[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59966-60008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21167]



[[Page 59965]]

Vol. 87

Monday,

No. 190

October 3, 2022

Part III





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Parts 600 and 635





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2022 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 59966]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 600 and 635

[Docket No. 220919-0193]
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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final action will 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, this rule will change several 
aspects of the Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program, including the 
distribution of IBQ shares to active vessels only, implementation of a 
cap on IBQ shares that may be held by an entity, and implementation of 
a cost recovery program. This rule will also modify bluefin fisheries 
by discontinuing the Purse Seine category and reallocating that bluefin 
quota to all of the other bluefin 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: This final rule is effective on January 1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the supporting documents, including the final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), 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.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to the HMS Management Division and to 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find these particular information 
collections by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for 
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Atlantic bluefin fisheries are managed under the authority of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention 
Act (ATCA) (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and 
its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. This 
final rule implements changes to the bluefin fishery under Amendment 13 
to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 13). Additional information 
regarding bluefin management can be found in the Final Amendment 13 
(which includes an FEIS, RIR and FRFA); Draft Amendment 13 (which 
includes a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), draft RIR, and 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)) and proposed rule (86 
FR 27686; May 21, 2021); 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, NMFS published a final rule implementing Amendment 7 to 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 7) (79 FR 71510; December 2, 
2014). That final rule implemented substantial changes to the 
regulation of bluefin fisheries including the creation of the IBQ 
Program. In 2019, NMFS completed its Three-Year Review of the IBQ 
Program (referred to hereafter as the ``Three-Year Review''). The 
Three-Year Review found that the IBQ Program was successful in limiting 
bluefin incidental catch 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. After 
releasing the Three-Year Review and considering other changes 
throughout the fishery, NMFS conducted scoping to consider addition 
changes to the bluefin fishery (84 FR 23020, May 21, 2019).
    On May 21, 2021, NMFS published a proposed rule (86 FR 27686) and 
released Draft Amendment 13, which included a Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DEIS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
published a Notice of Availability of the DEIS (86 FR 27593). The 
proposed rule and Draft Amendment 13 contain background information on 
the potential changes to the fishery that are not repeated here. The 
original comment period on the proposed rule ended on July 20, 2021. 
Based on public requests, the comment period was extended until 
September 20, 2021 (86 FR 38262, July 20, 2021). NMFS held three public 
hearing webinars between June 8 and July 14, 2021 (86 FR 3087, June 7, 
2021), and briefed the Gulf of Mexico, Mid-Atlantic, and New England 
Fishery Management Councils. NMFS held two discussions on Amendment 13 
with the HMS Advisory Panel (May 25, 2021 and September 9, 2021). 
During the comment period, NMFS received 47 written comments from 
individual members of the public and a variety of entities including 
industry associations, environmental organizations, and states. A 
summary of these comments and NMFS' responses are found below.
    Taking into consideration public comment, NMFS prepared Final 
Amendment 13, which included an FEIS, RIR, and FRFA, and which analyzed 
the anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of a range 
of alternatives. NMFS considered 29 alternatives and is implementing 21 
measures in this final rule. A summary of the preferred alternatives is 
provided below. The full list of alternatives and their analyses are 
provided in Final Amendment 13 and are not repeated here.
    Overall, the objectives of this final rule and Amendment 13 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/

[[Page 59967]]

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). This final rule implements the 
preferred alternatives identified in the Final Amendment 13/FEIS.
    In developing the final measures, NMFS considered these objectives, 
public comments on the proposed rule and Draft Amendment 13 (which 
included a DEIS, draft RIR, and IRFA); input from the HMS Advisory 
Panel; and the FEIS, RIR and FRFA analyses. In response to public 
comment on the proposed rule and Draft Amendment 13/DEIS, NMFS made 
numerous changes from the proposed rule in the final rule. The first 
change implements a dynamic determination of IBQ shares based upon each 
individual permitted vessel's fishing effort using the number of 
pelagic longline sets, relative to the total amount of pelagic longline 
sets fishery-wide, as the measure of fishing effort. A second change is 
the authorization of a potential, future set-aside of a de minimis 
amount of bluefin quota for new entrants as part of the IBQ Program. A 
third change includes a low ``Gulf of Mexico'' (GOM) designated IBQ 
share threshold of five percent. A fourth change is the requirement for 
vessel owners to pay for the cost of boom installation because funds 
are not available from the Agency. A fifth change is the reallocation 
of the Purse Seine category quota proportionally to all of the other 
bluefin categories, including Reserve, Longline, and Trap. A sixth 
change is the adoption of a slightly different Harpoon category daily 
retention limit measure than was in the proposed rule. A seventh change 
is a regulatory clarification: adding to the prohibition section an 
existing requirement that vessels with pelagic longline gear on board 
are required to retain and land all dead large medium or giant bluefin. 
All other proposed measures, as well as the proposed abbreviations for 
curved fork length, Northeast Distant Area, bluefin tuna, electronic 
monitoring and individual bluefin tuna program, definitions for 
``vessel monitoring plan'' and ``curved fork length'', and elimination 
of the minimum 3-day period between filing a BFT inseason action with 
the Office of Federal Register and the effective date of the action (50 
CFR 635.23(a)(4), (b)(3)) did not change between the proposed and final 
rules. Measures that are different from the proposed rule are described 
in detail in the section titled, ``Changes from the Proposed Rule.''
    NMFS has determined that Amendment 13 and its final rule will not 
have new or different effects on Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed 
endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat beyond 
those analyzed in the May 2020 Biological Opinion on the Operation of 
the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fisheries Excluding Pelagic 
Longline and the May 2020 Biological Opinion on the Atlantic HMS 
Pelagic Longline Fishery. However, in July 2022, NMFSNOAA Fisheries, 
requested reinitiation of consultation on the effects of the Atlantic 
HMS pelagic longline fishery due to new information on mortality of 
giant manta ray that exceeded the mortality anticipated in the 2020 
Biological Opinion on that fishery. The anticipated consultation will 
consider the effects of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and relevant 
amendments, including Amendment 13, and relevant implementing 
regulations. Pending completion of consultation, the fishery continues 
to operate consistent with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures (RPMs) 
and Terms and Conditions specified in the May 2020 Biological Opinion, 
and NMFSNOAA Fisheries will continue to monitor any take of giant manta 
rays in the fishery. Actions within the scope of the May 2020 
Biological Opinion and consistent with the RPMs and Terms and 
Conditions are not likely to jeopardize the species during 
consultation, consistent with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Giant manta 
ray interactions with the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery are 
low, with total takes estimated to be well below the levels of takes 
authorized under the incidental take statement in the 2020 Biological 
Opinion. In addition, the species is not thought to be in peril in the 
Atlantic, the level of potential mortalities is considered to be low, 
and extrapolated mortalities may overstate the fishery's effects on the 
species. In accordance with section 7(d) of the ESA, NMFS has 
determined that, during consultation, pelagic longline fishery activity 
consistent with the existing May 2020 Biological Opinion will not 
result in an irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources 
which would have the effect of foreclosing the formulation or 
implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative measures and 
that continued compliance with the RPMs and Terms and Conditions in 
that biological opinion will avoid jeopardy to ESA-listed species, 
consistent with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

Final Management Measures

    Below is a short description of the final management measures. More 
information can be found in Final Amendment 13/FEIS.

Pelagic Longline Fishery

Annual IBQ Share Determination

    NMFS is changing from a static to a dynamic system for determining 
IBQ shares (expressed as percentages). Annually, using best available 
data from a recent 36-month period (three years), NMFS will determine 
IBQ shareholders' shares based upon each permitted, eligible vessel's 
number of pelagic longline sets legally made, relative to the total 
amount of pelagic longline sets legally made by all IBQ shareholders' 
vessels over that same period. For an IBQ shareholder's vessel to be 
considered ``eligible,'' it must have been issued a valid Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category limited access permit (LAP) when sets occurred 
during the relevant 36-month period. Based on public comment, this 
measure was modified from the proposed rule, which would have used 
landings of designated species and four percentile (tiers) for 
establishing IBQ shares. As described in Sec.  635.15(c), best 
available data as determined by NMFS may include vessel monitoring 
system (VMS) reports, and may also include logbook, electronic 
monitoring (EM), or permit data. NMFS will only count one pelagic 
longline set per day, in order to discourage deployment of short sets 
for the purpose of influencing IBQ share determinations. Vessels may 
deploy as many sets per day as they wish, but only one set per day 
would count toward the IBQ share determination. After determining IBQ 
shares, NMFS will distribute IBQ allocations, but only to IBQ 
shareholders that have vessels with current, valid permits at the time 
of the annual distribution of IBQ allocation.
    Under this measure, during the last quarter of each year, NMFS will 
notify Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders via electronic methods 
(such as email) and/or letter to inform them of their IBQ shares, their 
IBQ allocations, and the regional designations of those shares and 
allocations for the subsequent fishing year; whether adjustments were 
made to GOM-designated shares due to the GOM shares cap; and whether 
the

[[Page 59968]]

low GOM-designated share threshold has been triggered. This 
notification will 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; (2) IBQ share percentage; and (3) IBQ 
allocations. A permit holder may also appeal NMFS' determination of the 
number of pelagic longline sets legally made by its permitted vessel. 
However, an adjustment of GOM shares (Sec.  635.15(c)(3)(ii)) or 
inseason quota adjustment (Sec.  635.15(e)(3)) is not subject to 
appeal. 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.
    Appeals based on permit history would be based on NMFS permit 
records. NMFS will only use the relevant 36 months of data described in 
Sec.  635.15(c) to determine the numbers of pelagic longline sets made. 
No other proof of sets or permit history will be considered. Copies of 
written documents will be acceptable; NMFS may request the originals at 
a later date. NMFS may refer any submitted materials that are of 
questionable authenticity to the NMFS Office of Law Enforcement for 
investigation. Appeals based on hardship factors will not be 
considered. Consistent with most limited effort and catch share 
programs, hardship will 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.
    As described in Amendment 13, this measure provides separate 
consideration to participants in the Deepwater Horizon Oceanic Fish 
Restoration Project (OFRP) as appropriate. The Deepwater Horizon OFRP 
is a program conducted as a partnership between NMFS, 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.
    Based on public comment, Amendment 13 also adds to the framework 
provisions of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP the authority to set aside 
a de minimis amount of bluefin quota from the Longline category quota 
prior to calculating the annual IBQ allocations (based on the annual 
share determinations described above), and the final rule makes a 
parallel edit to 50 CFR 635.34(b) (framework procedures). NMFS is not 
implementing a set aside through the final rule, thus at this time, the 
provision will have no effect on the amount of Longline quota allocated 
to Longline category vessels. As needed, NMFS would conduct future 
rulemaking and associated analyses to set the precise amount of set 
aside, and the requirements, process, and conditions associated with 
distributing IBQ allocation to new entrants.

Regional Designations of IBQ Shares

    In conjunction with the dynamic IBQ share and allocation measures, 
this final rule also modifies the regional Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic 
designations, while maintaining a cap on allowable bluefin catch from 
the Gulf of Mexico. Currently, IBQ shares and resultant allocations are 
designated as either GOM or ``Atlantic'' (ATL) based on the geographic 
location of sets used in the determination of those shares and 
allocations. Existing regulations provide that only GOM IBQ allocation 
may be used to account for bluefin incidentally caught in the Gulf of 
Mexico, while either ATL or GOM IBQ allocation may be used to account 
for bluefin in the Atlantic. Per Amendment 7, 35 percent of the total 
Longline category quota is designated as GOM, and 65 percent designated 
as ATL. This final rule continues to cap the amount of quota that can 
be designated as GOM at 35 percent and retain the accounting rules for 
regional IBQ allocations, but as explained below, provides for 
authority to reduce the 35-percent GOM cap, annual adjustment of 
regional designations, and a low GOM designed shares threshold. Under 
these regulations, if a vessel does not receive GOM designated IBQ 
shares and resulting allocation (because the vessel had no pelagic 
longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico during the relevant 36 month 
period), but wishes to fish in the Gulf of Mexico, they would need to 
lease GOM designated IBQ allocation initially. If the vessel fished in 
the Gulf of Mexico (using leased GOM IBQ allocation) it would 
subsequently be eligible for GOM designated IBQ shares (and allocation) 
the following year based on the number of sets fished in the Gulf of 
Mexico.
    The final rule includes a regulatory mechanism for reducing the 35-
percent default GOM cap, as needed to achieve conservation and 
management objectives. A determination to lower the cap 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 considerations including consistency with the FMP objectives 
(Sec.  635.27(a)(8)). A cap reduction may be for all of a calendar 
year, or a portion of it, as appropriate. NMFS would notify the public 
of changes to the 35-percent default cap and publish any modification 
to the cap in the Federal Register.
    Annually, NMFS will determine the total amount of IBQ shares and 
resultant allocations for each region based on the geographic location 
of sets used in the determination of those shares and allocations. NMFS 
will use the relevant 36 months of best available data described above 
under Annual IBQ Share Determination. GOM-designated shares thus could 
be less than the default 35-percent GOM share cap. If NMFS calculates 
that the amount of GOM designated IBQ shares (based on sets) will be 
greater than the GOM share cap (i.e., 35 percent (or lower if 
adjusted)), NMFS will reduce the GOM designated IBQ shares to equal the 
GOM 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 will 
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 IBQ shares across all shareholders, 
consistent with the applicable GOM share cap.
    Another change since the proposed rule is the addition of a low GOM 
designated share threshold, in response to a concern that potential, 
future declines in effort in the Gulf of Mexico could result in a very 
low percentage of GOM-designated shares in some years and severely 
limit operation of the fishery. See comment 8 summary under Response to 
Comments below. NMFS

[[Page 59969]]

agrees that such a situation could result in poor functioning or 
disruption of the IBQ Program, result in further declines in fishing 
effort or participation in the fishery, or prevent utilization of 
available IBQ allocation. See response to comment 8 below. In response, 
the final rule provides: if the total amount of GOM-designated IBQ 
shares is 5 percent or less of the total IBQ shares (ATL plus GOM 
shares), NMFS will file an action with the Office of Federal Register 
for publication that suspends for that year the requirements to account 
for bluefin caught in the Gulf of Mexico with GOM IBQ shares and 
resultant allocations and to use GOM IBQ allocation to satisfy the 
minimum GOM IBQ allocation requirement. The maximum allowable bluefin 
catch from the Gulf of Mexico will be the weight of bluefin associated 
with the cap on GOM designated shares (i.e., the default level of 35 
percent, or lower if modified). If this level of catch were reached or 
projected to be reached, NMFS would prohibit vessels from fishing with 
pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico for the remainder of that 
year. When determining the percentage of IBQ shares, NMFS will use the 
relevant 36 months of best available data described above under Annual 
IBQ Share Determination. If this threshold is triggered, any vessels 
fishing in the Gulf of Mexico would still need to account for bluefin 
catch (landings or dead discards) and have the minimum IBQ allocation 
of 0.25 mt ww (551 lb ww) before departing on the first fishing trip in 
a calendar year quarter. However, they may use either GOM or ATL shares 
and resultant allocations, received through the dynamic allocation 
process or leasing. NMFS will notify vessel owners if the threshold is 
triggered when NMFS notifies them of their annual IBQ shares and 
allocations.

Cap on IBQ Shares Held or Acquired

    This final rule caps the percentage of IBQ shares that an entity 
may hold or acquire at 25 percent of the total IBQ shares and the 
corresponding amount of IBQ allocation associated with the IBQ shares. 
The 25-percent cap applies whether the shares were accrued by an entity 
through the ownership of multiple Atlantic Tunas Longline permits and/
or high fishing effort. The cap will 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. The cap is not 
intended to restrict the use of IBQ allocation to account for bluefin 
catch or leasing of IBQ allocation. NMFS will implement this 
restriction based on the best available information such as data 
submitted in support of permit and IBQ Program requirements.

IBQ Program Dealer Reporting Requirements

    This final rule modifies two aspects of the dealer reporting 
requirements for the IBQ Program. First, this measure will eliminate 
the reporting of bluefin dead discard information by the dealer. The 
dealer will continue to be required to enter the data on bluefin 
landings into the Catch Shares On-line System via the dealer account.
    Second, this measure will eliminate the current requirement that 
vessel operators/owners confirm the landing information entered into 
the Catch Shares On-line System by the dealer is accurate by entering 
the personal identification number (PIN) associated with the vessel 
account. This measure will be combined with a new email notification by 
NMFS via the Catch Shares On-line System (or a message within the 
System) that will inform the vessel owner when a dealer conducts a 
bluefin landings transaction with that vessel's IBQ account. This 
notification will provide a means of vessel owner oversight of dealer 
transactions with their IBQ vessel account.

Measures Related to Electronic Monitoring (EM)

    This final rule requires 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. An exception to this requirement is 
that if the hard drive is at capacity (full) after one trip, as 
indicated by the EM system, the vessel operator must mail the hard 
drive at the end of that trip. And, vessel operators must ensure that 
hard drives have the capacity to record the full trip before departing 
on a trip. This final rule clarifies and expands the regulations to 
require installation of semi-permanent hardware, if necessary, to mount 
and install video cameras at locations on vessels to obtain optimal 
views. NMFS or its designees, working in conjunction with the vessel 
owner/operator, may require relatively minor modifications to the 
vessel structure to mount cameras in locations that provide views 
required under existing regulations of the vessel and adjacent areas 
(50 CFR 635.9(c)). In some cases, NMFS or its designees may require 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 with the side of the vessel to optimize the view 
of the area of the water surface and seaward of the rail, down to the 
water surface, where the gear and fish are hauled out of the water. A 
boom will likely be a customized piece of hardware that is fixed or 
movable (e.g., extended or lowered prior to fishing activities 
starting). The details of any camera installation requirement or 
protocols will be recorded in the vessel's Vessel Monitoring Plan.
    The cost associated with the installation of booms would be paid by 
vessel owners (approximately $1,000 or less). The Draft Amendment 13/
DEIS stated that NMFS would pay the costs of boom installation, as 
funds are available. In the Final Amendment 13/FEIS, NMFS analyzed the 
impacts and determined that boom installation should be paid for by 
individual vessel owners, given that appropriated funds are not 
available for this purpose. This approach to industry-funded 
implementation is consistent with NMFS Service Procedure 04-115-02: 
Cost Allocation in Electronic Monitoring Programs for Federally Managed 
U.S. Fisheries, which generally specifies the transition of certain 
costs to the fishing industry.
    The third change made to the electronic monitoring program by this 
final rule is a requirement for 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 
will be required to place retained fish on a mat or carpet 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 grid. The grid 
may be customized to an individual vessel while also having lines of 
standard intervals. The specifications of the measuring grid will be 
provided in each individual vessel's Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP). 
During the year following the effective date of this rule, NMFS or the 
NMFS-approved contractor will work with the vessel owner of each vessel 
to update the VMP. Once the VMP is approved and signed by NMFS or the 
NMFS-approved contractor, the vessel owner will have six months to 
install the measuring grid as specified in the VMP. The flexibility of 
the timing of the full implementation of this measure will provide time 
for NMFS and the NMFS-approved contractor to complete more detailed 
standardized specifications and the printing of measuring mats/carpets 
or customized painting.

[[Page 59970]]

Cost Recovery 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). This final rule implements a flexible cost recovery program. 
No fees will be charged if the costs of collecting the fees exceed 
estimated fees to be recovered. Annually, NMFS will estimate its 
incremental costs associated with the IBQ Program (including costs 
associated with administering 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). NMFS will notify the 
public whether a cost recovery fee will be charged for the year. If 
NMFS determines the annual cost recovery fee is warranted, NMFS will 
notify the permit holders that landed bluefin under the IBQ Program, 
including those caught with green-stick gear (based on dealer landings 
data), of any fees to be charged. Permit holders will be billed based 
on the ex-vessel value of the bluefin sold. Permit holders would pay 
the cost recovery fee through the Catch Shares On-line System website 
and the associated pay.gov link.

Modification of Bluefin Quota Category Allocation Percentages

    This final rule changes the mathematical method used in the annual 
quota allocation process to achieve a similar result through simpler 
means. 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 the 
68 mt provided to the Longline category annually. This final rule 
replaces the two-step process of subtracting the 68 mt from the U.S. 
baseline quota and then applying the category percentages, with a one-
step process applying slightly revised category allocation percentages.

Purse Seine Category

    This final rule discontinues the Purse Seine category and 
redistributes Purse Seine category quota. NMFS is removing purse seine 
from the list of authorized gears and removing other references in the 
regulations to the purse seine fishery, including references to Purse 
Seine category quota, permits, nets, sets, vessels, and participants. 
In the proposed rule, the Longline and Trap categories were not 
reallocated any Purse Seine quota. Based on public comment and a 
refined analysis, NMFS determined that these incidental quota 
categories should be reallocated Purse Seine quota. See response to 
comment 22 under Response to Comments (including Longline category in 
reallocation due to change in IBQ leasing market as a result of 
discontinuation of Purse Seine category and also including Trap 
category). As such, the Purse Seine category quota (18.6 percent of the 
total U.S. baseline bluefin quota, under current regulations) will be 
reallocated proportionally to all of the other bluefin quota categories 
(General, Angling, Harpoon, Longline, Trap, and the Reserve) (Table 1). 
The quota allocations associated with the revised percentages will be 
based on the bluefin quota implemented June 1, 2022 (87 FR 33049).

          Table 1--Bluefin Quota Categories, Current and Amendment 13 Percentages, and 2023 Allocations
                                                      [mt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Current          Amendment 13     2023 Allocations
                 Bluefin quota category                      percentage         percentage            (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General................................................               47.1                 54              710.7
Angling................................................               19.7               22.6              297.4
Harpoon................................................                3.9                4.5               59.2
Longline...............................................                8.1               15.9              209.3
Trap...................................................                0.1                0.1                1.3
Reserve................................................                2.5                2.9               38.2
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total U.S. Baseline Quota..........................  .................  .................           1,316.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows the subquotas for the General and Angling categories 
for 2023 based on this final rule and bluefin quota rule (87 FR 33049, 
June 1, 2022).

