limit will be based on the criteria provided 
under Sec.  635.27(a)(7). The retention limits may be adjusted 
separately for persons aboard a specific vessel type, such as private 
vessels, headboats, or charter boats. NMFS will adjust the daily 
retention limit specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section by filing 
an adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
* * * * *
    (d) Harpoon category. Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 
Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category may retain, possess, or land no more 
than 10 large medium and giant BFT, combined, per vessel per day. Of 
these 10 BFT per vessel per day, no more than two shall be large medium 
BFT, unless the retention limits is increased by NMFS through an 
inseason adjustment to three, or a maximum of four, large medium BFT 
per vessel per day, based upon the criteria under Sec.  635.27(a)(7). 
NMFS will implement an adjustment via publication in the Federal 
Register. If adjusted upwards to three or four large medium BFT 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)(7). Regardless of the length of a trip, no more than a single 
day's retention limit of large medium or giant BFT may be possessed or 
retained aboard a vessel that has an Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category 
permit.
* * * * *
    (e) Longline category. Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category are subject to the BFT retention 
restrictions in paragraphs (e)(1),(2), and (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) A vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline LAP category 
may retain, possess, land, and sell one large medium or giant BFT 
incidentally caught with green-stick gear per trip, if in compliance 
with all the IBQ requirements of Sec.  635.15.
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec.  635.24, revise paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (iii), to read as 
follows:
* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4)(i) Except as provided in Sec.  635.22(c)(7), a person who owns 
or operates a vessel that has been issued a directed shark LAP may 
retain, possess, land, or sell pelagic sharks if the pelagic shark 
fishery is open per Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28. Shortfin mako sharks 
may be retained by persons aboard vessels using pelagic longline, 
bottom longline, or gillnet gear only if the shark is dead at the time 
of haulback and consistent with the provisions of Sec. Sec.  
635.21(c)(1), (d)(5), and (f)(6) and 635.22(c)(7).
* * * * *
    (iii) Consistent with paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, a 
person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an incidental 
shark LAP may retain, possess, land, or sell no more than 16 SCS and 
pelagic sharks, combined, per vessel per trip, if the respective 
fishery is open per Sec. Sec.  635.27 and 635.28. Of those 16 SCS and 
pelagic sharks per vessel per trip, no more than 8 shall be blacknose 
sharks. Shortfin mako sharks may only be retained under the commercial 
retention limits by persons using pelagic longline, bottom longline, or 
gillnet gear, only if the shark is dead at the time of haulback and 
consistent with the provisions at Sec.  635.21(c)(1), (d)(5), and 
(f)(6). If the vessel has also been issued a permit with a shark 
endorsement and retains a shortfin mako shark, recreational retention 
limits apply to all sharks retained and none may be sold, per Sec.  
635.22(c)(7).
* * * * *
0
14. In Sec.  635.27:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1)(i) and (ii), (a)(2) 
introductory text, (a)(2)(i) through (iii), and (a)(3);
0
b. Remove paragraph (a)(4) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(5) through 
(a)(10) as paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(9); and
0
c. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(4) and (5),(a)(6)(i) and 
(ii), (a)(8), (a)(9)(i), (ii), and (v).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.27  Quotas

    (a) BFT. Consistent with ICCAT recommendations, and with paragraph 
(a)(9)(iv) of this section, NMFS may subtract the most recent, 
complete, and available estimate of dead discards from the annual U.S. 
BFT 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. BFT quota will be allocated among the 
General, Angling, Harpoon, Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories, as 
described in this section. BFT quotas are specified in whole weight. 
The baseline annual U.S. BFT quota is 1,247.86 mt, not including an 
additional annual 25-mt allocation provided in paragraph

[[Page 27715]]

