[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