                   Table 2--Bluefin Subquotas for the General and Angling Categories for 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category                                                              Subquotas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General............................  ......................           710.7
                                     January-March.........  ..............  37.7..................
                                     June-August...........  ..............  355.4.................
                                     September.............  ..............  188.3.................
                                     October-November......  ..............  92.4..................
                                     December..............  ..............  37.0..................
Angling............................  ......................           297.4
                                     School................           134.1
                                     ......................  ..............  Reserve...............         24.8
                                     ......................  ..............  North of 39[deg] 18'           51.6
                                                                              N. lat.
                                     ......................  ..............  South of 39[deg] 18'           57.7
                                                                              N. lat.
                                     Large School/Small               154.1
                                      Medium.
                                     ......................  ..............  North of 39[deg] 18'           72.7
                                                                              N. lat.

[[Page 59971]]

 
                                     ......................  ..............  South of 39[deg] 18'           81.4
                                                                              N. lat.
                                     Trophy................             9.2
                                     ......................  ..............  Gulf of Maine Trophy            2.3
                                                                              Area.
                                     ......................  ..............  Southern New England..          2.3
                                     ......................  ..............  Trophy South..........          2.3
                                     ......................  ..............  Gulf of Mexico........          2.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Due to rounding, the sum of the General category sub-quota period values do not equal 710.7.

Angling Category

    This final rule modifies 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 are named the Gulf 
of Maine trophy area and the Southern New England trophy area, 
respectively. The net result is that the Trophy quota is divided among 
four geographic areas (in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) and each 
area will 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 is increasing 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 
limit take to no more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. bluefin quota, 
any increase to the trophy subquota will 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 will increase the portion of the Angling 
category quota allocated for trophy bluefin from 2.3 percent to 3.1 
percent. This results 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 will 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 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

    This final rule implements a default 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). In addition, this final rule allows NMFS to 
adjust the combined daily retention limit between 5 to 10 fish, based 
on consideration of the determination criteria at 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8), 
in order to avoid closing the fishery. This final rule maintains 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 combined limit were 10 
fish, and 2 large medium fish were retained, then the number of 
allowable giant bluefin would be 8.

Permit Category Change Restrictions

    This final rule allows 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.

Green-Stick Gear by Pelagic Longline Vessels

    This final rule clarifies retention and reporting requirements for 
bluefin caught with green-stick gear by vessels with valid Atlantic 
Tunas Longline category permits. Such a vessel is allowed the retention 
of one bluefin per trip (73'' or greater CFL) taken incidentally by 
green-stick gear while fishing for other target species. Vessels are 
required to submit a VMS set report for each green-stick retrieval that 
interacts with bluefin and report information on the location of the 
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 are 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. The use of EM Systems 
is not required for haulback with green-stick gear or to record an 
image of a bluefin caught with green-stick gear. This measure supports 
the minimization of dead discards by allowing the incidental retention 
of one green-stick caught bluefin per trip (73'' or greater CFL).

Other Regulatory Changes

    As described below and in the proposed rule, Amendment 13 
implements other regulatory changes that will improve the 
administration and enforcement of HMS regulations and that will not 
have any environmental, economic or social impacts. 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 50 CFR 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 is added, and the definition of curved fork length is 
clarified.
    Under 50 CFR 635.23(a)(4) and (b)(3), which address the process for 
inseason changes to the bluefin retention limits, the minimum 3-day 
period between filing an action with the Office of Federal Register and 
the effective date of the action is eliminated to provide for 
additional flexibility, as warranted and supported. The 3-day period 
has been in regulations since at least 1999. This rule removes that 
minimum period to provide for greater flexibility in management 
response for the General category. The General category is very

[[Page 59972]]

dynamic: fish may swim from Massachusetts to Virginia in three days, 
there is limited quota and seasonal allocations, and there are high and 
variable levels of fishing pressure. Given all of this, NMFS may need 
flexibility to more swiftly implement an inseason action that may 
provide additional opportunity (in the case of an increased trip 
limit), or one 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 50 CFR 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.

Response to Comments

    NMFS received 47 written comments from individual members of the 
public, and a variety of entities including industry associations, 
environmental organizations, and states. All written comments can be 
found at http://regulations.gov/ by searching for ``0648-BI08''. NMFS 
also received comments during the webinars and HMS AP meetings. 
Responses to those comments are below. Comments are organized according 
to subject.

`A' Alternatives: Modifications to Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Share 
Eligibility, Distribution and Allocation Methods

Comment 1

    NMFS received many comments supporting the preferred alternative of 
replacing the current system of 136 shareholders with a dynamic system 
where, annually, permit holders of active vessels would be defined as 
shareholders. Pelagic longline industry groups that represent pelagic 
longline vessels supported dynamic allocation, but had different 
opinions on whether pelagic longline sets or designated species 
landings should be the basis for IBQ shares. One commenter stated that 
the current shareholder system in place was punitive in that it 
provided more bluefin to vessels that had no interactions with bluefin 
and did not need bluefin quota. One commenter supported a dynamic 
system of determining shares, but was in favor of distributing IBQ 
shares and their associated allocations in equal amounts to active 
vessels.

Response

    NMFS agrees that a dynamic determination of active shareholders 
will improve the distribution of shares among Atlantic Tunas Longline 
permit holders by more effectively putting shares where allocation is 
likely to be used. NMFS also agrees that the current share system may 
be overly restrictive, and the distribution of allocations may not be 
aligned with the need for quota. Allocating catch shares based on 
historical catch, which is typical of many catch share programs, may 
have disadvantages or limited relevance when implemented in the context 
of a catch share program for incidentally caught species such as 
bluefin. In contrast, a dynamic share determination, which adapts to 
changes in fishery participation over time, will better align shares 
with the need for IBQ allocation, will be perceived as fair, and will 
continue to provide incentives to reduce incidental catch of bluefin. 
The relatively small amount of IBQ allocation that shareholders will be 
distributed and the requirement that all bluefin landings and dead 
discards be accounted for using IBQ allocation, will continue to 
provide strong incentives for vessels to modify their fishing behavior 
to avoid and reduce interactions with bluefin. Based in part on public 
comment, NMFS has determined that a dynamic determination of shares 
based on sets would address the objective of providing shares only to 
vessels that have recently fished. NMFS' response to comments regarding 
the elements and details of a dynamic system are contained in the 
responses to comments 2 through 5.

Comment 2

    Some commenters supported the use of designated species landings in 
general, but wanted to include dolphinfish (dolphin) as one of the 
species that count toward IBQ share determination, because of the 
importance of dolphin revenue, especially during May. Other commenters 
noted the exclusion of dolphin as one of the various reasons they did 
not support the use of designated species landings as the relevant 
metric upon which to base IBQ shares. They also commented that any 
species landed by the fleet should be considered as a designated 
species in the method of share determination. For example it was noted 
that traditionally, shortfin mako sharks have been a target species and 
therefore the landings should be credited to fishermen. Some commenters 
noted the importance of all species landed to the economic viability of 
the fishery, given the variable nature of species available to the 
fishery.

Response

    NMFS agrees that dolphin is an economically important component of 
pelagic longline fishery landings, especially during certain time 
periods. NMFS did not propose inclusion of dolphin in the list of 
designated species (for the purpose of share determination) because 
dolphin comprises a relatively low portion of the total pelagic 
longline landings. Additionally, because of differences in management 
and data reporting due to the fact that dolphin is not managed under 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, it would be difficult for NMFS to 
compile and analyze the dolphin data annually in an accurate and timely 
manner. As explained further in the response to comment 3, NMFS is no 
longer preferring basing shares on designated species landings. In 
defining designated species, NMFS intended to create a standardized 
list of a limited number of target species that would be used as a 
metric of fishing effort in the annual determination of IBQ shares, and 
as such the availability and timeliness of data was a relevant factor. 
NMFS agrees that the pelagic longline fishery is a fishery that relies 
on many species for its revenue, due to the diversity of the fleet and 
the dynamic, migratory nature of the species it lands.

Comment 3

    NMFS received a number of comments regarding the best method of 
determining shares (i.e., based on hooks, sets, landing, or equal 
shares). An organization representing pelagic longline businesses 
stated that determining IBQ shares using designated species landings 
would incentivize vessels to retain smaller fish or juvenile fish, 
which they currently release, to enhance the total weight of landings. 
Vessels would be incentivized to land all swordfish or tunas that come 
to the vessel, rather than releasing lower quality fish or lower value 
small fish. Further they stated that landings are not a standardized 
metric due to differences among pelagic longline vessels in fishing 
strategy and skill level, and due to landings being driven by prices 
and dealer demands. A different organization representing pelagic 
longline businesses supported using designated species landings as 
reasonable because of the logical relationship between fishing effort, 
amount of landings and need for IBQ allocation. One commenter stated 
that basing shares on landings is not fair

[[Page 59973]]

because vessels have varied capacities for holding fish. NMFS received 
multiple comments stating that NMFS should prefer dynamic determination 
of IBQ shares based on pelagic longline sets because sets are a more 
reliable measure of the need for IBQ shares. Some commenters supported 
the use of sets, but suggested that only one set per day be allowed to 
count toward the determination of shares, because vessels might set 
multiple sets per day for the sole purpose of influencing their IBQ 
share percentage. Two commenters stated that hooks are harder to verify 
than sets. One commenter supported dividing up shares equally among 
active vessels. NMFS received multiple comments that the method used to 
determine IBQ shares is not a conservation issue and that NMFS should 
follow the industry's recommendations for efficient IBQ share 
distribution.

Response

    NMFS acknowledges that each of the methods analyzed for determining 
IBQ shares annually (hooks, sets, landings, or equal shares) has 
strengths and weaknesses. Given the diversity of the fleet and the 
highly variable and migratory nature of bluefin, it is difficult to 
precisely align the distribution of IBQ shares among vessels with the 
need for IBQ shares. Although a commenter supported the use of equal 
shares as a method of distributing shares among active vessels, most 
commenters supported basing shares on a metric that reflects fishing 
effort. NMFS agrees with using fishing effort as the basis for 
determining IBQ shares, given that bluefin is an incidentally caught 
species, and there is a relationship between the amount of fishing 
effort and the number of bluefin a vessel is likely to encounter (and 
the need to account for bluefin using IBQ allocation). While NMFS 
proposed using designated species landings to determine IBQ shares, in 
this final rule NMFS is implementing regulations to determine IBQ 
shares based on the number of pelagic longline sets. The pelagic 
longline fleet is geographically diverse and includes a range of vessel 
sizes and fishing strategies. Using a metric of one set (a single 
deployment and retrieval of pelagic longline gear) per day provides a 
standardized, uniform method of determining IBQ shares and addresses 
the concern that a vessel operator might deploy speculative, short sets 
for the purpose of inflating the IBQ share determination. NMFS can 
determine the number of sets annually, in a timely manner, using a 
single data source (VMS or logbooks) and, if necessary, verify the 
accuracy of the reported data using EM data. A majority of active 
shareholders would have a larger share percentage under dynamic 
determination of shares based on sets than they would under the current 
system (No Action). In selecting the final preferred alternative, NMFS 
took into consideration public comments, which included different 
industry recommendations on the method to be applied; how the method of 
share distribution will influence various aspects of the IBQ Program, 
such as the IBQ allocation leasing market, vessel incentives to avoid 
bluefin, and the ability for vessels to account for bluefin catch; and 
ecological, economic and social impacts. NMFS believes that the 
preferred alternative is reasonably calculated to promote conservation, 
because it encourages a rational, well-managed use of fishery resources 
through a reasonable a balanced allocation approach.

Comment 4

    NMFS received multiple comments that quartiles or tiers should not 
be used to determine IBQ shares, and instead custom IBQ share 
percentages should be given based on vessel fishing effort. As 
proposed, some shareholders would have shares that are either larger or 
smaller than the shares percentage corresponding directly to the number 
of sets. Commenters stated that due to the differences in the share 
percentage between adjacent tiers, vessel operators may increase 
fishing effort for the sole reason of subsequently being put in the 
next higher tier and increasing their share percentage. They stated 
that a small amount of additional effort can have a disproportionate 
impact on the IBQ share a vessel receives, since moving from one 
quartile to the next higher quartile (tier) results in a large increase 
in IBQ allocation received (in lb). Commenters also stated that the 
quartile system is unnecessarily complex. NMFS received comments in 
support of providing each active vessel at least a minimum amount of 
IBQ share that would allow them to depart on a fishing trip.

Response

    NMFS agrees that tiers based on quartiles (which was proposed), 
should not be included in the share determination methods for the 
reasons noted by the commenters, and will instead implement 
`customized' shares based on the number of pelagic longline sets in 
proportion to the total number of sets fleet-wide. Basically, this 
eliminates a step in the process and shares would correspond more 
directly to effort. Although NMFS proposed using tiers in order to 
eliminate shares with either a very high or very low percentage, NMFS 
agrees that `customized' shares are simpler and more equitable than the 
use of tiers. Using customized shares, no shareholder would receive a 
share larger or smaller than that which corresponds directly to the 
number of sets made by the vessel (during the relevant three-year 
period). NMFS disagrees that each active vessel should receive a 
minimum percentage that would allow them to depart on a fishing trip. 
Under the current regulations, 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 
gear onboard must have the minimum IBQ allocation for either the Gulf 
of Mexico or Atlantic, depending on fishing location. Under a 
customized share determination method, vessels with a low number of 
sets may receive a share percentage that results in an IBQ allocation 
of less than the minimum IBQ allocation required to depart on a fishing 
trip. While understanding the logic of the commenter's suggestions to 
implement a minimum share, NMFS disagrees that it is warranted because 
it would complicate the determination of shares and would be 
inconsistent with the reasons for implementing customized shares. 
Adjustment of the lowest shares upward would erode the equitable nature 
of customized share determination. The shares that are adjusted upward 
would no longer represent the vessels' number of sets and all of the 
other shares would need to be adjusted downward slightly to derive the 
shares used to increase the size of the smallest shares. Vessels that 
receive a share that is smaller than the minimum IBQ allocation 
required can lease additional allocation in order to fish.

Comment 5

    NMFS received a comment that the location and time of year of 
fishing activity should be taken into account when determining IBQ 
shares. The commenter stated that some fishing locations and times are 
not associated with interacting with bluefin, for example, in the 
Carolinas during August and September or in the Caribbean throughout 
the year. Two commenters supported maintaining the current regulations 
that include any data associated with fishing in the northeast distant 
gear restricted area (NED) as part of formulas that determine IBQ 
shares, and maintaining the current IBQ catch accounting rules for 
fishing in the NED. One commenter did not support

[[Page 59974]]

inclusion of trips in the NED, but suggested instead a complex system 
of rules for how such trips would factor into the determination of IBQ 
shares. Another commenter suggested that NMFS analyze the impact of 
dynamic determination of IBQ shares based upon designated species 
landings as the measure of fishing effort on leasing of IBQ allocation.

Response

    NMFS disagrees that the location and time of year of fishing 
activity should be taken into account when determining IBQ shares. 
Although the abundance and distribution of bluefin are associated with 
particular geographic regions and seasons, taking into account patterns 
of bluefin availability would increase the complexity of the share 
determination, and may not result in a distribution of shares among 
vessels that aligns with the need for bluefin allocation. The pelagic 
longline fishery is dynamic, mobile, and adaptive, with some vessels 
opportunistically targeting multiple species over wide geographic 
areas. Inclusion of all fishing activity as the basis of allocation 
formulas increases fishing opportunity and flexibility for vessels to 
fish in multiple areas, as conditions warrant. The NED fishery is an 
intermittent fishery with only a few participating vessels and does not 
warrant the development of different allocation rules. NED accounting 
rules take into account the fact that a binding ICCAT recommendation 
specifies a separate 25-mt bluefin quota to account for bycatch from 
the NED. Exclusion of NED fishing activity from data used to determine 
shares may affect profitability of vessel operations or incentives to 
fish in the NED, and affect fishing for target species. Unless clearly 
warranted, constraints on fishing for target species are not desirable. 
Under current regulations, any pelagic longline vessel may fish in the 
NED. NMFS analyzed the impacts of dynamic determination of IBQ shares 
and concluded it would enhance the continued success of the IBQ 
allocation leasing program by the distribution of shares to active 
vessels. 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. Sixty-one of the 91 active vessels would have larger 
IBQ allocations than they would under the current static determination 
of IBQ shares.

Comment 6

    NMFS received multiple comments expressing concern that the 
preferred alternative for determining IBQ shares would not facilitate 
new entrants joining the pelagic longline fishery, as it would be 
difficult for new entrants to lease IBQ allocation from active vessels 
and to increase that amount of IBQ share over time.

Response

    NMFS has concluded that the determination of IBQ shares based on 
vessel sets will enhance the continued success of the IBQ allocation 
leasing market, and therefore IBQ allocation will be available to new 
entrants to the fishery that do not have IBQ shares at the time of 
entry into the fishery. Under dynamic share determination, a new 
entrant to the fishery would need to lease IBQ allocation during the 
first year of their participation in the pelagic longline fishery. 
During the second year of participation, the vessel's share percentage 
would be based on the number of pelagic longline sets relative to the 
total fishery (during the previous three years). Since 2015 there have 
been participants in the fishery that were not shareholders, who have 
relied on leased IBQ allocations from shareholders in order to fish and 
account for bluefin catch. In light of public comment though, this 
final rule adds to the framework provisions of the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP the authority to set aside a de minimis amount of bluefin quota 
for new entrants. Neither the Amendment 13 DEIS nor the FEIS analyzes a 
full set-aside program. This final rule simply provides for the 
potential development of such a program in the future, if necessary, 
should the dynamic allocation provisions finalized in this action not 
facilitate new entrants. In that case, NMFS would conduct rulemaking to 
set the precise amount of set-aside, and the requirements, process, and 
conditions associated with distributing IBQ allocation to new entrants.

`B' Alternatives: Modifications to Rules Closely Linked to IBQ 
Allocations

Comment 7

    NMFS received comments in support of the preferred alternative to 
determine regional designations of IBQ shares and allocations on an 
annual basis as part of the annual dynamic allocation process. They 
indicated that the preferred alternative would allow more flexibility 
for vessels to fish in the Gulf of Mexico without needing to lease GOM 
IBQ allocation. The need to lease IBQ allocation was particularly 
frustrating when vessels had to lease from vessels that were not 
actively fishing, but simply leasing their IBQ allocation to active 
vessels.

Response

    NMFS agrees that the preferred alternative, which modifies the 
regional designations so that they are dynamic, would provide 
additional flexibility for vessels that are interested in fishing in 
the Gulf of Mexico. A vessel without any GOM IBQ shares during a 
particular year would need to lease GOM IBQ allocation to fish in the 
Gulf of Mexico that year, but in the subsequent year, in the context of 
the dynamic determination of IBQ shares, the vessels would have GOM IBQ 
shares in proportion to the number of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf 
of Mexico.

Comment 8

    NMFS received a number of comments that did not support the 
preferred alternative to determine regional designations of IBQ shares 
and allocations on an annual basis as part of the annual dynamic 
allocation process. One commenter instead supported Alternative B2, 
which would remove regional designations altogether but retain the 
catch cap. Another commenter stated that the regional designations are 
an unnecessary barrier, an unjustified cost, and an impediment to 
attaining optimum yield in the fishery. Further, they stated that the 
preferred alternative did not provide a reasonable opportunity to catch 
the quota. A commenter stated that constraints in the Gulf of Mexico 
are not needed because the IBQ Program constrains the impacts of the 
fishery on bluefin. One commenter was concerned that, in the context of 
dynamic shares and regional designations, the potential for declining 
effort in the Gulf of Mexico could result in a low percentage of GOM 
IBQ shares that could severely limit the operation of the fishery. For 
example, a reduction in either the number of vessels fishing in the 
Gulf of Mexico, or reduction in the amount of fishing effort per vessel 
(or both) would result in a reduction in the amount of GOM designated 
shares (and IBQ allocation).

Response

    NMFS disagrees that the preferred alternative for regional 
designations would represent an unwarranted barrier or cost to fishing, 
or that IBQ Program constraints for the Gulf of Mexico are unnecessary. 
The regional designation rules provide a balance between the need to 
cap bluefin catch in the Gulf of Mexico, provide equitable fishing 
opportunities, and modulate pelagic

[[Page 59975]]

longline fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico. The Amendment 7 IBQ 
Program rules as modified by Amendment 13 are intended to address the 
fact that the Gulf of Mexico is the recognized spawning ground for 
western Atlantic bluefin tuna. Under this Amendment 13 final rule, a 
vessel without GOM designated IBQ shares, but fishing in the Gulf of 
Mexico would be required to lease GOM IBQ allocation during the first 
year of fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. However, in the following year 
the vessel would have GOM designated IBQ shares in proportion to the 
number of pelagic longline sets in the Gulf of Mexico. Over time, a 
vessel with increasing levels of fishing effort in the Gulf of Mexico 
would receive an increasing percentage of GOM designated IBQ shares. 
This method is a reasonable means of providing opportunities to fish in 
the Gulf of Mexico, while supporting the objectives of the regional 
designations. NMFS agrees that under dynamic determination of shares 
and regional designations, there could be a situation of reduced 
fishing effort and low GOM designated shares. Under conditions of low 
GOM shares and allocation, vessels with GOM IBQ shares may be reluctant 
to lease IBQ allocation to others. If unable to lease GOM IBQ 
allocation, prospective new entrants to the fishery (without any 
shares), or vessels with only Atlantic (ATL) designated shares, would 
be unable to meet the minimum IBQ allocation requirement, and thus be 
unable to fish in the Gulf of Mexico. Similarly, vessels with GOM 
designated IBQ shares may be unable to account for bluefin catch. Such 
serious constraints could result in poor function or disruption of the 
IBQ Program, and result in further declines in fishing effort or 
participation in the pelagic longline fishery, or prevent increases in 
fishing effort or participation. To address this, this final rule 
includes a GOM designated share percentage threshold. If the total 
amount of IBQ shares designated as GOM is five percent or less of the 
total IBQ allocations (ATL plus GOM designated shares), the requirement 
to account for bluefin caught in the Gulf of Mexico with GOM IBQ 
allocation, and use GOM IBQ allocation to satisfy the minimum IBQ 
allocation requirement would not apply. In other words, any vessel 
would be able to use GOM IBQ or ATL IBQ allocation to either account 
for bluefin catch (landings or dead discards) or satisfy the minimum 
requirements for IBQ allocation in the Gulf of Mexico. When this low 
share threshold provision is in effect, the maximum allowable bluefin 
catch from the Gulf of Mexico will be the weight of bluefin associated 
with the cap on GOM designated shares (i.e., the default level of 35 
percent, or lower if modified). If this level of bluefin catch 
(landings and dead discards) were reached in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS 
would prohibit vessels from fishing with pelagic longline gear in the 
Gulf of Mexico for the remainder of that year.