(a)(3) of this section. This baseline BFT quota is divided among the 
categories according to the following percentages: General--55.8 
percent (696.3 mt); Angling--23.3 percent (290.8 mt), which includes 
the school BFT held in reserve as described under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) 
of this section; Harpoon--4.6 percent (57.4 mt); Longline--13.1 percent 
(163.5) (i.e., total not including the 25-mt allocation from paragraph 
(a)(3)); Trap--0.1 percent (1.2 mt); and Reserve--3 percent (37.4 mt). 
NMFS may make inseason and annual adjustments to quotas as specified in 
paragraphs (a)(8) and (9) of this section.
    (1) * * *
    (i) Catches from vessels for which Atlantic Tunas General category 
permits have been issued and certain catches from vessels for which an 
HMS Charter/Headboat category 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 BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, 
landed, or sold under the General category quota is 696.3 mt, and is 
apportioned as follows, unless modified as described under paragraph 
(a)(1)(ii) of this section:
    (A) January 1 through March 31--5.3 percent;
    (B) June 1 through August 31--50 percent;
    (C) September 1 through September 30--26.5 percent;
    (D) October 1 through November 30--13 percent; and
    (E) December 1 through December 31--5.2 percent.
    (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 1 through March 31 time period; or from the 
October 1 through November 30 time period to the September 1 through 
September 30 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)(7) 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 through March 31 
time period subquota could be filed in 2015.
* * * * *
    (2) Angling category quota. In accordance with the framework 
procedures as described under Sec.  635.34, 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 BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, and landed 
by anglers aboard vessels for which an HMS Angling category permit or 
an HMS Charter/Headboat category permit has been issued is 290.8 mt. No 
more than 3.1 percent of the annual Angling category quota may be large 
medium or giant BFT. In addition, no more than 10 percent of the 
baseline annual U.S. BFT quota, inclusive of the allocation specified 
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, may be school BFT . The Angling 
category quota includes the amount of school BFT held in reserve under 
paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section. The size class subquotas for BFT 
are further subdivided as follows:
    (i) After adjustment for the school BFT quota held in reserve 
(under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section), 52.8 percent of the 
school BFT Angling category quota may be caught, retained, possessed, 
or landed south of 39[deg]18' N lat. The remaining school BFT Angling 
category quota may be caught, retained, possessed or landed north of 
39[deg]18' N lat.
    (ii) After adjustment (Angling category quota minus school and 
large medium/giant subquotas), resulting in a large school/small medium 
subquota of 154.5 mt, an amount equal to 52.8 percent may be caught, 
retained, possessed, or landed south of 39[deg]18' N lat. The remaining 
large school/small medium BFT Angling category quota may be caught, 
retained, possessed, or landed north of 39[deg]18' N lat.
    (iii) One fourth of the large medium and giant BFT Angling category 
quota may be caught retained, possessed, or landed, in each of the four 
following geographic areas: North of 42[deg] N lat.; south of 42[deg] N 
lat. and 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 region. 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 BFT that may be 
caught, discarded dead, or retained, possessed, or landed by vessels 
that possess Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits is 163.5 mt. In 
addition, 25 mt shall be allocated for incidental catch by pelagic 
longline vessels fishing in the NED, and subject to the restrictions 
under Sec.  635.15(b)(6).
    (4) Harpoon category quota. The total amount of large medium and 
giant BFT that may be caught, retained, possessed, landed, or sold by 
vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category permits is 57.4 
mt. The Harpoon category fishery commences on June 1 of each year, and 
closes on November 15 of each year.
    (5) Trap category quota. The total amount of large medium and giant 
BFT, that may be caught, retained, possessed, or landed by vessels that 
possess Atlantic Tunas Trap category permits is 1.2 mt.
    (6) Reserve category quota. (i) The total amount of BFT that is 
held in reserve for inseason or annual adjustments; adjustments to, or 
appeals of, IBQ allocations (see Sec.  635.15(e)(1)(i)); and research 
using quota or subquotas is 37.4 mt, which may be augmented by 
allowable underharvest from the previous year.
    (ii) The total amount of school BFT that is held in reserve for 
inseason or annual adjustments and fishery-independent research is 18.5 
percent of the total school BFT Angling category quota as described 
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This amount is in addition to 
the amounts specified in paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section. 
Consistent with paragraph (a)(7) of this section, NMFS may allocate any 
portion of the school BFT Angling category quota held in reserve for 
inseason or annual adjustments to the Angling category.
* * * * *
    (8) Inseason adjustments. To be effective for all, or 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)(7) of this section.
    (9) * * *
    (i) Adjustments to category quotas specified under paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (6) 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)(7) of this section, if 
NMFS determines that a BFT 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 BFT quota for any 
category or, as

[[Page 27716]]

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 
category as a whole, IBQ shares and IBQ allocations may not be carried 
over from one year to the next, as specified under Sec.  635.15(f).
    (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)(7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (v) NMFS will file any annual adjustment with the Office of the 
Federal Register for publication and specify the basis for any quota 
reduction or increases made pursuant to this paragraph (a)(9).
* * * * *
0
15. In Sec.  635.28, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.28  Fishery closures.

    (a) * * * (1) When a BFT quota specified in Sec.  635.27(a), or a 
region's IBQ allocations as specified under Sec.  635.15(c)(3), have 
been reached or are 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 BFT 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 BFT, 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., 
BFT 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)(7).
* * * * *


Sec.  635.29  [Amended]