Comment 9

    NMFS received comments inquiring whether modifications to regional 
IBQ share designations would impact catch rates of bluefin in the Gulf 
of Mexico or impact the bluefin stock since spawning adults are found 
in the Gulf of Mexico.

Response

    Amendment 7 established the 35-percent GOM/65-percent ATL regional 
designation approach for IBQ shares and allocations, in light of the 
fact that the Gulf of Mexico is recognized as the primary spawning 
ground for the western Atlantic bluefin tuna stock. Given the annual, 
dynamic determination of IBQ shares under Amendment 13 and inherent 
variability in the pelagic longline fishery (see response to comment 
5), NMFS anticipates that catch rates of bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico 
could vary from year to year. However, NMFS does not anticipate that 
the regional designation approach, as modified under Amendment 13, will 
result in an increase in incidental catch of bluefin in the Gulf of 
Mexico above levels of such catch since 2015. To ensure continued 
protections in the spawning grounds, this final rule establishes a 
default cap (35 percent of total IBQ shares) on the maximum amount of 
bluefin that may be caught in the Gulf of Mexico, which could be 
adjusted downward to achieve conservation and management objectives per 
the criteria under Sec.  635.27(a)(8). See response to comment 10 for 
further explanation. Further, when the low GOM share threshold 
provision is in effect, the maximum allowable bluefin catch from the 
Gulf of Mexico will be the weight of bluefin associated with the cap on 
GOM designated shares (i.e., the default level of 35 percent, or lower 
if NMFS modifies the level consistent with other provisions in this 
Amendment). If this level of bluefin catch (landings and dead discards) 
were reached in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS would prohibit vessels from 
fishing with pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico for the 
remainder of that year. The net ecological impact of the Amendment 13 
measures on bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico is thus neutral.

Comment 10

    NMFS received comments suggesting reduction of the cap on bluefin 
catch from the Gulf of Mexico from 35 percent to 25 percent due to the 
regulations not allowing targeted fishing for bluefin in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Another commenter suggested allowing the use of ATL designated 
IBQ allocation during the second half of the year.

Response

    NMFS does not believe that a 25-percent cap on GOM-designated IBQ 
shares is needed to protect bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico. Under the 
measures implemented by this Amendment 13 final rule, the amount of 
bluefin incidental catch in the Gulf of Mexico would continue to be 
capped at a default level of 35 percent of total pelagic longline 
bluefin catch. The total amount of GOM-designated IBQ shares could be 
even less than 35 percent, as NMFS will annually calculate the total 
amount (not to exceed 35 percent) based on the percentage of pelagic 
longline sets in the GOM compared to total sets (using the most recent, 
three-year period for which NMFS has information). Moreover, if NMFS 
determines that a downward adjustment is needed to achieve conservation 
and management objectives, it may reduce the maximum amount of bluefin 
that can be caught in the Gulf of Mexico, based on the determination 
criteria at Sec.  635.27(a)(8). There has not been a change in the 
status of the stock (no overfishing, overfished status unknown), and 
based on a 2021 stock assessment, ICCAT adopted a moderate increase in 
the western Atlantic bluefin total allowable catch. See 87 FR 33049, 
June 1, 2022 (final rule on Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Northern Albacore 
Tuna Quotas). In addition, there has been no increase in fishing effort 
in the Gulf of Mexico, no increase in catch of bluefin from the Gulf of 
Mexico, nor other change in the fishery that would support 
consideration of a more conservative default cap level. As noted above, 
this final rule authorizes NMFS to reduce the cap, if necessary, for 
conservation and management reasons. NMFS disagrees that allowing the 
use of ATL designated IBQ allocation during the second half of the year 
is a practical means of providing flexibility in the fishery. The 
regional designation rules provide adequate flexibility and a 
reasonable opportunity to fish in the Gulf of Mexico, while limiting 
the amount of potential bluefin incidental catch. Furthermore, a mid-
year change

[[Page 59976]]

to accounting rules would be impractical to administer in the Catch 
Shares Online System, the database accessible by dealers and vessel 
owners, which tracks bluefin catch and implements the relevant 
accounting rules.

`C' Alternatives: Sale of IBQ Shares

Comment 11

    NMFS received several comments in support of the preferred No 
Action alternative, under which the sale of IBQ shares would continue 
to be prohibited.

Response

    NMFS agrees that the sale of IBQ shares should continue to be 
prohibited. NMFS has not observed a need for Atlantic Tunas Longline 
permit holders to accumulate IBQ shares through purchase. For most 
shareholders, annual allocations combined with a minimal amount of 
leasing is likely to be sufficient for them to account for incidental 
bluefin catch. Additional rationale for preferring this alternative is 
in Chapter 2 of the Amendment 13 FEIS.

`D' Alternatives: Cap on IBQ Shareholder Percentage or IBQ Allocation 
Use

Comment 12

    NMFS received several comments in support of the preferred 
alternative to cap the accumulated sum of IBQ shares at 25 percent.

Response

    NMFS agrees that it is appropriate to cap the amount of shares an 
entity may hold or acquire at 25 percent of the total shares. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS must ensure that limited access 
privilege permit holders do not acquire an excessive share of the total 
limited access privileges.

Comment 13

    A pelagic longline association supported the preferred alternative 
to maintain the current regulations that do not limit the amount of IBQ 
allocation a vessel may lease, based on the rationale in the DEIS.

Response

    NMFS agrees that there should be no cap on the amount of IBQ 
allocation a vessel may lease. Long-term control of IBQ allocation by a 
single entity through leasing is not possible, because leasing of IBQ 
allocation occurs on an annual basis and expires at the end of each 
calendar year. The most likely reason a vessel might need to lease a 
large amount of IBQ allocation would be to account for an unusually 
large incidental catch of bluefin, which is consistent with the 
objectives of the IBQ Program. The limited amount of IBQ allocation 
available through annual distribution to shareholders, and the limited 
amount of IBQ allocation available via leasing (as well as the 
associated costs), provide strong incentives to avoid bluefin. 
Furthermore, there are other potential challenges associated with the 
incidental catch of bluefin by pelagic longline vessels including 
bluefin weighing down longline gear (which typically catch lighter 
species) and bluefin market limitations and volatility. Provided the 
IBQ Program continues to function in a manner consistent with its 
objectives, with individual vessel accountability for bluefin catch and 
incentives to reduce interactions with bluefin, there is no need for a 
cap on the amount of IBQ allocation that may be leased. During 
development of Final Amendment 13, NMFS became aware of concerns 
regarding recent, high bluefin landings by a small number of vessels. 
NMFS considers this to be an unusual event and not reflective of how 
the IBQ Program has functioned overall. A high bluefin landings event 
is unusual, and the risk of such an event will likely continue to be 
rare under Amendment 13.

Comment 14

    Several commenters supported simplification of the dealer reporting 
requirements for the IBQ Program. A pelagic longline association stated 
that removal of the bluefin dead discard reporting and personal 
identification number (PIN) requirements would lead to more timely 
reporting and better data. One commenter expressed the opinion that the 
passwords associated with the Catch Shares Online System were too 
complex and had to be changed too often.

Response

    NMFS agrees that the removal of the bluefin dead discard reporting 
and PIN requirements will streamline the dealer reporting requirements. 
NMFS did not propose or analyze any changes to the password 
requirements associated with the Catch Shares Online System. Passwords 
are required elements of computer systems to maintain a high level of 
data integrity and security.

`E' Alternatives: Adjustments to Other Aspects of the IBQ Program

Comment 15

    NMFS received comments in support of the preferred alternative that 
would require vessels to mail in their EM hard drives after every two 
trips instead of after each trip, because it would reduce the burdens 
associated with the requirement to mail hard drives. NMFS received a 
comment stating that NMFS should implement flexibility in the EM 
regulations regarding the method of transferring data to the Agency, in 
order to allow the EM Program to evolve with changing technology 
without needing further rulemaking.

Response

    NMFS agrees that this requirement to reduce the frequency of 
mailing hard drives to the third-party contractor would reduce the 
amount of time and costs required of vessel operators as associated 
with the EM Program. NMFS continually seeks to make its regulations 
more efficient and flexible, consistent with statutory requirements.

Comment 16

    NMFS received comments that regulations for installation of EM 
cameras should not be expanded due to safety concerns with the 
installation of booms. Some commenters expressed support or conditional 
support for mounting one of the video cameras on a boom or telescoping 
device to obtain a better view of bycatch events as gear is removed 
from the water. Some commenters said that deployment of booms could be 
done in a manner that addresses safety concerns, provided NMFS works 
closely with the individual vessel owners/operators to minimize the 
chances of the boom interfering with any of the vessel operations. Two 
commenters supported revising EM regulations to improve vessel-level 
accountability by making the EM Program more robust.

Response

    In 2015, the final rule for Amendment 7 authorized NMFS to 
``require vessel owners to make minor modifications to vessel equipment 
to facilitate installation and operation of the EM system,'' including 
``a mounting structure(s) for installation of the camera(s)'' (Sec.  
635.9(b)(2)). This final rule clarifies that NMFS may require vessel 
owners to install permanent or semi-permanent hardware (e.g., booms), 
if necessary, in order to mount and install video cameras at locations 
on vessels to obtain optimal views of fish and improve the accuracy of 
the resulting data. Not all vessels may need additional hardware. If 
needed, NMFS would coordinate closely with vessel operators to address 
any vessel operation or safety concerns, taking into consideration the 
unique layout and

[[Page 59977]]

operation of each vessel. A description of the boom configuration would 
be included in each vessel's Vessel Monitoring Plan, which is a 
customized description of the specifics of the EM components on each 
vessel. In addition to the safety aspect of installation, the vessel 
owner would have substantial input regarding the type and amount of 
materials used, because they would be paying for the installation. In 
Draft Amendment 13, NMFS stated that it would pay the costs of boom 
installation as funds are available. At this time, appropriated funds 
are not available, thus, if additional hardware is needed, vessel 
owners would be required to cover the costs of the hardware and 
installation. The video camera position will need to provide an optimal 
view of the area of the water surface and seaward of the rail, down to 
the water surface, where the gear and fish are hauled out of the water, 
while minimizing potential safety hazards and interference with vessel 
operations. The process of boom installation will include discussion 
with vessel owners/operators and looking at current or historical video 
footage of the views provided by the video camera. NMFS agrees that 
improvement of the elements of the EM Program may contribute to the 
continued success of the IBQ Program and vessel-level accountability.

Comment 17

    NMFS received comments that additional fish handling protocols for 
EM should not be specified and that a measuring grid on the deck of the 
vessel is not needed. Some commenters were concerned that a measuring 
mat would be hazardous or difficult to secure, or that a painted grid 
would be impractical because decks are routinely resurfaced. Two 
commenters, including the EPA, supported the proposed expansion of EM 
requirements to improve vessel-level accountability. Two commenters 
supported the preferred alternative provided the grids accommodate 
individual vessel configurations and maintain safety.

Response

    NMFS believes that additional fish handling protocols that 
incorporate a measuring grid are necessary in order to improve the data 
quality. The vessel crew will be required to place retained fish on a 
mat with grid lines or a grid painted on the deck in view of the 
processing camera, so the video recording includes images of the fish. 
The use of a standardized grid will enable the video analyst to have a 
size reference to aid in the estimation of fish size and determination 
of fish species. For example, the total length of a fish and the 
relative size of the pectoral fin are some of the characteristics used 
in species identification. With the use of a reference grid, size 
estimation would be less affected by camera placement and angle, and 
the estimation of size and species identification may be improved. 
Further, a standardized reference grid may facilitate the development 
and use of computer algorithms and automation of video analysis. NMFS 
or a NMFS-approved contractor will work with vessel owners/operators to 
specify a measuring grid that, to the extent practicable, accommodates 
the unique layout and operations of each fishing vessel. A description 
of the measuring grid will be included in each vessel's VMP, which is a 
customized description of the specifics of the EM components on each 
vessel. The vessel owner will have six months after the VMP is approved 
to install the measure grid specified in the VMP. NMFS changed its 
approach from Draft Amendment 13/DEIS, which stated that NMFS would pay 
the costs of grid installation as funds are available. At this time, 
appropriated funds are not available and NMFS is now requiring vessel 
owners to cover the cost of grid installation.

Comment 18

    NMFS received a comment about the reasons for the proposed changes 
to the EM Program, and questioning whether the Program has been 
successful in corroborating the set-based self-reporting of bluefin 
catch.

Response

    Under the EM Program, NMFS has been successful in corroborating 
set-based self-reported bluefin catch. NMFS released the Three-Year 
Review of the IBQ Program in 2019, which provides detailed information 
on the EM Program. VMS and EM data from 2015 through 2018 indicated 
that a high percentage of sets with bluefin catch reported via VMS that 
were audited by review of EM footage were confirmed. Likewise, a high 
percentage of sets that did not report bluefin catch via VMS did not 
show bluefin catch in audited EM footage. (Table 6.35 in Three-Year 
Review of the IBQ Program). Unpublished data from 2019 show a similarly 
high level of agreement between VMS reports and EM footage. Thus, there 
is high confidence in EM data on the number of retained fish when 
compared to VMS data; however, the EM data have relatively high 
variability in size estimation compared to self-reported data. In 
addition, the EM data on bluefin discards are less likely to match the 
VMS data due to discard events that occur outside the camera's field of 
view. Thus, NMFS is implementing regulations to improve data quality, 
as explained in response to comments 16 and 17.

Comment 19

    NMFS received a comment questioning whether the proposed cost 
recovery program is consistent with other cost recovery programs 
administered by NMFS. Another commenter did not support implementation 
of a cost recovery program, because of the numerous reporting and 
monitoring costs that the pelagic longline fishery already incurs, and 
stated that Congress, in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, did not envision 
cost recovery for an incidental species.

Response

    NMFS developed the IBQ cost recovery program in consultation with 
NMFS staff from other regions with cost recovery programs for limited 
access privilege programs (LAPP). Differences among cost recovery 
programs reflect the unique aspects of each fishery managed under a 
LAPP, consistent with relevant Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions (16 
U.S.C. 1853a(e) and 1854(d)(2)). Recognizing that the IBQ Program is 
unique because bluefin is an incidental catch and not a targeted 
species, NMFS believes cost recovery for this program is consistent 
with the aforementioned provisions. As with other cost recovery 
programs, in the IBQ program, a fee would not exceed three percent of 
the ex-vessel value of fish harvested under the LAPP (bluefin). See id. 
Sec.  1854(d)(2)(B). Because bluefin is an incidental species in the 
pelagic longline fishery, and the IBQ Program provides incentives to 
reduce interactions with bluefin, landings of bluefin are likely to 
remain low relative to targeted species. Given the relatively small 
total ex-vessel value of bluefin incidentally caught and landed by 
pelagic longline vessels, and the substantial incremental costs to NMFS 
associated with the IBQ Program, NMFS anticipates that the likely cost 
recovery fee would be three percent of the ex-vessel value of bluefin 
sold (or less). As such, three percent of the ex-vessel value of 
bluefin will likely be a small amount of recoverable costs compared to 
other cost recovery programs. Therefore, this final rule implements a 
flexible cost recovery program, under which NMFS would make an annual 
determination whether a cost recovery fee paid by permit holders 
participating in the IBQ Program is warranted. If the total fees that 
could be collected are similar to or less than the administrative

[[Page 59978]]

costs of the cost recovery program, no cost recovery fee would be 
collected.

`F' Alternatives: Purse Seine Category and Quota Allocation Process

Comment 20

    Several commenters supported the preferred alternative to change 
the method of allocating bluefin quota among the quota categories to 
simplify the process. Two of the commenters stated that the proposed 
measure would not result in any net gains for the fishery and one 
commenter noted it was procedural in nature.

Response

    NMFS agrees that the preferred alternative to change the 
mathematical method used in the annual quota allocation process to 
achieve a similar result through a simpler means is procedural in 
nature and would not meaningfully impact the net amount of bluefin 
quota allocated to the quota categories. Instead of a two-step process 
of subtracting the 68 mt from the U.S. baseline quota and then applying 
the category allocation percentages, there will be a one-step process 
applying slightly revised category allocation percentages.

Comment 21

    NMFS received many comments in support of the preferred alternative 
to discontinue the Purse Seine category and reallocate the bluefin 
quota upon implementation of Amendment 13. Commenters were in agreement 
with the underlying logic that the purse seine fishery has not been 
active for many years and that bluefin quota is needed by the other 
bluefin quota categories that are actively fishing. Furthermore, 
commenters thought that Purse Seine category participants who are not 
fishing should not be able to continue to profit by leasing bluefin 
quota to Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders.

Response

    NMFS agrees that the discontinuation of the Purse Seine category is 
warranted. The Purse Seine category has been allocated 18.6 percent of 
the U.S. baseline bluefin quota. Discontinuation of the Purse Seine 
category and reallocation of its quota will provide additional quota to 
active fishing categories that are, at times, quota-limited, and 
increase the likelihood that more of the U.S. quota will be utilized. 
Bluefin quota allocated to the Purse Seine category has not been used 
in many years to harvest bluefin using purse seine gear, and a 
meaningful amount of that quota has not been leased to pelagic longline 
vessels. See response to comment 24 for further details. Quota that is 
allocated to Purse Seine category participants and then not used is a 
source of concern to participants of both the directed and incidental 
bluefin fisheries, who, as a result, may forego potential fishing 
opportunities. Reallocation of the Purse Seine category quota will also 
reduce various types of uncertainty that result from the inactive 
status of the Purse Seine category (see comment 23).

Comment 22

    NMFS received comments opposed to the preferred alternative, 
because it does not reallocate Purse Seine category bluefin quota to 
the Longline category and would affect IBQ leasing. Commenters noted 
that pelagic longline vessels have depended on leasing currently 
available Purse Seine category quota to account for bluefin catch under 
the IBQ Program, and that Purse Seine category quota provides a safety 
net in case of unexpected bluefin catch. A pelagic longline association 
representative stressed the reliance of pelagic longline fishermen on 
leasing Purse Seine category quota, and stated that the IBQ Program 
would cease to function without that leasing opportunity. The 
representative stated that, in recent years, the agency has 
consistently reallocated 75 percent of the Purse Seine category quota 
to other categories, leaving 25 percent (4.4 percent of the U.S. 
baseline quota) available for leasing. Given that, 25 percent of the 
Purse Seine category quota should be reallocated to the Longline 
category. The State of Maryland's Department of Natural Resources 
supported including the Longline category in the reallocation due to 
their reliance on such quota for leasing. Another commenter stated that 
the increased IBQ allocation to many active pelagic longline vessels 
under the preferred IBQ share alternative would not make up for the 
loss of quota currently available from the Purse Seine category. Other 
commenters did not think that excluding the Longline category from the 
proposed reallocation was fair and equitable. One commenter said that 
an adequate amount of bluefin quota for pelagic longline vessels was 
very important due to a decrease in the bluefin market and revenue and 
the relative increase in the cost of leasing bluefin quota.

Response

    NMFS agrees that pelagic longline vessels have depended on bluefin 
quota that they lease from Purse Seine category participants to fish 
under the restrictions of the IBQ Program. IBQ Program participants 
require adequate IBQ allocation in order to meet the accounting 
requirements, participate in the leasing market, and mitigate risk. 
Adequate IBQ allocation is important to achieve a balance between 
incentives to reduce bluefin interactions and the ability to fish for 
target species to maintain profitability and supply the seafood market. 
In the reallocation method described in the proposed rule, NMFS did not 
reallocate bluefin quota from the Purse Seine category to the Longline 
category. After considering public comment, NMFS re-analyzed data 
regarding the leasing program and concluded that the Longline category 
should receive reallocated Purse Seine category quota in order to 
increase the likelihood of maintaining a successful IBQ allocation 
leasing market in the future, including new entrants. As described in 
the Final Amendment 13/FEIS, pelagic longline vessels have been 
increasingly reliant on both the available Purse Seine category quota 
and inactive pelagic longline vessels as sources for bluefin quota 
leases. Because the incidental Trap category has a de minimis amount of 
quota and rare bluefin landings, NMFS is including the category in the 
reallocation too, to simplify the overall reallocation. Therefore, this 
final rule implements bluefin quota percentages that incorporate 
reallocation of the Purse Seine category quota to all of the other 
bluefin quota categories, including the Longline and Trap categories, 
in proportion to their baseline allocation percentages.
    Reallocation of the Purse Seine category quota facilitates directed 
fishing by the Longline category while accounting for incidental 
bluefin catch and facilitates the ability for active HMS directed 
permit categories to catch their full bluefin allocations. Based on the 
current U.S. baseline quota, the Longline category will receive more 
quota (34.9 mt) under this final rule than the average amount of Purse 
Seine leases from 2016 through 2019 (23.9 mt). Given recent lease 
amounts, NMFS does not believe that reallocation of 25 percent of the 
Purse Seine category quota (54.88 mt) to the Longline category is 
needed in order to promote the effective functioning of the IBQ 
program. Moreover, leasing was not the reason Amendment 7 adopted the 
annual quota allocation mechanism that guaranteed that a minimum of 25 
percent of the Purse Seine category quota would be available to the 
five historical participants. See response to comment 24 for more on 
the mechanism. Under Amendment 7 rules,

[[Page 59979]]

annual allocations to the Purse Seine category are not based on IBQ 
leasing, but on the previous year's bluefin catch by each individual 
purse seine vessel, as the intent of the mechanism is to encourage 
purse seine vessels to catch rather than lease quota. See Final 
Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP at pp. 23-24 (explaining 
preferred Alternative A3a: Annual Reallocation of Bluefin Quota from 
Purse Seine Category).

Comment 23

    NMFS received comments that supported maintaining the current 
status of the Purse Seine category and the associated quota rules under 
which, in recent years, 75 percent of the Purse Seine category quota 
has been reallocated annually to the Reserve category, and subsequently 
reallocated to the directed bluefin fishing quota categories. The 
commenters' view was that the current system of annual redistribution, 
which relies on the inactive status of the purse seine fishery, works 
well to meet the needs of the directed bluefin fisheries.

Response

    NMFS agrees that there have been benefits for the directed 
categories due to the lack of purse seine vessels fishing activity and 
the annual Purse Seine category quota allocation mechanism under the 
Amendment 7 regulations. Notwithstanding these benefits, there has also 
been uncertainty each year about the amount of quota that will be in 
the Reserve category, the amount of quota that NMFS may transfer 
inseason from the Reserve category to other quota categories, and the 
timing of such potential transfers. These sources of uncertainty make 
it difficult for vessel owners to plan their fishing season and may 
create market uncertainty. Lastly, there is an administrative burden 
for NMFS associated with conducting inseason transfers. Reallocation of 
bluefin quota from the Purse Seine category would result in increases 
in the relative sizes of all of the remaining quota categories, larger 
baseline quotas, reduced uncertainties, and efficiencies in the 
management process by reducing the number of inseason actions.

Comment 24

    NMFS received comments from a business that currently owns vessels 
that previously fished in the purse seine fishery that they do not 
support discontinuation of the Purse Seine category because the revenue 
from leasing bluefin quota contributes to the financial well-being of 
their company. They consider the business entities that lease Purse 
Seine category quota to pelagic longline vessels to be `active', and 
stated that the proposed measures would render their vessels and 
permits worthless. One commenter felt that the purse seine fishery 
should be able to become active again if it wishes, because the purse 
seine fishery is currently inactive due to high regulatory burdens.

Response

    The business that submitted the comments summarized above is not 
one of the five historical participants in the Purse Seine category. 
Since 1982, the Purse Seine category has been managed with non-
transferrable limited entry permits, and limited to five participants 
who historically were financially dependent on the fishery. None of 
those participants uses purse seine gear any longer, nor have they 
recently. Although they continue to receive quota and may lease it, the 
current framework has inhibited maintaining and achieving, on a 
continuing basis, optimum yield in the fishery as a whole. Since 
Amendment 7 was implemented in 2015, 75 percent of Purse Seine category 
quota annually continues to not be used for bluefin fishing by purse 
seine vessels or not be available for leasing under the IBQ Program, 
and large amounts of quota are ultimately transferred to the Reserve 
category through an annual process. As a result, there is uncertainty 
each year about the timing and amount of quota to be transferred 
between the Purse Seine and Reserve and other categories, 
administrative burden on NMFS to administer the process, and 
uncertainty about the amount and price of bluefin quota that might be 
leased by Purse Seine category participants.
    Limited entry was initiated due to the large harvesting capacity of 
purse seine gear and its ability to exceed U.S. quotas in very short 
periods of time. Limited entry was implemented with the intent of 
ensuring that only those persons who had depended on this fishery for 
all or part of their livelihood were allowed access and this approach 
was practical given the small pool of ownership in this sector of the 
fishery. Under this limited entry system, the use of purse seine gear 
was authorized, and equal baseline quotas of bluefin were assigned to 
five individual vessel owners. This enabled owners to replace older 
vessels they owned with newer ones. Thus, NMFS limited the Purse Seine 
category to only the five participants who historically were 
financially dependent on the fishery and their five purse seine 
vessels. Although new entrants are prohibited, an owner of a vessel 
with an Atlantic Tunas permit in the Purse Seine category may transfer 
the permit to another purse seine vessel that he or she owns per 50 CFR 
635.4(d)(5).
    NMFS does not consider the Purse Seine category to be currently 
active, even though some of the historical permit holders have been 
leasing bluefin quota to pelagic longline vessels as allowed under the 
Amendment 7 regulations. Promoting commercial and recreational fishing 
under sound conservation and management principles and achieving, on a 
continuing basis, optimum yield from a fishery are key purposes of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. From 2005 through 2012, there was no purse seine 
fishing activity. From 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 (six, five, 
and four percent in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively). Recognizing 
that there had been low (to no) fishing and consistent underutilization 
of the Purse Seine category quota, Amendment 7 established the annual 
allocation mechanism to, among other things, optimize the ability for 
all permit categories to harvest their full bluefin quota allocations. 
Under this mechanism, based on their prior year's catch, each of the 
five historical participants would receive a minimum of 25 percent of 
\1/5\th of the Purse Seine category quota, even if they did not fish, 
and up to 100 percent. The goal was to assure some level of fishing 
opportunity and create incentives for purse seine vessels to remain 
active in the fishery. See Final Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP at pp. 23-24. Since 2015, there has been no purse seine fishing 
activity. The historical participants sold the vessels that they used 
to fish for bluefin to new owners that are not historical participants. 
Currently, there is no entity that fishes for bluefin with purse seine 
gear. Vessels sold by the historical permit holders have been or may be 
earning revenue in fisheries for species other than bluefin, and NMFS 
did not receive public comment that indicates otherwise or that 
provides specific information related to impacts on permit values. With 
regard to leasing, it is unclear whether the commenter has in fact been 
leasing Purse Seine quota, and if so, how. The commenter is not one of 
the five historical participants and accounts used for leasing are 
issued to the historical participants. In any event, NMFS did analyze 
the effect of the amendment on harvesting privileges by estimating 
potential revenue loss

[[Page 59980]]

from leasing bluefin quota and from potential future fishing/landings, 
and did not receive any public comments or new information since Draft 
Amendment 13/DEIS that is relevant to, or warrants a change in, these 
estimates. Even assuming the historical participants no longer obtain 
the financial benefits of leasing their quota, they have no property 
interest or other right to an ongoing income stream from those permits. 
Purse seine permits may not be assigned and are not transferable 
outside of the historical Purse Seine category participants, and like 
any limited access privilege may be modified, suspended or revoked. In 
this instance, NMFS has concluded that, in view of the long-term 
absence of active fishing, the elimination of the Purse Seine category 
will best contribute to achieving optimum yield and ensuring the 
greatest overall benefit to the nation.

Comment 25

    NMFS received comments suggesting changes to the proposed 
distribution of reallocated Purse Seine category quota, including that 
no quota should be reallocated to the Angling category, additional 
quota going to the General category should be allocated to particular 
subquota periods, and more quota should be reallocated to the Harpoon 
category. One commenter was concerned about the potential ecological 
impacts of reallocation of Purse Seine category quota to the Angling 
category, due to the impression that it would represent a shift in the 
size range of fish caught, from large bluefin to smaller bluefin.

Response

    Quota categories are tightly associated with authorized gears and 
permit types. This structure based on gear and permit type remains a 
valid way to align quota distribution among diverse fisheries. 
Modifications to the relative size of the allocations (i.e., the 
percentages for each quota category) in order to further optimize the 
use of the bluefin resource should address specific concerns or trends 
in the fishery. There is no new scientific information or fishery 
trends that warranted fundamental reconsideration of the entire 
allocation structure beyond the alternatives examined in this 
Amendment. This Amendment 13 final rule includes modifications to the 
relative size of the category allocations (i.e., the percentages for 
each quota category) in order to streamline the allocation system, and 
further optimize the use of the bluefin resource through elimination of 
the Purse Seine category with redistribution to other categories. The 
fundamental sizes of the different quota categories in relation to each 
other was neither analyzed, nor changed. The scope and rationale for 
the allocation changes implemented by this final rule are consistent 
with NMFS Procedural Directive 01-119-01 ``Criteria for Initiating 
Fisheries Allocation Reviews'', and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. 
Additionally, NMFS implemented Amendment 12 to the 2006 Consolidated 
HMS FMP (86 FR 46836, August 20, 2021), an amendment that, among other 
things, addresses the 2016 revised National Standard guidelines and the 
2017 Fisheries Allocation Review Policy Directive 01-119. Amendment 12 
established triggers for the review of allocations for quota-managed 
HMS species, and these factors were appropriately considered within the 
examined alternatives. NMFS decided there was no need in Amendment 13 
to consider fundamental changes to the baseline quota percentages (see 
Section 2.10.6), thus reallocating Purse Seine category quota in 
proportion to those percentages also seems reasonable.
    Although the suggestions that the additional quota being 
reallocated from the Purse Seine category to the General category 
should be allocated to particular subquota periods was not within the 
scope of the action, the justifications cited by commenters for 
favoring one subquota period or another provided useful information for 
NMFS' consideration of modifications to the General category subquota 
periods. Comments pertaining to the General category subquota periods 
or methods of allocating quota among the General category subquota 
periods are addressed in Comments 26 and 27. Regarding the potential 
ecological impacts of reallocation of quota from the Purse Seine 
category to the Angling category, NMFS has determined that the 
ecological impacts will be neutral. Although NMFS understands the 
commenter's concern, which is based on the premise that the harvest of 
bluefin of different size classes may have different ecological impact, 
the increase in the size of the Angling category quota is relatively 
small (from 19.7 to 22.6 percent of the bluefin quota).

`G' Alternatives: Modifications to General Category Subquota Periods 
and/or Allocations

Comment 26

    NMFS received comments that opposed, or asked what the 
justification was for the preferred No Action alternative to maintain 
the current structure of the General category fishery time periods and 
associated subquotas. One commenter stated that current management of 
the General category favors participants early in the season versus the 
fall participants over the last several years. They further elaborated 
that the current fishery has evolved into a part-time fishery with many 
less experienced recent entrants to the fishery, and noted specific 
concerns such as poor quality fish landed. They suggested various 
requirements including: that General category vessels be required to 
show tax proof of their commercial status and abide by the relevant 
safety regulations; and that HMS Charter/Headboat vessels fishing under 
the General category quota verify that they take charter trips.

Response

    NMFS agrees that the General category fishery has changed over 
time. Handgear fisheries that target bluefin have consistently been 
very active, and the number of permit holders remains high. Increases 
in landings from the handgear fisheries that began prior to 2015 have 
continued. With such increases, there has been renewed public interest 
in the optimal and fair and equitable allocation of bluefin quota among 
seasons and geographic areas. These occurrences are the reason NMFS 
considered changes to the General category fishery in this amendment. 
Notwithstanding these changes to the fishery, based on the analyses in 
Draft Amendment 13/DEIS and the Final Amendment 13/FEIS (see Section 
4.7.4), NMFS determined that the current structure of the fishery 
provides equitable fishing opportunities, as explained further in the 
response to Comment 27, is not modifying the General category 
regulations in the final rule. The open access permit categories that 
allow the use of handgear to target bluefin commercially are intended 
to provide opportunities for a variety of participants. NMFS 
acknowledges that among those participants there is likely to be a 
range in levels of experience and dependence upon the income derived 
from the fishery. There are licensing and safety regulations in place 
currently for the HMS Charter/Headboat and General category permitted 
vessels fishing commercially that do not apply to recreational vessels 
issued an HMS Angling permit.

Comment 27

    NMFS received comments expressing concern with one or more of the 
alternatives analyzed but not preferred. A commenter stated that the 
alternative that would allocate the General category quota equally 
among 12 monthly

[[Page 59981]]

subquota periods would benefit southern participants, but adversely 
affect finances and participation of northern participants. Commenters 
who are participants in the January through March fishery expressed 
interest in a larger January through March subquota to have more 
opportunity earlier in the season. A commenter did not support 
providing additional quota to the January through March subquota period 
because it would mean taking away quota from the June through and 
August subquota period, during the time when there is the highest level 
of participation by fishermen north of Cape Cod. Similarly a commenter 
was concerned that the alternative that would extend the January 
through March subquota period through the end of April would represent 
a shift in catch and opportunity from north to south, and believed that 
it would result in negative economic consequences later in the year. A 
commenter was concerned about the alternative that would increase the 
September and October through November subquotas, with a corresponding 
decrease in the June through August subquota. They stated that the 
quota for the June through August subquota period has been exceeded in 
recent years and the fishery has been closed prior to August 31. They 
explained that the greatest fishing effort in terms of man-hours is 
during the June through August period, and that reducing the quota 
during this time period would represent a significant adverse impact on 
fishing opportunity. One commenter suggested that NMFS should 
prioritize August General category fishing by creating a separate 
August subquota in order to maximize fishing opportunity and number of 
participants. The commenter stated that during August the greatest 
amount of bluefin availability coincides with the greatest amount of 
fishing effort. Other commenters who are participants in the October 
through November period or December period fisheries expressed concerns 
regarding the uncertainty of whether General category quota would 
remain for the times when commercial-sized bluefin are available in 
their areas. Some commenters preferred to see more opportunities 
available when market prices are generally higher, such as in the fall 
months. Several commenters noted that fall bluefin are the most 
valuable due to higher fat content and that providing more quota to 
June through August would increase landings of lower quality and lower 
value fish. Several commenters stated that commercial fishermen on Cape 
Cod and the islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket depend on 
quality fish in the late fall. Allocating the additional quota for the 
fall would ensure that bluefin quota would last into the fall. Several 
commenters were concerned that, in recent years, some of the subquotas 
have been reached and the General category has been closed while 
fishing opportunities (i.e., fish availability) remained and meanwhile 
other subquotas are not reached. One commenter stated that NMFS should 
create a separate November subquota period.

Response

    NMFS acknowledges that there are varied views on how the General 
category could be modified. As noted by commenters, there are potential 
trade-offs associated with each of the alternatives analyzed, including 
the preferred alternative, depending upon the time of year or location 
being considered. The bluefin fishery is highly dynamic because bluefin 
are highly mobile, with a distribution that changes seasonally and 
annually. Fishing permits are open access, thus permit holders may fish 
in any geographic location they choose. Price fluctuations do not show 
a strong pattern during the year, despite perceptions that prices are 
higher in the fall. However, there are also predictable patterns in 
bluefin distribution that are reflected in the current structure of the 
General category subquota time periods. The larger quota associated 
with some subquota periods reflects the general seasonality, historical 
availability, and relative sizes of the historical seasonal fisheries 
for bluefin. NMFS analyzed various quantitative metrics in Draft 
Amendment 13/DEIS and the Final Amendment 13/FEIS to enable 
standardized comparisons among the different subquota periods and 
alternatives (e.g., Tables 4.32 through 4.40). Standardized metrics are 
used to compare among quota periods because the quota periods are 
allocated different amounts of bluefin, and are of different duration. 
After considering information from recent years, NMFS believes that the 
subquotas continue to be appropriate, given fish availability, fishing 
effort, and bluefin landings during the different subquota time 
periods, and thus provide fair and equitable fishing opportunities. It 
is important to note that the subquotas work in concert with several 
regulatory mechanisms that provide flexibility in how the amount of 
quota is divided among the subquota periods. NMFS may transfer unused 
quota from one subquota period to a subsequent subquota period in the 
year such that the quota allocated to subquota periods may increase. 
Unused quota may, if remaining unused as the year progresses, all be 
transferred into the December subquota period. NMFS may allocate quota 
from the December subquota period to the January through March subquota 
period, may allocate additional quota from the Reserve category, or may 
utilize changes in retention limits to modify the rate of catch to 
facilitate the attainment of subquotas and the annual quota.
    In 2021, NMFS resumed the use of restricted-fishing days to further 
facilitate the attainment of subquotas, and a schedule of restricted-
fishing days was finalized for 2022 (87 FR 33056, June 1, 2022). The 
data from recent years suggest that the flexibility in the quota system 
provided by these regulatory mechanisms is working. Landings (as a 
percentage of quota) have been increasing in recent years. Subquota 
periods that have lower percentage allocations have not necessarily 
been limited by them. For example, during 2018 and 2019, landings 
during the January through March subquota period were 8 percent and 13 
percent (respectively) of the total General category bluefin landings, 
despite that period having an initial allocation of 5.3 percent of the 
General category quota. Similarly, during 2018 and 2019, landings 
during the October through November subquota period were 18 percent and 
22 percent of the total General category bluefin landings, despite that 
period having an initial allocation of 13 percent (Figure 3.3). 
Although the amount of bluefin quota in the Reserve category will be 
reduced under Amendment 13 as a result of the removal of the Purse 
Seine category, and the associated flexibility to transfer quota from 
the Reserve to the General category will be reduced, the General 
category will be allocated a larger portion of the U.S. bluefin quota. 
NMFS will continue to monitor the General category carefully and make 
inseason adjustments per its regulations to facilitate a well-managed 
fishery that, among other things, provides equitable fishing 
opportunities.

`H' Alternatives: Modifications to the Angling Category Trophy Fishery

Comment 28

    NMFS received comments in support of the proposed measure to modify 
the current Angling category Trophy North subquota area by dividing the 
area into two zones (north and south of 42[deg] N lat., off Chatham, 
MA) and modify the allocation percentages to provide opportunities for 
anglers fishing off New

[[Page 59982]]

England and make the trophy fishery more equitable. One commenter noted 
that the Angling category boosts local economies through angler 
expenditures on boat fuel and fishing tackle. Two commenters were 
concerned that in order to create the new trophy suballocation for the 
Gulf of Maine trophy area, NMFS would increase the Trophy bluefin 
allocation through an equivalent reduction of the subquota for large 
school/small medium bluefin subquota (bluefin that measure from 47 
inches to less than 73 inches curved fork length (CFL)). They noted 
that the large school/small medium size class is an important component 
of the fishery. There were suggestions that NMFS increase the quota 
allocation to the Angling category and to the trophy subquotas, 
particularly for New England and for the New York Bight.

Response

    NMFS agrees that dividing the current Trophy North subquota area 
into two zones and providing allocation to the new area (Gulf of Maine) 
will make the fishery more equitable by providing a modest amount of 
trophy quota to anglers north of 42[deg] N lat. NMFS agrees that the 
recreational HMS fishery is an important contributor to the economy. 
Through this final rule NMFS will increase the portion of the Angling 
category quota allocated for trophy bluefin from 2.3 percent to 3.1 
percent to provide quota to the new area. The source of that additional 
quota will be from the large school/small medium size range. Because 
the amount of school bluefin (27''-<47'') that can be caught each year 
is limited in the codified regulations, and in compliance with ICCAT's 
binding western Atlantic bluefin recommendation, to no more than 10 
percent of the annual U.S. bluefin quota, any increase to the trophy 
subquota (73'' or greater) will need to be balanced with an equivalent 
reduction of the subquota for large school/small medium bluefin 
subquota (47''-<73''). NMFS disagrees that the reduction in the 
relative amount of large school/small medium fish allocated will be 
problematic. There will be only a minor decrease in the amount of 
allocation for large school/small medium bluefin; the subquota will 
represent approximately 52 percent of the Angling category quota. In 
recent years, Angling category landings overall have averaged less than 
the Angling category quota, and in many years, landings of large 
school/small medium bluefin have averaged less than the available quota 
for those size classes. NMFS disagrees that more quota should be 
allocated to the Angling category. In determining the scope of 
alternatives analyzed in Amendment 13, NMFS decided not to consider 
making fundamental changes to the structure of the bluefin quota 
category allocations, as explained in response to Comment 25. The 
change to the structure of the Angling category trophy fishery is a 
relatively minor aspect of the recreational bluefin fishery. The 
primary intent of the recreational trophy allocation is to reduce 
discards of trophy bluefin, and not to support a directed fishery.

Comment 29

    NMFS received several suggestions regarding the current geographic 
areas associated with the trophy fishery. There were suggestions to 
move the current Trophy North/South line from its current location in 
southern New Jersey (off Great Egg Inlet) southward to Ocean City, 
Maryland, to create more opportunity for Maryland anglers, and to 
consider alternating the location of the line every other year. The 
Maryland Department of Natural Resources elaborated that they did not 
support any of the `H' alternatives because they would continue to be 
inequitable to those fishing out of Ocean City, Maryland. They stated 
that Maryland is within the Trophy South area, but does not have access 
to the fish because the quota is caught (in areas to the south of 
Maryland) before the fish are accessible to Maryland. For this reason 
they felt the alternatives were not fair to anglers off of Maryland, 
Delaware, or southern New Jersey and, therefore, suggested moving the 
southern boundary of the Trophy North area southward to include Ocean 
City, Maryland. Another commenter suggested creation of another trophy 
geographic area and associated trophy subquota within the current 
Trophy South area, because the subquota is often filled off North 
Carolina and Virginia Beach, Virginia.

Response

    NMFS disagrees that Amendment 13 should modify the southern 
boundary of the Trophy North area or create a new southern trophy area. 
In the past, the southern boundary of the Trophy North area was further 
to the south, and fishermen requested that NMFS move the line to the 
north. Specifically, NMFS implemented the boundary change from off 
Ocean City, Maryland to off Great Egg Inlet, New Jersey in a 2001 final 
rule, based on public comments, to reduce confusion regarding fishing 
areas and catch limits and to reduce the likelihood of vessels being 
excluded from participating in the trophy bluefin fishery (66 FR 42801, 
August 15, 2001). Given the highly dynamic nature of the fishery, there 
may be times during which a particular geographic area has less 
opportunity for trophy bluefin landings than during other times. Permit 
holders may fish for bluefin in any geographic location they choose, as 
long as they are fishing in an area that is open.