0
16. In Sec.  635.29, remove paragraph (c).
0
17. In Sec.  635.31, revise paragraph (a)(1) 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 category permit with a 
commercial sale endorsement; a valid General, Harpoon, Longline, 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 BFT smaller than the large medium size class. 
Also, no large medium or giant BFT taken by a person aboard a vessel 
with an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat category 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 BFT only to a dealer 
that has a valid permit for purchasing Atlantic BFT issued under this 
part. A person may not sell or purchase Atlantic tunas harvested with 
speargun fishing gear.
* * * * *
0
18. In Sec.  635.69:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), and (a)(4);
0
b. Add paragraph (a)(5); and
0
c. Revise paragraphs (e)(4) introductory text, and (e)(4)(ii).
    The addition and revisions 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 that has been 
issued or is required to be issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline category 
LAP or a vessel that is permitted, or required to be permitted, to fish 
for Atlantic HMS under Sec.  635.4 and that fishes with pelagic or 
bottom longline or gillnet 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)(5) 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 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.
    (5) Whenever a vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit has 
green-stick gear on board.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (4) BFT and fishing effort reporting requirements for vessels 
fishing with pelagic longline gear or vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category LAP fishing with green-stick gear.
* * * * *
    (ii) Green-stick gear. The owner or operator of a vessel with an 
Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, that is fishing with green-stick gear 
must report to NMFS using the attached VMS terminal, or using an 
alternative method specified by NMFS as follows: For each green-stick 
set that interacts with BFT, as instructed by NMFS, the date and area 
of the set, and the length of all BFT retained (actual), and the length 
of all BFT 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. Revise paragraphs (a)(14), (a)(37), and (b)(3);
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(8) through (10), (17) through 
(18), and (20) through (22);
0
c. Revise paragraphs (b)(30), (31), (33), (34), (35), (41), (46), (49);
0
d. Add paragraph (b)(60) and (61); and
0
e. Revise paragraphs (c)(7), (d)(13), (d)(22), (d)(23), (d)(28), 
(e)(11), (e)(17).
    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

[[Page 27717]]

vessel monitoring system prior to leaving port with pelagic longline 
gear, bottom longline gear, or gillnet gear on board the vessel, or 
with green-stick gear on board a vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permit, as specified in Sec.  635.69.
* * * * *
    (37) Fail to report to NMFS, at the number designated by NMFS, the 
incidental capture of listed whales with shark gillnet gear as required 
by Sec.  635.21(f)(1).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) Fish for, catch, retain, or possess a BFT less than the large 
medium size class by a person aboard a vessel other than one that has 
on board a valid HMS Angling or Charter/Headboat category permit as 
authorized under Sec.  635.23(b) and (c).
* * * * *
    (30) Fish for any HMS, other than Atlantic BAYS tunas, with 
speargun fishing gear, as specified at Sec.  635.21(h).
    (31) Harvest or fish for BAYS tunas using speargun gear with 
powerheads, or any other explosive devices, as specified in Sec.  
635.21(h).
* * * * *
    (33) Fire or discharge speargun gear without being physically in 
the water, as specified at Sec.  635.21(h).
    (34) Use speargun gear to harvest a BAYS tuna restricted by fishing 
lines or other means, as specified at Sec.  635.21(h).
    (35) Use speargun gear to fish for BAYS tunas from a vessel that 
does not possess either a valid HMS Angling or HMS Charter/Headboat 
category permit, as specified at Sec.  635.21(h).
* * * * *
    (41) Fail to report BFT catch by pelagic longline, through VMS as 
specified at Sec.  635.69(e)(4).
* * * * *
    (46) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a 
pelagic longline on board that does not have an approved and fully 
operational 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; or fail to comply with the standardized 
reference grid, hard drive, vessel monitoring plan and other 
requirements under Sec.  635.9.
* * * * *
    (49) Lease BFT quota allocation to or from the owner of a vessel 
not issued a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permit as specified under 
Sec.  635.15(g)(1).
* * * * *
    (60) Fail to pay cost recovery fees as instructed by NMFS, as 
specified at Sec.  635.15(m)(4).
    (61) Hold or acquire more than 25 percent of the total IBQ shares 
or associated allocations annually as specified under Sec.  635.15(m).
    (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(e).
* * * * *
    (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(f).
* * * * *
    (22) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish 
for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, 
corrodible circle hooks when fishing at a registered recreational HMS 
fishing tournament that has awards or prizes for sharks, as specified 
in Sec.  635.21(e) and (j).
    (23) Except when fishing only with flies or artificial lures, fish 
for, retain, possess, or land sharks without deploying non-offset, 
corrodible circle hooks when issued an Atlantic HMS Angling permit or 
HMS Charter/Headboat category permit with a shark endorsement, as 
specified in Sec.  635.21(e) and (j).
* * * * *
    (28) Retain, land, or possess a shortfin mako shark that was caught 
with pelagic longline, bottom longline, or gillnet gear and was alive 
at haulback as specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(1), (d)(5), and (f)(6).
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (11) 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(g).
* * * * *
    (17) Fail to construct, deploy, or retrieve buoy gear as specified 
at Sec.  635.21(g).

[FR Doc. 2021-10210 Filed 5-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P