I Alternatives--Modifications to Other Handgear Fishery Regulations

Comment 30:

    Two commenters supported the alternative that would allow the use 
of harpoon gear by vessels issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit, in 
order to provide flexibility and fishing opportunity. To address safety 
concerns, commenters suggested allowing only the vessel captain and 
crew--and not passengers--to use harpoon gear. Alternatively, the use 
of harpoon gear could be allowed on non-for-hire commercial trips only. 
Several commenters did not support prohibiting vessels with General 
category permits from using harpoon gear because landings in that 
permit category by harpoon gear were relatively low and therefore not a 
concern. Those commenters further noted that a prohibition on harpoon 
gear use by vessels in the General category would force vessels to 
obtain Harpoon category permits instead.

Response:

    NMFS disagrees that vessels fishing for bluefin issued an HMS 
Charter/Headboat permit should be allowed to fish with harpoon gear. In 
the 2008 rule on this subject, there were public concerns about safety 
and the liability associated with allowing the use of harpoon gear on 
``for-hire-trips'' (trips on which there are paying passengers aboard a 
vessel issued a Charter/Headboat permit, fishing under recreational 
rules). NMFS does not believe that safety and liability concerns would 
be adequately addressed by limiting harpoon use to only the vessel 
captain and crew because such a restriction would be difficult to 
enforce, and charter clients are likely to include a variety of levels 
of boating and fishing experience. NMFS also does not prefer allowing 
harpoon use by Charter/Headboat permit holders on non-for-hire 
commercial trips, as there is adequate opportunity for vessels fishing 
commercially to utilize harpoon gear under the General or Harpoon 
category permits. NMFS agrees that prohibiting General category permit 
holders from using harpoon gear is not necessary. Currently, both the 
General and Harpoon categories are authorized to

[[Page 59983]]

use the gear, and bluefin landings by vessels using harpoon gear 
fishing in the General category comprise a relatively low percentage of 
the General category landings.

Comment 31:

    Several commenters did not support the proposed measure to 
implement a retention limit for the Harpoon category. These commenters 
stated that it is important for Harpoon category participants to 
maintain the ability to land as many fish per day as they can and that 
a retention limit would hamper their ability to take advantage of the 
limited opportunities to catch bluefin during the window of time when 
bluefin are available to harpoon gear on the water's surface. The 
specific reasons the commenters did not support a retention limit 
varied and included: reliance by some participants on the fishery to 
make a living, the importance of being able to capitalize on good 
weather days to their overall business success, climate change reducing 
good weather fishing opportunities, and the need for the flexibility to 
catch many bluefin on a particular trip because on some days they will 
catch no fish. Some commenters stated that Harpoon category fishermen 
have shown the willingness and ability to voluntarily control catch 
based on market demand. One commenter said that the analysis should not 
rely on data from 2019 due to atypical high landings that year.

Response:

    NMFS agrees that some vessel owners rely on revenue from the 
Harpoon category fishery as part of their annual income, and that the 
opportunities to target bluefin using harpoon gear are limited by fish 
availability and weather. However, NMFS disagrees that implementation 
of a retention limit on the total number of bluefin retained by vessels 
fishing in the Harpoon category will be problematic. A default trip 
limit set at 10 fish will likely constrain only a small percentage of 
trips, with the potential economic benefits of a longer season and/or 
associated extension of fishing opportunities to a greater number of 
Harpoon category participants. Furthermore, this measure will allow 
NMFS the ability to adjust the retention limit via inseason action to 
avoid closing the fishery. NMFS closed the 2019 Harpoon category 
fishery effective August 8, 2019, when the adjusted quota of 91 mt was 
met; Harpoon landings for 2019 totaled approximately 102 mt (84 FR 
39208, August 9, 2019). The determination that the retention limit is 
warranted does not rely solely on the presumption of high total 
landings (such as during 2019). The retention limit will be a useful 
management tool due to the dynamic and diverse nature of the fishery. A 
retention limit of 10 bluefin may prevent a few vessels landing large 
numbers of bluefin from having a disproportionate impact on the rate of 
harvest of the limited quota, and reduce potential market issues 
associated with high landings during a short period of time.

Comment 32:

    Several commenters did not support the preferred No Action 
alternative that will maintain the current Harpoon category start date 
of June 1, but instead supported the alternative that would move the 
start date earlier to May 1. They explained that bluefin, a cold water 
species, are no longer available at the surface to the harpoon fishery 
once surface waters warm during the summer. They state that in the 
past, bluefin remained at the surface in September and October, but 
recently are no longer on the surface by mid-August, and that given 
warmer surface temperatures associated with climate change, the harpoon 
category season needs an earlier start date. Commenters indicated that 
bluefin migrate through southern New England in May and that a May 1 
start date would allow opportunities for Harpoon category participants 
while minimizing potential gear conflicts or market competition with 
the General category. Some commenters supported the preferred No Action 
alternative to maintain the current June 1 Harpoon category fishery 
start date. They were concerned that an earlier opening date would 
result in earlier closure. They also noted concerns about equitable 
access to the fishery among different geographic regions (i.e., that an 
earlier start date would benefit participants in Southern New England 
to the detriment of northern participants, especially the traditional 
participants in Maine). One commenter also expressed concern about 
potential baiting activity behind fishing vessels using bottom trawls 
or dredges and the effect on early season surface accumulations of 
bluefin.

Response:

    NMFS disagrees that the current start of the Harpoon fishery should 
be moved from June 1 to May 1. Maintaining the current start date of 
June 1 for the Harpoon category, which coincides with the start date 
for the General category fishery, will facilitate enforcement and 
business planning, and provide greater certainty to participants 
regarding fishing opportunities and market conditions. Given the 
dynamic nature, geographic range, and diverse participants of the 
commercial handgear fishery for bluefin, maintaining the June 1 start 
date is likely to result in equitable fishing opportunities.

Comment 33:

    Two commenters supported extending the ability for permit holders 
with an Atlantic Tunas permit in the General, Harpoon, or Trap 
category, or Atlantic HMS permit in the Angling or Charter/Headboat 
category, to change permit categories from within 45 days of purchase 
to the end of the fishing year as long as the vessel has not landed a 
bluefin.

Response:

    NMFS agrees that allowing applicants to change permit types as long 
as they had not landed a bluefin will give vessel owners more 
opportunity to change their permit type, and provide flexibility to 
account for mistakes made by permit applicants when choosing the permit 
type. Because vessels are not allowed to land bluefin in two quota 
categories within a fishing year, the restriction will still preclude 
vessels from gaining any sort of an advantage over vessels fishing 
under a single permit type within a fishing year.

General Comments on the IBQ Program and Pelagic Longline Fishery

Comment 34:

    NMFS received general comments regarding the current status of the 
pelagic longline fishery, as it relates to Amendment 13. The common 
themes of such comments were that the fishery is struggling and that it 
is very important to: maintain the viability of the fishery; fully 
utilize the U.S. swordfish quota; maintain domestic food production to 
decrease dependence on imports for national security; and have the 
United States continue to serve as a strong example internationally of 
a well-managed fishery. Commenters stated specifically that NMFS needs 
to preserve the viability of the pelagic longline fishery by preserving 
its flexibility and allocating an adequate amount of IBQ allocation in 
order to account for sets with high bluefin catch and maintain 
opportunity to fish for swordfish and other target species. Commenters 
noted diverse challenges facing the industry including competition from 
imports, closed areas, declining participation, challenges for new 
entrants, the high cost of fishing gear, the cost of leasing IBQ 
allocation, a deterioration of the bluefin market, and difficulty in 
finding experienced,

[[Page 59984]]

quality crew. One commenter stated that the proposed measures do not 
minimize the disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in relation to foreign 
competitors and do not minimize adverse social and economic impacts to 
the pelagic longline industry.

Response:

    NMFS agrees that the pelagic longline fishery faces numerous and 
serious challenges. The elements of Amendment 13 pertaining to the 
pelagic longline fishery focus on modifications to the IBQ Program to 
address some of the challenges. Amendment 13 will implement changes to 
the IBQ Program that provide additional flexibility for the majority of 
pelagic longline vessels, including dynamic determination of IBQ 
shares, a more flexible means of regional designation of IBQ shares, 
and a low-share threshold in the Gulf of Mexico; an increase in the 
Longline category quota to 15.9 percent of the U.S. bluefin quota; and 
relaxation of the requirement for mailing EM hard drives. Amendment 13 
will also authorize the future development of a bluefin quota set-
aside, if needed, for the pelagic longline fishery. The selection of 
the specific measures being implemented from among the alternatives 
analyzed in the FEIS minimize the adverse social and economic impacts 
to the pelagic longline industry. NMFS is open to future consideration 
of regulatory changes that would address other issues in the fishery, 
such as obtaining data from spatial management areas, and considering 
modifications to such areas to optimize the balance of protection of 
bycatch species and access to target species.

Comment 35:

    NMFS received a comment from an environmental group that the 
reduction in bluefin bycatch under the IBQ Program has been a 
compelling success story, and that, since its implementation, the 
pelagic longline fishery has not exceeded its bluefin quota. One 
commenter stated that Amendment 13 would increase sustainability and 
transparency, and one commenter expressed appreciation for NMFS' 
efforts to improve the pelagic longline fishery regulations.

Response:

    NMFS agrees that the IBQ Program has successfully reduced the 
incidental catch of bluefin substantially compared to previous levels, 
and agrees that Amendment 13 will further improve the IBQ Program.

General Comments on Amendment 13

Comment 36:

    NMFS received comments that the comment period was open during a 
busy fishing season and requesting that the comment period be extended 
a second time to March 2022, and the date of implementation postponed, 
so that the commenters would have time to read the Amendment 13 
documents. They also stated that such extension of the comment period 
would provide NMFS time to look into the issue of fishermen baiting and 
harpooning bluefin behind fishing vessels using bottom trawls or 
dredges. NMFS received comments that the Agency did not address 
suggestions from some pelagic longline representatives regarding the 
Amendment 13 scoping document. One commenter expressed concern that the 
impacts of these management measures would force the species into 
extinction, and that the quota for bluefin should be zero. The EPA 
commented that they support efforts to reduce bluefin dead discards and 
that preventing wasteful bycatch will become increasingly important as 
various impacts of climate change on the ocean intensify impacts on 
marine resources.

Response:

    The original comment period on the proposed rule was from May 21, 
2021 through July 20, 2021, and then extended through September 20, 
2021 (86 FR 38262, July 20, 2021). The four-month duration of the 
comment period provided reasonable opportunity for the public to 
comment on the proposed management measures. Amendment 13 did not 
analyze alternatives to address concerns about new fishing strategies 
in the harpoon fishery, but could consider this topic for future 
discussions at the HMS Advisory Panel. NMFS did not analyze all of the 
suggestions for management measures that it received during the scoping 
phase of the development of Amendment 13, but did consider input from 
scoping and analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. Measures 
implemented by this final rule do not alter, and are consistent with, 
the ICCAT-adopted western Atlantic bluefin quota and U.S. portion of 
the quota and the best scientific information available. Currently, the 
stock is not experiencing overfishing. NMFS agrees that bycatch 
reduction will continue to be important in the context of future 
climate change impacts on marine resources.

Management Options Considered but Not Further Analyzed

Comment 37:

    NMFS received comments on management options that were considered 
but not analyzed. There were multiple comments in support of annual 
accountability for quota debt under the IBQ Program. Commenters stated 
that the flexibility of annual accountability is needed to facilitate 
leasing of IBQ allocation throughout the year, which is particularly 
important if the Longline category does not receive any bluefin quota 
from the Purse Seine category quota reallocation. Commenters also 
stated that the current quarterly accountability is not needed because 
there are adequate deterrents with the IBQ Program to prevent targeting 
bluefin.

Response:

    NMFS disagrees that annual accountability should have been an 
alternative that was analyzed or preferred. Vessels have successfully 
accounted for bluefin catch under the quarterly accountability rules. 
Although annual accountability would provide substantial flexibility 
for vessel owners, this method of accountability may result in higher 
prices for IBQ allocation leases, a compressed market for IBQ 
allocation at the end of the year, and reduced incentive to avoid 
bluefin. The timing of quarterly accountability is likely to maintain 
incentives for vessels to utilize fishing strategies that minimize the 
likelihood of interactions with bluefin, and reduce the ability for 
vessels to accrue large amounts of quota debt. For example, a vessel 
that is not able to avoid bluefin catch and accrues quota debt would be 
constrained on a quarterly basis. A vessel with quota debt at the 
beginning of the quarter would not be able to lawfully fish with 
pelagic longline gear until it leased sufficient IBQ allocation to 
`pay' for the quota debt. This requirement provides strong incentives 
to avoid catch of bluefin and could prevent the vessel from pelagic 
longline fishing if the vessel owner is not able to find affordable IBQ 
allocation to lease from another permit holder. In contrast, under 
annual accountability, a vessel would be able to accrue quota debt 
throughout the year, and therefore incentives to use a fishing strategy 
that avoids bluefin are weaker. Quarterly accountability provides a 
more appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility than 
annual accountability would. While leasing from the Purse Seine 
category will no longer be available, as explained in response to 
comment 22, Amendment

[[Page 59985]]

13 addresses leasing concerns by reallocating a portion of the Purse 
Seine category quota to the Longline category.

Changes From the Proposed Rule (86 FR 27686; May 21, 2021)

    This section explains the changes in the regulatory text from the 
proposed rule to the final rule. Changes were made in response to 
public comment, refined analyses, or clarification of text for the 
final rule. Therefore, where relevant, the description of measures 
implemented by this final rule include any changes from the measures in 
the proposed rule and Draft Amendment 13/DEIS. Where NMFS modified the 
proposed measures or adopted a different alternative that was not 
proposed, such alternatives fell within the scope of, or are a logical 
outgrowth of, the alternatives in the proposed rule and DEIS. The 
changes from the proposed rule include changes to the method of 
determining quota shares in the IBQ Program; IBQ regional designation 
rules; Purse Seine category reallocations; Harpoon category retention 
limits; and changes to the electronic monitoring program impacts. The 
changes from the proposed rule text in the final rule are described 
below.
    1. Section 635.9, paragraphs (c) and (e). Modification to the 
standardized reference grid and VMP.
    NMFS received a number of comments on Draft Amendment 13 and the 
proposed rule regarding the measuring grid, including accommodating 
individual vessel configurations and maintaining safety. See comment 17 
under Responses to Comments. After reviewing these comments, NMFS 
determined that it is important to provide time for a measuring grid to 
be adapted for each vessel and for each vessel to install and begin 
using that grid. The final rule thus provides that, over the next year, 
NMFS or a NMFS-approved contractor will work with vessel owners/
operators to specify a measuring grid that, to the extent practicable, 
accommodates the unique layout and operations of each fishing vessel. A 
description of the measuring grid will be included in each vessel's 
VMP, and a vessel owner will have six months after the VMP is approved 
to install the grid specified in the VMP. See response to comment 17 
for further explanation. Additionally, because appropriated funds are 
not available, the final rule requires vessel owners to cover the cost 
of grid installation, which is a change from the proposed rule.
    2. Section 635.15, paragraphs (b), (c), and (e), Sec.  635.28, 
paragraph (a), and Sec.  635.34, paragraph (b). Modification to the IBQ 
share eligibility, distribution, and allocation methods.
    The proposed rule determined IBQ shares based upon landings of 
designated species (swordfish, and yellowfin, bigeye tuna, albacore, 
and skipjack tunas) as the measure of fishing effort and four 
percentile tiers (Sub-Alternative A2c). Public comments noted concerns 
regarding the species included as designated species (see comment 2); 
potential factors that may affect a vessel's fishing strategy, which 
species are fished, and what is landed (see comment 3); 
disproportionate impacts the tiers may have on IBQ shares (see comment 
4); and different views on the best methods for determining IBQ shares 
(see comment 3). After considering public comments, NMFS decided to 
change the final rule to determine IBQ shares annually based on sets as 
the measure of fishing effort and eliminate tiers, instead providing 
each eligible vessel with a ``customized'' share. NMFS will only count 
one set (a single deployment and retrieval of pelagic longline gear) 
per day towards the determination of IBQ shares. See Pelagic Longline 
Fishery: Annual IBQ Share Determination above for further details. This 
provides a standardized, uniform method for determining IBQ shares for 
a geographically diverse fleet with a range of vessel sizes and fishing 
strategies. In addition, it addresses a concern raised about short sets 
being deployed for the purpose of influencing IBQ share determinations, 
and is simpler for NMFS to implement. See responses to comments 2-4 for 
further explanation.
    Pursuant to existing authority at Sec.  635.27(a), NMFS may 
increase or decrease the baseline Longline quota through inseason or 
annual adjustments. When doing so, NMFS would apply each IBQ 
shareholder's share percentage to the amount of quota increase (subject 
to the applicable GOM cap) or decrease, and will notify shareholders of 
any resulting changes in their IBQ allocations.
    After considering a concern raised about potential, future declines 
in effort in the Gulf of Mexico resulting in a very low percentage of 
GOM-designated shares in some years and severely limiting operation of 
the fishery, NMFS conducted further analyses and decided to add a low 
GOM designated share threshold (5 percent or less) to the final rule. 
See comment 8 and response under Response to Comments for further 
explanation. If the threshold is triggered, either GOM or ATL shares 
and resultant allocations may be used to account for BFT caught in the 
Gulf of Mexico and to satisfy the minimum IBQ requirement. Other 
existing regional accounting rules would continue to apply, and there 
would be a cap on BFT incidental catch in the Gulf of Mexico (weight of 
bluefin associated with 35-percent or lower cap on GOM designated 
shares). See Pelagic Longline Fishery: Regional Designations for IBQ 
Shares and Resultant Allocations above for further details.
    Lastly, based on public comment about new entrants (see comment 6), 
NMFS adds to the framework provisions of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 
and associated regulations authority for a de minimis amount of bluefin 
quota from the Longline category quota prior to calculating the annual 
IBQ allocations. This lays the groundwork for potential, future 
rulemaking, if needed. No set aside is being established at this time.
    3. Section 635.19, paragraph (b). Correction and clarifications to 
Atlantic tunas primary gears.
    The proposed rule incorrectly listed bandit gear and green-stick 
gear as primary gears for the Angling category for BAYS. The final rule 
deletes those gear types. In addition, consistent with an existing 
prohibition that refers to fishing for, catching, retaining, or 
possessing bluefin tuna, the final rule adds ``catching'' or 
``catches'' in several places where the other terms appear in paragraph 
(b).
    4. Section 635.23, paragraph (d). Modification regarding Atlantic 
Tunas Harpoon category permit holders retention limits for bluefin.
    The proposed rule maintains the current Harpoon category retention 
limit (range) of large medium bluefin, but sets a combined daily 
retention limit on the total number of large medium and giant bluefin 
at 10 fish. These aspects are unchanged in the final rule. The final 
rule adds inseason authority to adjust the combined daily retention 
limit between 5 to 10 fish, in order to avoid closing the fishery. See 
Harpoon category section and comment 31 and response, above, for 
further details and explanation.
    5. Section 635.27, paragraph (a) and subparagraph (a)(3). 
Modification to the commercial and recreational quotas for bluefin.
    The proposed rule would have reallocated Purse Seine category quota 
proportionally to the directed bluefin quota categories (General, 
Angling, Harpoon, and Reserve categories) (preferred Alternative F4). 
The final rule adds Longline and Trap, and reallocates the Purse Seine 
category quota to all categories by revising each category's percentage 
proportionally. NMFS made this change in light of public comments 
expressing concern about impacts on

[[Page 59986]]

the IBQ leasing market as a result of discontinuation of the Purse 
Seine category, further analyses on the source of pelagic longline IBQ 
leases, and the agency's conclusion that the Longline category should 
be included in the reallocation to increase the likelihood of a 
successful leasing market. See Purse Seine section and comment 22 and 
response above for further details.
    The final rule also amends Sec.  635.27(a)(3) to add: ``For 
purposes of Sec.  635.28(a)(1), regional IBQ allocations under Sec.  
635.15(c)(3) and the BFT catch cap for fishing in the Gulf of Mexico 
(Sec.  635.15(c)(3)(iii)) are considered quotas.'' Section 635.28(a)(1) 
provides for closure authority. Adding the BFT catch cap here ensures 
that, if the low GOM designated shares threshold is triggered, NMFS can 
take action if the catch cap is reached or projected to be reached. 
Section 635.28(a)(1) already authorizes closure action for regional IBQ 
allocations; deleting reference there to regional IBQ allocations and 
adding the reference to Sec.  635.27(a)(3) merely simplifies the 
regulatory text.
    6. Section 635.28, paragraph (a). Modification to fishery closures.
    Consistent with the edit to Sec.  635.27(a)(3) discussed above, the 
final rule deletes reference to regional IBQ allocations here.
    7. Section 635.34, paragraph (b). Adjustment of management 
measures.
    As explained above, NMFS has added to the framework provisions of 
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP authority for a de minimis set aside of 
bluefin quota from the Longline category. The final rule makes a 
parallel edit to Sec.  635.34.
    8. Section 635.71 and other sections throughout the rule. Technical 
adjustments.
    In addition to the primary changes described above, additional 
technical changes were made throughout the rule to improve upon clarity 
(e.g., change in punctuation, reordering phrases or sentences, adding 
additional information or cross-references), correct capitalizations, 
or correct cross-references for paragraphs that are changing. In 
section 635.71, the final rule adds a prohibition corresponding to an 
existing requirement at Sec.  635.23(f)(2), which requires vessels with 
pelagic longline gear on board to retain all dead large medium or giant 
bluefin. The final rule clarifies that both apply to retaining ``and 
land[ing]'' bluefin, and instead of specifying a size for the fish, 
uses ``large medium or giant'' BFT, which are defined terms under Sec.  
635.2. Other changes in Sec.  635.71 correct cross-references based on 
the changes in this final rule. A number of other technical changes can 
be found throughout the rule and do not affect the intent of the final 
rule. Rather, these changes are editorial in nature or clarifications 
to existing regulatory text.

Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final 
rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its 
amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law.
    As described above, NMFS prepared an FEIS for Amendment 13. The 
Notice of Availability for the FEIS was published in the Federal 
Register on May 13, 2022 (87 FR 29310). In approving Amendment 13, NMFS 
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying the selected 
alternatives. A copy of the ROD and the FEIS, which includes detailed 
analyses of a reasonable range of alternatives to meet rulemaking 
objectives, is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS requested reinitiation of consultation under the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) in July 2022, on the effects of the Atlantic HMS 
pelagic longline fishery due to new information on mortality of giant 
manta ray that exceeded the mortality anticipated in the May 2020 
Biological Opinion on that fishery. As explained in the Background 
section, in accordance with section 7(d) of the ESA, NMFS has 
determined that, during consultation, pelagic longline fishery activity 
consistent with the 2020 Biological Opinion will not result in an 
irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources which would have 
the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any 
reasonable and prudent alternative measures and that continued 
compliance with the Reasonable and Prudent Measures and Terms and 
Conditions in that biological opinion will avoid jeopardy to ESA-listed 
species, consistent with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
    A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The 
FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a 
summary of the significant issues raised by the public comments in 
response to the IRFA, NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary 
of the analyses completed to support the action. A summary of the FRFA, 
which must address each of the requirements in 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)-(5), 
is below. The entire FRFA is included in the FEIS and is available from 
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    Section 604(a)(1) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the 
objective of, and legal basis for, the action. The objectives of, and 
legal basis for, this final rule are set forth in the Background 
section above.
    Sections 604(a)(2) and (3) of the RFA require that a FRFA include a 
summary of significant issues raised by public comment or by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response 
to the IRFA and proposed rule, a summary of the assessment of the 
Agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the rule 
as a result of such comments. NMFS did not receive any comments on the 
proposed rule from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. Additionally, NMFS did not receive any public comments 
specifically on the IRFA, however the Agency did receive some comments 
regarding the anticipated or perceived economic impact of the rule. The 
comments and responses included below are those that pertain 
specifically to such economic impacts. A summary of all of the comments 
received and the Agency's responses are provided above.
    Comment 2 noted that dolphin fish provide up to 30 percent of the 
revenue for a pelagic longline vessel, thus it should be included as a 
designated species under the proposed, dynamic allocations of IBQ 
shares. While NMFS agrees that dolphin fish is an economically 
important component of the pelagic longline fishery, based on other 
public comments and additional analyses, NMFS decided to use pelagic 
longline sets, not designated species, for the allocations.
    Comment 4 noted that the use of tiers in the proposed, dynamic 
allocation alternatives has the effect of disadvantaging some vessels, 
as it would assign IBQ shares based on four distinct percentages. Some 
vessels could receive less IBQ shares and may have to spend more money 
to lease additional shares from other vessels, or lose potential income 
from additional shares that could have leased to other vessels. NMFS 
agrees that there were negative implications for individual vessels 
associated with the use of tiers. After consideration of public 
comments, NMFS determined that the beneficial aspects of the use of 
tiers did not outweigh these negative aspects, and, therefore NMFS will 
base dynamic allocation of IBQ shares on customized share percentages 
for each vessel, not tiers.
    Comment 8 noted that the combined effect of the proposed IBQ 
measures that focus on the Gulf of Mexico--that is the Gulf of Mexico 
designation of IBQ and

[[Page 59987]]

the associated rules--would not function when there is very low fishing 
effort in the Gulf of Mexico. The specific concern stated was that 
vessels may have insufficient IBQ allocations to satisfy the minimum 
IBQ requirements as well as account for any bluefin catch, and that 
vessels would not lease IBQ allocation to other vessels. A severely 
constrained or non-functioning IBQ program in the Gulf of Mexico would 
directly impact the ability for vessels to fish and earn income. NMFS 
agrees that under conditions of very low fishing effort in the Gulf of 
Mexico, the IBQ Program may not function as designed. Therefore, NMFS 
has modified the final rule to include a low share threshold that 
enables temporary relaxation of certain GOM-specific accounting rules, 
while maintaining an overall cap on catch in the Gulf.
    Comment 6 noted that a bluefin quota `set-aside' should be created 
to provide a source of IBQ shares and allocations for vessels that are 
new entrants to the fishery. In response, NMFS has added to the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP framework provisions and related regulations the 
authority to establish such a set aside, if needed, through a future 
rulemaking.
    Comment 22 noted that that the Longline category should be included 
in the reallocation of Purse Seine quota, because pelagic longline 
vessels rely on Purse Seine category quota for leasing under the IBQ 
Program and would be impacted by decreased availability of IBQ 
allocation to lease with elimination of the Purse Seine category. A 
commenter stated that increased IBQ allocations to active pelagic 
longline vessels under the proposed IBQ share alternative will not make 
up for the loss of quota currently available from the Purse Seine 
category. NMFS agrees with this statement, having confirmed it through 
additional analyses for the Final Amendment 13/FEIS. Based on this and 
other considerations, the final rule includes the Longline and Trap 
categories in the reallocation of Purse Seine category quota.
    Comment 27 noted public concerns about some of the General category 
subquota alternatives that were not preferred, varied views on how to 
modify the subquotas. For example, one commenter noted that 
modification of the current subquota periods into 12 equal subquota 
periods (Alternative G2a), would adversely affect the participation and 
finances of vessels, depending upon the location of the vessels. 
Another commenter did not support extending the January through March 
subquota period until the end of April (Alternative G2b) because such a 
change would result in negative economic consequences later in the 
year. NMFS acknowledges that there are potential trade-offs associated 
with each of the alternatives analyzed, but notes that the bluefin 
fishery is highly dynamic, fishing permits are open access, and price 
fluctuations do not show a strong pattern during the year. After 
considering public comment and information from recent years, NMFS 
believes that existing General category subquota periods continue to be 
appropriate, given fish availability, fishing effort, and bluefin 
landings during the different subquota time periods, and thus provide 
fair and equitable fishing opportunities. Thus, the final rule makes no 
changes to those subquota periods.
    Comment 31 noted that the implementation of the proposed retention 
limit of 10 bluefin for the Harpoon category, which applies to large 
medium and giant fish (combined), would result in lost fishing 
opportunity and unharvested bluefin quota, and that therefore NMFS 
should not implement the measure. NMFS disagrees that the harpoon 
retention limit would result in lost fishing opportunity. Based on past 
data, the retention limit would affect relatively few vessels. In 2019 
only 2 percent of Harpoon category trips landed 10 or more bluefin. 
NMFS has added to the final rule the ability to adjust the limit 
inseason to between 5 and 10 fish, in order to provide a means with 
which to influence rates of catch, lengthen the fishing season, and 
optimize fishing opportunities and resultant revenues.
    Section 604(a)(4) 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). 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. NMFS 
considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because average 
annual receipts are less than $11 million for commercial fishing or $8 
million for charter/party boat entities. Regarding those entities that 
would be directly affected by the measures implemented by this final 
rule, the average annual revenue per active pelagic longline vessel in 
2017 is estimated to be $307,422 based on 88 active vessels, which is 
well below the NMFS small business size standard for commercial fishing 
businesses of $11 million. In 2019, there were 280 Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permits, and 67 vessels were actively fishing based 
on logbook records. In examining the trends of overall fleet-wide 
revenues in The Three-Year Review, NMFS found that the average annual 
revenue per vessel has been relatively stable. Thus, while Final 
Amendment 13 does not update the revenue estimate for 2019, based on 
information that NMFS has on the fishery, revenue per vessel in 2019 
would have been well below $11 million.
    Other non-pelagic longline HMS commercial fishing vessels typically 
earn less revenue than pelagic longline vessels, and each HMS Charter/
Headboat typically earns much less than $8 million annually. Thus, all 
of these vessels would also be considered small entities. The other 
(non-Atlantic Tunas Longline) commercial measures implemented by this 
final rule apply to 2,721 General category permit holders, 3,769 
Charter/Headboat permit holders, 20 Harpoon category permit holders, 
and 34 seafood dealers that purchase bluefin (based on 2019 data).
    NMFS has determined that the final rule measures will not likely 
directly affect any small organizations or small government 
jurisdictions defined under the RFA, nor will there be disproportionate 
economic impacts between large and small entities.
    Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new 
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. This final 
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). See FRFA in Final 
Amendment 13 at section 7.4 for further details. 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 604(a)(6) of the RFA, Agencies must describe the 
steps to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities 
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including 
a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
measures adopted in the

[[Page 59988]]

final rule and why the agency rejected each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities. These elements are summarized 
below. The full text of the Final Regulatory Flexibility analysis is 
contained in the Final Amendment 13/FEIS, Chapter 7.

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. 
Although this alternative would not result in any changes in the 
economic impacts to small entities associated with the IBQ Program 
under Amendment 7, the costs and inefficiencies associated with the 
current method of share determination would continue. Specifically, 
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. Alternative A1 would not meet objective 4 
of this Amendment. For these reasons, this alternative was rejected.
    Alternative A2 is composed of four sub-alternatives with annual, 
dynamic determination methods for allocating IBQ shares based on 
different criteria for defining the pool of recently active vessels. In 
making annual determinations, NMFS would use a recent 36-month period 
of relevant, best available data. Public comments supported use of a 
measure of fishing effort, rather than equal shares, because the 
pelagic longline fleet is very diverse in terms of fishing effort. The 
current IBQ Program has 136 shareholders. Under the sub-alternatives, 
there would be 91 defined shareholders based on the total number of 
vessels that submitted VMS bluefin reports from 2017 through 2019. The 
sub-alternatives would reduce dissatisfaction among active fishery 
participants that results from the current IBQ Program, under which a 
relatively large number of permit holders who are not active receive 
annual IBQ allocations. While the FRFA estimates numbers of vessels 
that would have larger or smaller IBQ share percentages, any changes in 
IBQ shares are short term, as IBQ shares will be determined annually 
using the most recent three years of relevant, available data. 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. Shareholders may have a slightly 
reduced ability for business planning due to the potential annual 
variability in share percentages. However, they would be aware that a 
substantive change in their amount of fishing effort may result in 
slight changes in the share percentage in the following year. Any 
adverse impacts on a shareholder could be partially mitigated through 
leasing IBQ allocation, recognizing that there are costs associated 
with leasing. The FRFA anticipates that the leasing market is likely to 
continue to function well, with a price similar to or lower than recent 
prices, because under the sub-alternatives, most vessel allocations 
would increase.
    Sub-Alternative A2a would define IBQ shareholders annually based on 
the relative number of hooks fished as the measure of fishing effort. 
The FEIS estimates that sixty-five vessels would have larger share 
percentages and twenty-six would have smaller share percentages 
compared to the No Action Alternative. Under dynamic determination of 
shares based on hooks, active vessels generally would be distributed 
more IBQ allocation per vessel than under the No Action Alternative 
(with the exception of shareholders in the first quartile). However, 
public comment strongly supported the use of sets instead of hooks or 
designated species landings, and it is more difficult to quantify the 
number of hooks than the number of sets. Therefore, this alternative 
was rejected.
    Sub-Alternative A2b (preferred in Final Amendment 13 and 
implemented in final rule) defines IBQ shareholders based on the 
relative number of pelagic longline sets as the measure of fishing 
effort. For valid participants in the Deepwater Horizon Oceanic Fish 
Restoration Project, a proxy amount of sets will be added to a vessel's 
history during the period of its participation in the Project, in order 
to ensure there are no negative impacts associated with their voluntary 
participation in that project. The proxy will be based upon the average 
number of sets made by IBQ shareholders' vessels that did not 
participate in the Project during the period that participants fished 
under the Project. For most active IBQ shareholders, who are small 
business entities, the overall economic impacts of Sub-Alternative A2b 
would be minor and beneficial. The FRFA estimates that sixty-one 
vessels would have larger share percentages and thirty vessels would 
have smaller share percentages compared to the No Action Alternative. 
Overall there would be a net increase in IBQ allocation value. Sixty-
one vessels would be in a better economic position with respect to the 
amount of IBQ allocation distributed to them in association with their 
IBQ share (expressed in terms of potential lease costs avoided, or 
leasing benefits accrued). The average pounds of IBQ allocation gained 
would be 2,696 with a range of between 43 and 7,490 pounds. Using a 
weighted average cost per pound of leased IBQ allocation from 2017 
through 2019 of $1.70, the average lease value of IBQ allocation gained 
would be approximately $4,582 per shareholder with a range of $74 to 
$12,732. For the thirty vessels with smaller IBQ allocations, the 
average lease value of IBQ allocation lost would be approximately 
$3,492 per shareholder with a range of $87 to $7,302. 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). There were public comments 
supporting this alternative. NMFS prefers this alternative as it 
provides a standardized, uniform method for determining IBQ shares for 
a geographically diverse fleet with a range of vessel sizes and fishing 
strategies. In addition, NMFS can determine the number of sets 
annually, in a timely manner, using a single data source.
    Sub-Alternative A2c (preferred in Draft Amendment 13) would define 
IBQ shareholders 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. Participants in the Deepwater 
Horizon Oceanic Fish Restoration Project would have their fishing 
effort represented by the use of a proxy amount of landings used in the 
calculation of their IBQ shares, in order to ensure that there are no 
negative impacts associated with their voluntary participation in that 
project. For most active IBQ shareholders, who are small business 
entities, the economic impact of this alternative would be positive, 
and the overall economic impacts would be minor beneficial. The FRFA 
estimates that 56 vessels would have would have larger share 
percentages and thirty-five vessels would have smaller share 
percentages when compared to the No Action Alternative. Overall, there 
would be a net increase in IBQ allocation value. Public comments noted 
concern with not including certain species as designated species and 
noted that there is diversity in the pelagic longline fleet with regard 
to

[[Page 59989]]

fishing strategy and species fished and landed. The exclusion of 
dolphin and wahoo from the list of designated species affected the IBQ 
share percentages of eight vessels in the analyses. Compared to the IBQ 
share percentages that they would have received if dolphin and wahoo 
were included, four vessels increased in share percentage and four 
vessels decreased.
    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). However, given variations in fishing effort within the 
fleet, concern about creating incentives to capture lower value fish 
and potentially increasing waste of fish, complexities of administering 
this approach, and other public comments, this alternative was 
rejected.
    Alternative A3 would have distributed 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 number of tiers (three) would remain the same (high, medium, 
and low), but the IBQ share percentages would be higher for all tiers. 
The net result under this alternative would be 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. The number of IBQ shareholders would be reduced from 136 
to 99, and 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). 
This alternative was rejected as the preferred alternative because it 
would only partially achieve the objective that IBQ shares distributed 
to inactive shareholders be redistributed to active vessels, because 
the share determination is static (i.e., a one-time determination). 
Because the alternative is not dynamic, over time the distribution of 
IBQ shares and subsequent IBQ allocation among vessels may not be 
aligned with the active vessels.

Modifications to Rules Closely Linked to IBQ Allocations

    Alternative B1, the No Action Alternative regarding Gulf of Mexico 
(GOM) and Atlantic (ATL) designated share determination, would result 
in the continuation of the current IBQ shareholders, associated share 
percentages, and regional designations (35 percent of the total 
Longline category quota designated as GOM, and 65 percent designated as 
ATL). Vessels that currently do not have GOM designated IBQ allocation 
but would like to fish in the Gulf of Mexico would need to lease GOM 
IBQ allocation. The costs associated with vessels leasing GOM 
designated IBQ allocation would continue. Vessels that do not have any 
shares of GOM designated IBQ would not gain any additional flexibility, 
and the alternative would not provide the authority for NMFS to reduce 
the cap on GOM designated IBQ. For these reasons, this alternative was 
not preferred.
    Alternative B2 would eliminate regional designations in conjunction 
with maintaining a maximum amount of bluefin catch from the Gulf of 
Mexico (35 percent of the Longline category quota). The alternative 
would facilitate fishing opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico for 
vessels currently with only ATL designated IBQ, and 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. Elimination of the regional designations would likely result 
in increased uncertainty in the fishery. The alternative would not 
provide the authority for NMFS to reduce the cap on GOM designated IBQ. 
For the above reasons, this alternative was not selected as the 
preferred alternative.
    Alternative B3, implemented by this final rule, will annually 
modify regional GOM and ATL designations as part of the dynamic 
allocation of IBQ shares; cap bluefin catch from the Gulf of Mexico (35 
percent of Longline category quota or IBQ shares and resultant 
allocations); allow for reduction of the cap based on established 
criteria used for inseason and annual adjustments to quota; and 
maintain existing accounting rules for regional IBQ allocations unless 
a GOM low shares threshold is triggered. Regional designations annually 
would be based on the location of vessels' pelagic longline fishing 
activity using a recent 36-month period of relevant, best available 
data, and thus, GOM designated shares could be lower than the GOM cap 
(35 percent default or lower). Regarding the potential for NMFS to 
decrease the maximum percentage of GOM designated IBQ shares, if the 
maximum amount of GOM designated IBQ shares were reduced compared to 
the No Action level (e.g., down to between 27 percent and 33 percent of 
the total IBQ shares), there would likely be no practical impact 
because the recent levels of catch of bluefin from the Gulf of Mexico 
have been very low. This alternative would provide a reasonable amount 
of flexibility for vessels to fish in the Gulf of Mexico.
    The final rule adds a low GOM designated shares threshold. A public 
comment expressed the concern that the potential for declining effort 
in the Gulf of Mexico could result in a total percentage share and 
allocation of GOM IBQ so low that it improperly constrains the fishery. 
In order to prevent serious constraints in the functioning of the IBQ 
Program in the Gulf of Mexico under conditions of very low fishing 
effort, this final rule provides: if the total amount of IBQ shares 
that are designated as GOM are 5 percent or less of the total IBQ 
allocations (ATL plus GOM designated shares), NMFS will suspend the 
requirement to account for bluefin caught in the Gulf with GOM IBQ 
allocation, and use GOM IBQ allocation to satisfy the minimum IBQ 
requirement under the quarterly accountability rules. If the threshold 
is triggered, overall, the economic impacts are expected to be minor 
and beneficial, due to the increased flexibility for vessels currently 
without GOM designated IBQ shares and subsequent allocation. More 
specifically, there could be several types of impacts on small entities 
as a result of implementing the threshold provision: Those associated 
with vessel owners that have ATL designated IBQ shares (likely with 
home ports in the Atlantic); impacts on vessel owners with GOM 
designated IBQ shares (likely with home ports in the Gulf of Mexico), 
and those impacts that may result from a reduced percentage of total 
IBQ shares that are designated as GOM (if the amount of GOM designated 
shares, based on location of fishing effort (landings) exceeds the 
level of the cap). If triggered, this measure will provide increased 
flexibility for vessels that currently have ATL designated IBQ

[[Page 59990]]

shares because the dynamic annual definition of shares and regional 
designations would enable a vessel to receive annual shares with a GOM 
regional designation as a result of fishing with pelagic longline gear 
in the Gulf of Mexico during the previous year (instead of needing to 
lease GOM designated IBQ allocation annually). Historical fishery 
participants in the Gulf of Mexico will continue to receive GOM 
designated IBQ shares 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 short-term adverse economic impacts to 
those entities due to increased competition. However, based on the few 
vessels with home ports 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.
    Preferred Alternative B4 is the No Action Alternative with respect 
to the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area (NED) rules. The economic 
impacts of the preferred alternative with respect to the NED rules will 
be neutral because there will no changes to the relevant rules. Data 
associated with vessels fishing in the NED will be included as part of 
the formula defining IBQ shares, and 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. Vessels that fish in the NED would 
continue to be able to fish there with no impact on the associated IBQ 
shares.
    Alternative B5 would not include NED fishing activity as part of 
the data used in calculating IBQ Allocations. This alternative would 
have minor adverse economic impacts on vessels that fish in the NED 
because their fishing effort in the NED would not be reflected in their 
IBQ share percentage. Depending upon the specific amount of fishing 
effort, a vessel may receive a lower IBQ share percentage if tiers are 
used to assign IBQ shares. Nine vessels fished in the NED during 2016 
through 2018. 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 
choses to fish in the NED during subsequent years. If NED fishers 
receive a lower IBQ share percentage relative to their total fishing 
effort than other vessels, this may put them at a competitive 
disadvantage. Disadvantaging vessels that fish in the NED may alter the 
costs and incentives for vessels to fish in the NED, and have an 
adverse long-term impact on the fishery as a whole due to the 
underutilization of swordfish. Therefore, this alternative was not 
selected as the preferred alternative.

Sale of IBQ Shares

    Preferred Alternative C1 would continue the current regulations 
under which no sale of IBQ shares is 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, 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 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 shares and have some 
beneficial and some adverse impacts, with the net socioeconomic impacts 
being minor 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 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, and could have an adverse impact on the IBQ Program overall. 
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, allowing sale and 
accumulation of IBQ shares beyond a single year would not be consistent 
with the dynamic allocation alternatives, as it would remove the 
ability for NMFS to allocate shares annually among active vessels based 
on recent fishing effort. Therefore, this alternative was not selected 
as the preferred alternative.

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 owned. 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 through 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. However, it is possible that future conditions in the fishery 
will change. Regardless of the likelihood of accumulation of IBQ 
shares, this alternative would not prevent future accumulations of 
shares by entities and was therefore not selected as the preferred 
alternative.
    Sub-Alternative D1b, which would cap the accumulated sum of IBQ 
shares owned by a single entity at seven percent, is expected to have 
minor adverse economic impacts on small entities. Under the allocation 
method described in the preferred `A' alternatives, the maximum amount 
of IBQ shares that a single entity would own on an annual basis would 
be between six and seven percent of total shares. However, there is the 
possibility that entities could have business plans to acquire 
additional shares or purchase additional permits to increase their IBQ 
shares in the short-term that would be above a seven-percent cap, in 
which case there could be short-term minor adverse economic impacts. If 
an entity owned many vessels and had a relatively large amount of 
fishing effort (under the dynamic allocation alternatives), it is 
possible that a seven percent share cap would result in a 
disproportionately low percentage share of bluefin that could affect 
their ability to fish for their target species, and prevent increases 
in lawful fishing activity. By limiting the number of Atlantic Tunas 
Longline category permits an entity could own (outside of the 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 and target species landings of vessel or business, potentially 
preventing that business from increasing activity. For these reasons, 
Sub-Alternative D1b could have long-term adverse economic impacts. For 
the reasons stated, this

[[Page 59991]]

alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative D1c, implemented by this final rule, will 
cap the amount of IBQ shares owned at 25 percent, and is expected to 
have neutral economic impacts. In 2015 through 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. Under the allocation method described in the 
preferred `A' alternatives, the maximum amount of IBQ shares that a 
single entity would own on an annual basis would be between six and 
seven percent of total shares. If this trend continues where the 
maximum percent ownership remains stable over time, implementing a cap 
at 25 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. 
Implementing a 25-percent cap to prevent acquisition of excessive IBQ 
shares would prevent a single entity from controlling an excessive 
portion of the market, would address potential concerns among vessel 
owners, and accumulation of shares by a single entity and reduce any 
associated uncertainty, which would be a minor, beneficial 
socioeconomic impact.
    Sub-Alternative D1d would cap the amount of IBQ shares owned at 50 
percent, and is expected to have neutral economic impacts in the short 
term. Although this cap level would allow flexibility in entities' 
business planning to acquire more shares, by acquiring additional 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits, in the long term, Sub-
Alternative D1a could have direct 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. Therefore, this alternative was not 
selected as the preferred alternative.
    Sub-Alternative D2a (No Action), which would not cap the amount of 
IBQ allocation leased or used, 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 allocation. 
The highest amount of IBQ allocation that a single entity held in a 
given year, including leased allocation, was 6.5 percent, 12.3 percent, 
and 8.8 percent of the total annual allocation (i.e., the Longline 
category bluefin quota) in 2015, 2017, and 2019, respectively. During 
the development of Amendment 13 in spring 2022, NMFS became aware of 
concerns regarding recent, high bluefin landings in a portion of the 
pelagic longline fishery. NMFS considers this to be an unusual event 
and not reflective of how the IBQ Program has functioned overall. The 
IBQ Program was designed to provide ample flexibility for vessel owners 
to lease IBQ allocation in the amounts that they need to account for 
bluefin catch, maintain an IBQ allocation balance that satisfies the 
minimum IBQ allocation requirements, and maintain an IBQ allocation 
balance that addresses the potential risk/need to account for future 
catch of bluefin. Furthermore, another measure implemented by this 
final rule, which sets a cap on IBQ share ownership at 25 percent (Sub-
Alternative D1c) will prevent an excessive accumulation of IBQ shares 
over time. Leasing of IBQ allocation occurs on an annual basis and 
expires at the end of each calendar year, therefore there is no long-
term concern about excessive accumulation of allocation via leasing. 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 and resulting allocation 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 lease additional allocation.
    Sub-Alternative D2b would establish a cap on the amount of IBQ 
allocation an entity may lease or use at 25 percent. Although the level 
of this cap would be larger than the highest amount of IBQ allocation 
that a single entity held in a given year, it is possible that it would 
constrain the ability of a vessel to account for bluefin catch. A limit 
on how much IBQ allocation an entity can lease could cause some permit 
holders to become needlessly risk averse and decrease their fishing 
activity and, consequently, target species landings. Concerns about 
targeting bluefin may be better addressed through another regulatory 
mechanism. For these reasons, this alternative was not selected as the 
preferred alternative.

Adjustments to Other Aspects of the IBQ Program

    Sub-Alternative E1a (No Action), which would make no changes to the 
dealer reporting requirements implemented by Amendment 7, would have 
direct, 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. The 
requirement to verify information by submitting it in two different 
reporting systems can be frustrating for fishermen. During the time-
period collecting two data streams, NMFS was able to verify information 
that was collected and determine that VMS was the best approach for 
submitting a single stream of dead discard data. The requirement for 
fishermen to submit a personal identification number (PIN) when dealers 
entered landings data was also frustrating and time consuming for 
fishermen and dealers alike since fishermen were frequently either not 
available when dealers entered the data, or did not have access to 
their PIN. Fishermen chose to provide their PIN to dealers which 
allowed the data to be entered, but did not provide the data 
verification that was the objective of the original requirement. 
Therefore, this alternative was not selected as the preferred 
alternative.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative E1b implemented by this final rule 
modifies dealer reporting requirements for IBQ Program, and will have 
minor, beneficial economic impacts for dealers since they will be 
relieved of a reporting requirement (dead discards) and are no longer 
required to collaborate with fishermen for landings data entry. The 
removal of the PIN collaboration will reduce frustration for both 
fishermen and dealers and thus reduce labor costs with this task. 
Instead of being required to coordinate with the dealer to provide a 
PIN in conjunction with a bluefin landing, a pelagic longline fisherman 
will be informed via an automated email from the Catch Shares Online 
System when dealers enter a landing transaction into the computer 
system and a landing is accounted for in their vessel's account.
    Sub-Alternative E2a, regarding electronic monitoring (EM) (the No 
Action Alternative), would continue the current requirement that EM 
hard drives be submitted after each trip using pelagic longline gear. 
This alternative would maintain the current requirements for shipping 
hard drives. Currently vessel owners or operators must mail hard drives 
to NMFS after each fishing trip. When compared to the preferred 
alternative, this would maintain a higher cost burden by requiring 
transactions after each trip. This would also maintain a higher burden 
in terms of time. Operators would have to spend time pulling, 
packaging, and shipping hard drives after each trip, instead of after 
every other trip. Therefore, this alternative was not selected as the 
preferred alternative.

[[Page 59992]]

    Preferred Sub-Alternative E2b implemented by this final rule will 
require that the vessel operator mail the hard drives at the completion 
of every two trips, instead of after each pelagic longline fishing 
trip. This alternative will have a minor beneficial economic impact by 
reducing the costs and time associated with mailing EM hard drives. 
This measure will reduce the frequency of hard drive shipments and 
reduce the number of transactions by half. Considering the high 
transaction average of 34 shipments per year, this would reduce the 
high average to 17 shipments. Each active vessel would still ship at 
least 1 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. 
For these reasons, this alternative was selected as the preferred 
alternative.
    Sub-Alternative E3a, regarding the EM Program (the No Action 
Alternative), would not clarify the current procedures regarding EM 
camera installation and would not provide NMFS with any additional 
authority regarding installation of hardware on vessels. Vessel 
operators would continue to operate as they have since implementation 
of the EM program, thus economic impacts are neutral. This alternative 
was rejected because it would not facilitate improvements in the 
accuracy of the EM data, and would have indirect, minor and adverse 
ecological impacts.
    Through this final rule (Preferred Sub-Alternative E3b), NMFS 
clarifies that it may require installation of permanent or semi-
permanent hardware (boom or telescoping device) in order to mount and 
install EM video cameras at locations on vessels as necessary to obtain 
optimal views, and that NMFS, working in conjunction with the vessel 
owner/operator, may make relatively minor modifications to the vessel 
structure to mount cameras in locations that provide required views of 
the vessel and adjacent areas. If installation of hardware is needed, 
the economic impacts of modifying the camera installation and placement 
would be minor adverse for the affected, small entities, due to the 
estimated cost of approximately $1,000 per vessel, unless agency 
funding were to be available. 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 however, this time burden would only be a couple of 
minutes to extend, lower, or raise at the start and end of each fishing 
trip. Crew may also be required to access the camera during the trip in 
order to clean the lens. The process of cleaning the lens may be more 
difficult if the camera is mounted on a boom. Although this alternative 
has associated costs as described above, it would also increase the 
likelihood of improved data collection, and have indirect, minor, and 
beneficial ecological impacts. Data that is more robust is likely to 
provide ecological benefits in the long-term. Therefore, this 
alternative was selected as the preferred alternative.
    Sub-Alternative E4a, the No Action Alternative (no additional fish 
handling protocols or requirements for measuring grids) for electronic 
monitoring, would have neutral economic impacts and no labor or 
equipment costs to vessel operators. This alternative was not selected 
as the preferred alternative because it would not facilitate improved 
data collection and would have minor adverse ecological impacts.
    Preferred Sub-Alternative E4b implemented by this final rule will 
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 will have minor adverse impacts as it would slightly 
increase costs in terms of the time required to process fish, or costs 
associated with a measurement tool such as a printed processing carpet 
or painted grid on the deck. The crew will need to modify their fish 
handling procedures to place all fish on the grid. Although there will 
be minor costs associated with this alternative, there will be an 
associated increase in the likelihood of improved data collection and 
long-term minor ecological benefits.
    Sub-Alternative E5a (No Action) would make no changes to the 
current regulations, under which there is no cost recovery for the IBQ 
Program, and would therefore have a neutral economic impact. This 
alternative was not selected as the preferred alternative, because the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires a cost recovery program for a limited 
access privilege program.
    Sub-Alternative E5b, implemented by this final rule, is preferred 
because it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to 
have a cost recovery program. Under this alternative, NMFS would not 
charge a fee in years where the collection program costs exceed 
estimated recovered costs. When a fee is charged, permit holders would 
incur up to a three-percent fee on any sale of bluefin caught by 
pelagic longline gear under the IBQ Program. This would have minor, 
adverse economic impacts on Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 
holders that land bluefin.

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

    Sub-Alternative F1a (No Action) would maintain the current 
mathematical method of subtracting 68 mt from the U.S. baseline quota 
to account for Longline category then applying codified allocation 
percentages for the bluefin categories. The economic impacts would be 
neutral. This alternative was not selected, because it would maintain 
the current complex method of calculating quota allocations. In 
contrast, Sub-Alternative F1b was selected to be implemented by this 
final rule because it will simplify the process: it revises the 
category allocation percentages to reflect the annual 68-mt allocation 
to the Longline category. Sub-Alternative F1b is expected to have 
neutral economic impacts. However, if the U.S. quota were to increase 
in the future, there may be minor, positive long-term socioeconomic 
impacts for Longline category participants because the category would 
be allocated slightly more quota than under the No Action alternative. 
In the event of a decrease in U.S. quota, the socioeconomic impacts 
would be minor negative for the Longline category. For other 
categories, socioeconomic impacts would be minor negative if there is a 
U.S. quota increase, and minor positive if there is a quota decrease.
    Alternative F2 would eliminate the Purse Seine category and 
redistribute that category's quota to other quota categories under a 
variety of options (sub-alternatives). Sub-Alternative 2a (No Action 
Alternative) would maintain all aspects of the current quota allocation 
(with the exception of other quota allocation alternatives considered 
in Sections G, H, and I, regarding the General and Harpoon categories) 
and Purse Seine category regulations. The Purse Seine category would 
continue to receive quota based on activity level, and could either 
fish or trade that quota

[[Page 59993]]

via the IBQ system. There would likely continue to be a large annual 
shift of Purse Seine category quota to the Reserve category (required 
under the regulations), that could be redistributed via inseason 
action. The economic impacts of this alternative would be neutral. This 
alternative was not selected because the uncertainty and unused quota 
associated with the current regulations would continue.
    Sub-Alternative F2b, being implemented by this final rule, will 
discontinue the Purse Seine category and reallocate quota upon 
implementation. This sub-alternative, and Sub-Alternatives F2c1 and 
F2c2, only address the timing of discontinuation of the Purse Seine 
category. Impacts associated with quota reallocation are discussed 
under the F3 reallocation alternatives of which Sub-Alternative F3a, 
discussed below, is the preferred alternative. The impacts from the set 
of alternatives for discontinuance and reallocation (e.g., F2b and F3a) 
are considered additive.
    Sub-Alternative F2b will have moderate adverse direct economic 
impacts to Purse seine category participants compared to the status 
quo. Under this measure implemented by this final rule, quota 
allocations will no longer be distributed to Purse Seine category 
participants, so neither fishing for bluefin nor leasing via the IBQ 
system will be allowed after the effective date of this Amendment 13 
final rule. The economic impacts are estimated based on the loss of 
potential revenue from these two activities. Purse Seine category 
participants last landed fish from 2013 through 2015, are not currently 
economically dependent upon bluefin landings, and not expected to 
engage in fishing for bluefin in the future. Using leasing data from 
2013-2019, NMFS estimates a loss of $38,391 per year category-wide or 
$7,678 per participant from this sub-alternative. This sub-alternative 
was selected because elimination of the inactive Purse Seine category 
immediately would provide immediate benefits to the active bluefin 
categories. Although there would be a loss in potential income from 
leasing IBQ allocation, NMFS has concluded that, in view of the long-
term absence of active fishing (despite trying to create incentives 
under Amendment 7 for purse seine vessels to remain active in the 
fishery), the elimination of the Purse Seine category will best 
contribute to achieving optimum yield and ensuring the greatest overall 
benefit to the nation. Promoting commercial and recreational fishing 
under sound conservation and management principles and achieving, on a 
continuing basis, optimum yield from a fishery are key purposes of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. See comment and response 24 for further 
explanation.
    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. Sub-Alternative F2c1 would allow 
leasing and fishing until the sunset date, while Sub-Alternative F2c2 
would only allow leasing. Economic impacts for both sub-alternatives 
would be moderate and adverse, but in addition, Sub-Alternative F2c2 
would result in potential, lost opportunity to fish for bluefin and 
associated potential revenue losses. The most reasonably likely 
estimate of Purse Seine category future fishing activity is 0 mt 
landings since the category has not fished since 2015. This alternative 
was not selected because there is no justification to delay the 
benefits associated with discontinuation of the Purse Seine category.
    Alternative F3 would reallocate the Purse Seine category quota 
proportionally to all other quota categories. The preferred Sub-
Alternative F3a would apply Longline category 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). 
Economic impacts for Sub-Alternative F3a, which is implemented by this 
final rule, will be moderate and beneficial with estimated increases in 
revenue for the commercial quota categories that will receive the 
redistributed quota after the Purse Seine category is terminated. The 
Draft Amendment 13/DEIS did not prefer including the Longline category 
in the reallocation. After considering public comment and conducting 
additional analyses, NMFS decided to include the Longline category, 
given impacts to the IBQ leasing market as a result of elimination of 
Purse Seine category quota and inactive pelagic longline vessels (due 
to annual dynamic allocations) as sources for leasing bluefin quota. 
Active vessels in the IBQ program in the past have relied, in a large 
part, on Purse Seine category bluefin quota as the source for leasing 
IBQ. Including the Longline category in the reallocation increases the 
likelihood of maintaining a successful IBQ leasing market in the future 
(including new entrants). The Longline category will continue to 
benefit from a robust IBQ leasing market resulting from additional IBQ. 
Annual revenue increases for other categories resulting from Sub-
Alternative F3a are estimated as follows: $1,689,758 for the General 
category, $131,548 for the Harpoon category, and $93,204 for the 
Reserve category, resulting in a combined total of $1,914,510. The 
incidental Trap category is unlikely to see any annual revenue increase 
given the total amount in its quota is de minimis and any landings are 
rare. Total revenue was also estimated for the Reserve category, 
because quota from that category could be used to augment one of the 
commercial categories via inseason action, at some point during the 
fishing year.
    When Sub-Alternative F3a is combined with Sub-Alternative F2b 
(immediate disbursement), there will be moderately beneficial economic 
impacts on fishery participants due to increased bluefin quota and 
associated revenue. Net impacts (i.e., economic impacts to all 
categories combined) are also beneficial, since the estimated annual 
revenue loss to the Purse Seine category for leasing would be $0.15 
million annually, which equals a net increase in revenue of 
approximately $2.15 million annually. Revenue loss associated with 
purse seine leasing rather than fishing was used to calculate net value 
because a leasing only scenario is the most likely scenario that would 
occur, since Purse Seine category participants have not fished since 
2015, but have been actively leasing quota through 2019. This sub-
alternative was selected because it will provide economic benefits to 
the active bluefin categories.
    Economic impacts for Sub-Alternative F3b (reallocation to all 
categories but Longline category could not use additional bluefin quota 
in the Gulf of Mexico) would be moderate and beneficial, and include 
estimated increases in revenue for the directed quota categories that 
received the redistributed quota. When combined with Sub-Alternative 
F2b (immediate disbursement), economic impacts for Sub-Alternative F3b 
would be moderately beneficial for participants in all quota 
categories, except for pelagic longline vessels that fish in the Gulf 
of Mexico. As explained above under Alternative F3, the final rule 
includes the Longline category in the reallocation because of impacts 
of eliminating the Purse Seine category on the IBQ leasing market. 
Longline category vessels fishing in the Gulf of Mexico have relied in 
part on leasing Purse Seine IBQ quota, so allowing use of reallocated 
quota there is needed in order to address IBQ leasing market changes. 
Thus, Sub-Alternative F3b is not selected. When Sub-Alternative F3b is 
combined with Sub-Alternative F2c (reallocate the Purse Seine category 
quota after a 2-year sunset period), short

[[Page 59994]]

term economic impacts would be neutral. Combining F3b with F2c, which 
would delay reallocation, was not selected because there is no 
justification to delay the benefits associated with discontinuation of 
the Purse Seine category.
    Alternative F4 would redistribute Purse Seine category quota to the 
directed categories only. Economic impacts for Alternative F4 would be 
moderate and beneficial for directed categories, and moderate and 
negative for incidental categories. The beneficial impacts include 
increases in revenue for the commercial quota categories that receive 
the redistributed quota after the Purse Seine category is terminated. 
However, impacts on the Longline category would be moderate and 
negative because bluefin quota from the Purse Seine category would be 
neither reallocated to the Longline category, nor available for 
leasing. As explained above under Alternative F3, active vessels in the 
IBQ program in the past have relied, in a large part, on Purse Seine 
category bluefin quota as the source for leasing IBQ. When combined 
with Alternative F2b (immediate disbursement) (Preferred), economic 
impacts for Alternative F4 would be moderately beneficial for directed 
category participants receiving quota. Revenue for leasing rather than 
fishing was used to calculate net value because it is the most likely 
scenario, since Purse Seine category participants have not fished since 
2015, but have been actively leasing quota through 2019. It is 
difficult to quantify the negative aspects of the impact of this 
alternative on the IBQ Program. The costs associated with leasing are 
likely to increase, and if fishing behavior is constrained by a poorly 
functioning IBQ leasing market, there could be reductions in target 
species landings. This alternative was not selected given the IBQ 
leasing market concern.
    When combined with Sub-Alternative F2c (1 and 2), which would 
reallocate the Purse Seine category quota after a 2-year sunset period, 
Alternative F4's short term economic impacts would be neutral. The 
long-term impacts would be moderate and beneficial. 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. This alternative was not selected 
given the IBQ leasing market concern and because there is no 
justification to delay the benefits associated with discontinuation of 
the Purse Seine category.

Modifications to General Category Subquota Periods and/or Allocations

    Alternative G1, the preferred No Action Alternative, will not make 
any modifications to the General category subquota periods and/or 
allocations and thus has neutral economic impacts. 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). Exceedances of base quotas reflect inseason quota 
transfers from the Reserve and Harpoon categories. 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. 
While NMFS agrees that the General category fishery has changed over 
time, NMFS determined, based on analyses in Draft Amendment 13/DEIS and 
the Final Amendment 13/FEIS (see Section 4.7.4), that the current 
structure of the fishery continues to provide equitable fishing 
opportunities, as explained further in the response to Comment 27. This 
alternative was selected because the current subquota periods and 
allocations, in combination with NMFS' authority for inseason 
management of the fishery, facilitate the catch of bluefin quota and 
provide equitable opportunities for participation and catch of bluefin. 
The current regulations are achieving the objectives of the fishery 
management plan as explained in the FEIS Section 4.7.4.
    Sub-Alternatives G2a, G2b, G3a, G3b, and G3c analyzed modifications 
to the subquota periods or size of the subquota percentages. Sub-
Alternative G2a would modify the General category time periods to 12 
equal months. Sub-Alternative G2b would modify General category time 
periods to extend the January through March subquota time period 
through April 30. Sub-Alternative G3a would modify the General category 
allocation percentage to increase the January through March amount. 
Sub-Alternative G3b would modify General category allocation 
percentages and increase the September and the October through November 
amounts and decrease the June through August amount. Sub-Alternative 
G3c would modify the General category allocation percentages, and is 
directly associated with Alternatives F5 and F6 (discontinue Purse 
Seine category fishery and reallocate quota). Any increases of General 
category quota resulting from Alternatives F5 and F6 would be applied 
to the September and the October through November subquota periods. For 
all of these sub-alternatives, based upon the changes in subquota 
amounts, changes in revenue were estimated using changes in potential 
landings and the price associated with those landings.
    For these General category fishery sub-alternatives there would be 
some increases in revenue for some subquota periods and declines in 
revenue for other subquota periods. Overall, the impacts were expected 
to be moderate, and beneficial or adverse, depending on quota and fish 
prices in the various time periods. The changes in revenues in these 
General category subquota allocation alternatives are strongly subject 
to availability of fish and fishing conditions during the subquota time 
periods. Further, the potential gross revenue estimates are based on 
price assumptions and market dynamics that are uncertain. Lastly, 
unused quota may be adjusted (added) 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. These sub-alternatives were 
not selected, because they would not meaningfully increase the equity 
of the fishery among participants or optimize bluefin landings. In the 
context of the highly variable bluefin fishery and the current 
regulatory structure, the analyses do not demonstrate the benefits of 
any of these alternatives over the preferred alternative.

Modifications to the Angling Category Trophy Fishery

    The impacts of Alternative H1, the No Action Alternative, would be 
neutral, but continue the current structure (defined trophy areas and 
associated quotas) of the trophy fishery. The RFA is not applicable to 
anglers as they are not ``small entities'' (i.e., small businesses, 
organizations or governmental jurisdictions) for RFA purposes. There is 
no sale of tunas by Angling category participants, thus no economic 
costs or impacts with this alternative. For charter vessels, which sell 
fishing trips to recreational fishermen, for those north of the 
northern mid-Atlantic states, including

[[Page 59995]]

New England states, the perceived lower opportunity to land a trophy 
bluefin would continue. Therefore, this alternative was not selected.
    Preferred Alternative H2, implemented by this final rule, will 
modify the current Angling category northern trophy 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 will be named the Gulf of Maine trophy 
area and the Southern New England trophy area, respectively, as shown 
in the FEIS. The net result will be that the Trophy quota will 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). 
There will be minor, beneficial social impacts (and economic impacts 
for charter vessels) to a small number of vessels in the new zone 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. The perception 
of greater fairness among northern area participants also represents 
beneficial, social impacts. HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessel 
owners and operators have commented over the years that the ability to 
attract customers with the opportunity to retain a trophy bluefin is 
important, even if few are ultimately landed. NMFS also received 
comments about the importance of trophy opportunities for tournaments 
as well. For these reasons, this alternative was selected.

Modifications to Other Handgear Fishery Regulations

    Preferred Sub-Alternative I1a (No Action) will maintain the current 
authorized gears applicable to the Atlantic Tunas permit categories, 
and make no changes to the relevant gear regulations. For example, 
participants in the HMS Charter/Headboat category will still be 
authorized to use rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, and green-stick, 
as well as speargun for recreational catch of non-bluefin tunas only, 
and the General category will be authorized to use harpoon, rod and 
reel, handline, bandit gear, and green-stick. This alternative was 
selected because there is currently equitable flexibility to use 
various gear types among the open access bluefin permit categories.
    Sub-Alternative I1b would add harpoon gear as an authorized gear 
for the HMS Charter/Headboat category 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 permitted vessels with the commercial sale 
endorsement. This alternative would have minor, beneficial economic 
impacts for those vessels that have success in harpooning bluefin that 
may be available at the water's surface. This alternative was not 
selected, because it would have relatively minor benefits, and public 
comments expressed concerns about the safety of the alternative. 
Further, although the Charter/Headboat category may not fish with 
harpoon gear, the permit category has the flexibility to fish under 
commercial or recreational HMS regulations, which is not allowed under 
other permit categories.
    Sub-Alternative I1c would eliminate harpoon as gear authorized for 
use by General category permitted vessels. This alternative was not 
selected because it would result in minor, adverse impacts: it would 
reduce opportunity for vessels with General category permits that fish 
with harpoon gear and reduce flexibility and efficiency in catching the 
General category quota. Further, the use of harpoon gear by General 
category permitted vessels does not significantly reduce fishing 
opportunities for rod and reel fishermen.
    Sub-Alternative I2a (No Action) 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 (73''-<81'') 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. This alternative 
was not selected because it would not optimize the use of the harpoon 
category quota by limiting retention of high numbers of bluefin on a 
single trip.
    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 was not selected because, although it would 
optimize the use of the harpoon category quota by limiting retention of 
high numbers of bluefin on a single trip, it would not provide parity 
with most of the other bluefin regulations regarding retention limits. 
Specifically, there would be no authority for NMFS to reduce the 10 
fish retention limit to address changing conditions or circumstances in 
the fishery.
    Sub-Alternative I2c, implemented by this final rule, will set a 
default 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 measure will 
authorize NMFS to set the combined daily retention limit over a range 
of 5 to 10 fish (adjustable through inseason action). For example, if 
NMFS were to set the Harpoon category limit of combined large medium 
and giant bluefin to nine (via inseason action) (and a limit of two 
large medium fish were in effect), then no more than seven giant 
bluefin could be kept in that same day or trip, such that the total 
does not exceed nine fish. This alternative was selected because it 
will optimize the use of the Harpoon category quota by limiting 
retention of high numbers of bluefin on a single trip, and provide a 
mechanism to lower the retention limit inseason to respond to changing 
conditions or circumstances in the fishery.
    Sub-Alternative I3a (No Action) will maintain the June 1 start date 
and November 15 closure date for the Harpoon category season. 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 will facilitate enforcement and 
business planning, and provide greater certainty to participants 
regarding opportunities, participation/effort, and potential impact on 
market prices. Participants will continue to have the potential to 
catch the same percentage of the quota and earn the equivalent share of 
total ex-vessel revenues. 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 catch 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 will not begin until June 1. To the 
extent that opportunities could extend deeper into the summer, more 
Harpoon category participants could benefit. For these reasons, this 
alternative was selected.
    Sub-Alternative I3b would lengthen the season for the Harpoon 
category by implementing an earlier start date of May 1 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 
adverse and beneficial. The relative magnitudes of the adverse and

[[Page 59996]]

beneficial impacts are unknown. Starting the Harpoon category season in 
advance of the General category season (which would remain at June 1) 
would result in an adverse impact due to increased uncertainty for 
enforcement and business planning, and reduced certainty to General 
category participants regarding opportunities, participation/effort, 
and potential impact on market prices. A beneficial impact would accrue 
to Harpoon category vessels. This alternative would increase the 
likelihood of Harpoon category participants being able to catch the 
full Harpoon category quota and thus would be minor, and beneficial. An 
increase in optimum yield may result from a potential increase in the 
geographic and temporal distribution of landings. 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. This alternative was not 
selected because of the adverse impacts anticipated and the relative 
magnitudes of the adverse and beneficial impacts are unknown.
    Sub-Alternative I4a (No Action) would maintain the current 
requirement that gives permit holders 45 days to change their Atlantic 
Tunas or HMS permit category as long as they have not landed a bluefin. 
This alternative was rejected because continuation of the 
administrative restriction without a clear corresponding benefit is not 
warranted.
    Sub-Alternative I4b, implemented by this final rule, will 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 a 
subset of the impacted permit holders, this alternative will be very 
beneficial, 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., HMS Angling permit). This 
alternative was selected because it will provide additional flexibility 
for permit applicants to correct mistakes, while maintaining the 
condition that no bluefin have been landed (and therefore precluding 
misuse of such flexibility).
    Sub-Alternative I5a (No Action) would make no changes to the 
current regulations concerning green-stick gear. Vessels authorized to 
fish with pelagic longline gear would not be permitted to retain 
bluefin caught with green-stick gear. The economic impacts of the No 
Action Alternatives would be minor and adverse, as a result of 
maintaining the current regulations that preclude a pelagic longline 
vessel from retaining bluefin caught on green-stick gear. This 
alternative was not selected because it would not allow a pelagic 
longline vessel to retain bluefin incidentally caught by greenstick 
gear, and therefore not minimize discarding.
    Sub-Alternative I5b, would amend 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), provided that pelagic longline 
gear is not on board, and that vessels comply with additional 
regulations (i.e., VMS set reports, HMS logbook requirements, IBQ 
program requirements) applying to such trips. This alternative was 
rejected because although it would allow retention of a bluefin caught 
by green-stick gear, the restriction that green-stick gear cannot be 
used if pelagic longline gear is onboard may limit the flexibility for 
fishermen to adapt fishing strategies to the conditions on a particular 
trip, and reduce the ability of those vessels to maximize their 
opportunity to catch yellowfin. Green-stick gear selection by fishermen 
targeting yellowfin could maximize economic returns and efficiency, or 
reflect adherence to specific requirements if fishing under the DWH 
OFRP in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Sub-Alternative I5c, implemented by this final rule, amends 
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) and with 
additional regulations (i.e., VMS set reports, HMS logbook 
requirements, IBQ program requirements) applying to such trips. This 
measure allows both green-stick and pelagic longline gear on the vessel 
at the same time. In comparison to the No Action Alternative, this 
measure will 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 on board 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 adherence to 
specific requirements if fishing under the DWH OFRP in the Gulf of 
Mexico. For these reasons, this alternative was selected.
    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish 
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, 
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance 
guides.'' The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is 
required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of 
this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide (the guide) 
was prepared, and posted to the Amendment 13 website. Copies of this 
final rule are available from the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, and 
the guide is available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
    This final 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).
    As part of Amendment 13, this final rule contains measures that 
eliminate or modify existing reporting, record-keeping, or other 
compliance requirements that require PRA filing, as described below. 
This final rule will 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 will 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 is expected to 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 will not change the 
total number of respondents and would have a de minimis impact on total 
costs. The 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.
    This final rule will also modify other existing requirements for 
the collection

[[Page 59997]]

of information under OMB Control Number 0648-0372. The requirement for 
vessels fishing with purse seine gear to report bluefin information 
through VMS is eliminated, because this final rule eliminates the 
provisions that allow fishing with purse seine gear. The removal of 
this requirement will reduce the total burden by six hours and reduce 
the estimated burden cost by two thousand dollars. The final rule 
changes the existing EM requirements for pelagic longline vessels by 
requiring vessel owners to pay for specific required EM system 
modifications: hardware for the installation of rail video cameras and 
installation of a measuring grid on deck. These payment requirements 
will not affect the reporting burden hours for vessel operators. 
Finally, the final rule changes the existing EM requirements for 
pelagic longline vessels by requiring vessel owners to mail in their EM 
hard drives after every other trip, unless the hard drive is at full 
capacity after the first trip, as opposed to the current requirement to 
do so after ever trip.
    This final rule revises the existing requirements for collection-
of-information under OMB Control Number 0648-0040 by removing two 
aspects of the dealer reporting requirements for the IBQ Program. 
First, this final rule eliminates 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 final rule removes 
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 subject to these requirements 
includes participants in the Longline category. As of March 2020, a 
total of 280 Atlantic Tunas Longline category limited access permits 
were issued. It is likely that the number of vessels that will 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.
    This final rule changes the existing requirements for the 
collection-of-information under OMB Control Number 0648-0677 by adding 
cost recovery requirements for Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders 
that land bluefin. Annually, NMFS will 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 will 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 subject to new cost recovery requirements will 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. The 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 invites the general public and other Federal agencies to 
comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps 
us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and 
minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments and 
recommendations for this information collection should be submitted on 
the following website: www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find these 
particular information collections by using the search function and 
entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 
0648-0372, 0648-0040, 0648-0677.
    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

    General provisions for domestic fisheries, Magnuson-Stevens Act 
provisions, National standards, Regional fishery management councils.

50 CFR Part 635

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


    Dated: September 23, 2022.
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 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 the 
heading ``IX. Secretary of Commerce,'' by removing and reserving the 
entry 1.H.

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 a definition for ``BFT'';
0
b. Revise the definition of ``CFL'';
0
c. Add in alphabetical order definitions for ``Electronic Monitoring 
(EM) system'' and ``IBQ (individual bluefin quota)'';
0
d. Revise the definition of ``Northeast Distant gear restricted area''; 
and
0
e. Add in alphabetical order a definition for ``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 
chapter.
* * * * *
    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

[[Page 59998]]

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 BFT 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, revise paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), remove paragraph 
(d)(5), and revise paragraph (j)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  635.4  Permits and fees.

* * * * *
    (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 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 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 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) BFT landed by a commercial vessel and not sold. If a person who 
catches and lands a large medium or giant BFT from a vessel issued a 
permit in any of the commercial categories for Atlantic tunas does not 
sell or otherwise transfer the BFT 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 BFT, 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 BFT 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 BFT must have a dealer tag affixed to it by a permitted Atlantic 
tunas dealer, immediately upon the vessel being removed from the water. 
All BFT 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 IBQ Program 
and/or leasing requirements under Sec.  635.15.
* * * * *
    (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, revise paragraphs (a), (b)(2) introductory text, 
(c)(1)(ii), and (c)(6), add paragraph (c)(7), and revise paragraph (e) 
to 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) 
through (ii) of this section.
* * * * *

[[Page 59999]]

    (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) of this section, 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 views, 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 or carpet that is placed on the deck before 
the fish are brought on board, or may be painted directly on the deck. 
The standardized reference grid must have accurate dimensions and grid 
line intervals as instructed and specified in the vessel's VMP by NMFS 
or the NMFS-approved contractor. The vessel owner and/or operator is 
responsible for ensuring compliance with the provided instructions and 
specifications and for 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, the 
VMP must include: information on the locations of EM system components 
(including any customized camera mounting structure); 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; specifications and other relevant 
information regarding the dimensions and grid line intervals for the 
standardized reference grid; 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 will be updated, revised, and approved 
periodically by NMFS or the NMFS-approved contractor, and will include 
both signature and date indicating when the VMP was approved by NMFS or 
the NMFS-approved contractor. 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. The vessel owner and/or operator must implement, and ensure that 
the vessel complies with, all of the requirements, specifications and 
protocols outlined in the VMP no later than 6 months after the date of 
approval of the VMP.
    (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 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 
Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP holders using the Catch Shares 
Online System.
    (b) Eligibility--(1) IBQ shareholder. An Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category LAP holder that fished using pelagic longline gear on at least 
one set (i.e., deployment and retrieval) during a recent 36 month 
period is eligible to receive an annual IBQ share in accordance with 
paragraph (c) of this section and is considered an IBQ shareholder. In 
determining IBQ shareholders, NMFS will use data as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section. For an IBQ shareholder's vessel to be 
considered an ``eligible vessel,'' the vessel must have been issued a 
valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP when set(s) occurred during 
the relevant 36 month period. In circumstances where a LAP is 
transferred from one vessel to another during the relevant 36 month 
period, the eligible vessel(s) is that which deployed the pelagic 
longline sets.

[[Page 60000]]

    (2) 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 was not eligible for an annual IBQ 
share.
    (c) Annual IBQ share determination. During the last quarter of each 
year, NMFS will review the relevant 36 months of best available data to 
determine eligible IBQ shareholders and the number of pelagic longline 
sets legally made by each permitted, eligible vessel, and assign IBQ 
shares based on the criteria below. The 36 month time period is a 
rolling period that changes annually, and is selected by NMFS based on 
the availability of recent data and time required by NMFS to conduct 
determinations under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. NMFS 
intends to include data from the majority of the year prior to the year 
for which shares are applied and the IBQ allocation distributed. The 
best available data as determined by NMFS may be a single data source 
such as VMS data, for which there is a relatively short time period 
from the time it is submitted by the vessel operator, and the time it 
can be used by NMFS; or the best available data may include other 
available data such as logbook, EM, or permit data, in order to 
accurately determine a vessel's eligibility status and shares. An IBQ 
shareholder does not need a valid LAP when NMFS makes annual IBQ share 
determinations, but NMFS will only distribute IBQ allocations to 
permitted vessels.
    (1) IBQ share calculations. Annually, NMFS will calculate IBQ 
shares for each IBQ shareholder based upon the total number of each 
eligible vessel's pelagic longline sets during the relevant 36 month 
period, and the relative amount (as a percentage) those pelagic 
longline sets represent compared to the total number of pelagic 
longline sets made by all IBQ shareholders' eligible vessels. NMFS will 
only count one set per calendar day toward a vessel's total number of 
pelagic longline sets, and will only count a set if a vessel was issued 
a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP when the set occurred. The 
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, but in addition, a proxy amount of 
sets will be added to a vessel's history during the period of its 
participation in the Project. The proxy will be based upon the average 
number of sets made by IBQ shareholders' vessels that did not 
participate in the Project during the period that participants fished 
under the Project.
    (3) Regional designations of IBQ shares. Annually, IBQ shares and 
resultant allocations will be designated as either ``GOM'' (Gulf of 
Mexico) or ``ATL'' (Atlantic), based upon the location (i.e., in the 
Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic region) of sets included in the calculation 
under paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Subject to the GOM share cap 
described below, each region's total shares and resultant allocations 
for the year will be based on the percentage of sets designated for the 
region compared to total sets. Per Sec.  635.28(a)(1), NMFS will file a 
closure action when a region's IBQ allocations have been reached or are 
projected to be reached. 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 Sec.  600.105(c) of this chapter, 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 an 
IBQ shareholder's vessel had fishing history in both the Gulf of Mexico 
and Atlantic region, it could receive both GOM and ATL shares.
    (i) GOM share cap. The maximum amount of designated GOM IBQ shares 
among all IBQ 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 default 35-percent 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 (default or adjusted), 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. 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 shares or 
increases in ATL shares resulting from this adjustment. This adjustment 
is not subject to appeal under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section.
    (iii) Low GOM-designated share threshold. If NMFS determines that 
the total amount of GOM-designated IBQ shares is 5 percent or less of 
the total IBQ shares, NMFS will file an action with the Office of the 
Federal Register for publication that suspends for that year the 
requirement to account for BFT caught in the Gulf of Mexico with GOM-
designated shares and resultant allocations (paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section) and the minimum GOM IBQ allocation requirement (paragraph 
(f)(2) of this section). NMFS will also notify IBQ shareholders of such 
action per paragraph (e) of this section. In this situation, IBQ 
shareholders' vessels could fish in the Gulf of Mexico during that year 
using ATL-designated IBQ allocations. Any vessels fishing in the Gulf 
of Mexico would still need to account for BFT catch and have the 
minimum IBQ allocation of 0.25 mt ww (551 lb ww) before departing on 
the first fishing trip in a calendar year quarter. Those vessels that 
fish in the Gulf of Mexico may be issued GOM IBQ shares in the 
following year per the regional designation of shares process described 
in paragraph (c)(3) of this section. BFT catch (landings and dead 
discards) from the Gulf of Mexico by pelagic longline vessels will be 
capped at the weight of BFT equivalent to the GOM share cap (see 
paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section) in the applicable year. If this 
level of catch is reached, or projected to be reached, NMFS will 
prohibit fishing with pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of Mexico for 
the rest of the year pursuant to Sec.  635.28(a)(1).
    (d) Annual IBQ allocations. An annual IBQ allocation is the amount 
of BFT (whole weight) in metric tons corresponding to an IBQ 
shareholder's share percentage, distributed to their vessel to account 
for incidental landings and dead discards of BFT during a specified 
calendar year. NMFS will only distribute IBQ allocations when there is 
a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP associated with a vessel. 
Unless otherwise required under paragraph (f)(4) of this section, an 
IBQ allocation is derived by multiplying the IBQ share percentage 
(calculated under paragraph (c)(1) of this section) by the baseline 
Longline category quota for that year. If the baseline quota is 
adjusted during the fishing year, the annual IBQ allocation may also be 
adjusted as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
    (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 shares, their IBQ 
allocations, and the regional designations of those shares and

[[Page 60001]]

allocations for the subsequent fishing year; whether adjustments were 
made to GOM-designated shares due to the GOM shares cap; and whether 
the low GOM-designated share threshold has been triggered. 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. As of December 31, if an IBQ shareholder does not 
have a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP associated with a 
vessel due to a permit renewal or transfer, NMFS will issue IBQ 
allocation for the relevant fishing year if/when the permit renewal or 
transfer is completed and a valid LAP 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 their: eligibility for IBQ shares based on ownership of an 
active vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit; IBQ 
share percentage; IBQ allocations; and regional designations of shares 
and allocations. A permit holder may also appeal NMFS' determination of 
the number of pelagic longline sets legally made by its permitted 
vessel. However, an adjustment of GOM shares under paragraph (c)(3)(ii) 
of this section or inseason quota adjustment under paragraph (e)(3) of 
this section is not subject to appeal. Appeals based on hardship 
factors will not be considered. Consistent with most limited effort and 
catch share programs, hardship is not a valid basis for appeal due to 
the multitude of potential definitions of hardship and the difficulty 
and complexity of administering such criteria in a fair manner. NMFS 
may utilize BFT quota from the Reserve category for any adjustment 
needed due to an appeal.
    (ii) Supporting documentation for appeals. NMFS permit records 
would be the sole basis for determining permit transfers, permit 
renewals, and the validity of permits. NMFS will only use the relevant 
36 months of data described under paragraph (c) of this section to 
determine the numbers of pelagic longline sets made. NMFS will count 
only pelagic longline sets legally made when the permit holder had a 
valid permit. No other proof of sets or permit history will be 
considered. Photocopies of written documents are acceptable; NMFS may 
request originals at a later date. NMFS may 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.  635.27(a)(7) and (8). NMFS may distribute the 
quota that is transferred inseason to the Longline category either to 
all IBQ shareholders or to all permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline 
category LAP vessels that are determined by NMFS to have any recent 
fishing activity in the pelagic longline fishery. In making this 
decision, 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 
shareholders or active vessels, and include regional designations of 
IBQ allocations (see paragraph (c)(3) of this section).
    (3) Inseason quota adjustments. NMFS may increase or decrease the 
baseline Longline quota on an inseason basis as authorized under Sec.  
635.27(a). When doing so, NMFS would apply each IBQ shareholder's share 
percentage to the amount of quota increase or decrease, and will notify 
IBQ shareholders of any resulting changes in their IBQ allocations. 
This adjustment is not subject to appeal under paragraph (e)(1)(i) of 
this section. Regional designations described in paragraph (c)(3) of 
this section will be applied to inseason quota distributed to IBQ 
shareholders, and subject to the applicable cap and other provisions 
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
    (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 and expire at the end of each fishing year. 
IBQ shares and allocations 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, unless the provisions of 
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section are in effect. 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 Sec.  600.105(c) 
of this chapter, 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 a 
valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP 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.

[[Page 60002]]

    (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 BFT 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 BFT 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, when the vessel operator 
reports dead discards through VMS as required under Sec.  
635.69(e)(4)(i).
    (ii) IBQ allocation balances. If the amount of BFT 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) End-of-year IBQ transactions by dealers. 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 in Sec.  600.10 of 
this chapter) exceeds the amount of IBQ allocation available to the 
vessel, the permitted vessel is considered to have a ``quota debt'' 
equal to the difference between the catch and the allocation.
    (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 and 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 paragraph (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

[[Page 60003]]

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 annual allocation or lease), for the purpose 
of any potential, future relevant regulations 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 
annual IBQ share may transfer their 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 for the remainder of that fishing year. 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 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 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 BFT 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 BFT under the IBQ Program. NMFS 
will undertake the process described in paragraphs (m)(1) through (5) 
of this section, on an annual basis.
    (1) Estimation of incremental cost. NMFS will calculate the 
estimated incremental cost of the IBQ Program (e.g., oversight, 
customer service, database/computer maintenance and other costs, 
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 a notification of its determination on 
fees, and notify Atlantic Tunas Longline permit holders, specifying the 
fee 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 BFT 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) 
that holds an Atlantic Tunas Longline category LAP may not hold or 
acquire more than 25 percent of the total IBQ shares or resultant 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, catching, retaining, or 
possessing Atlantic BFT and BAYS.
    (1) Atlantic BFT. A person that fishes for, catches, 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) and listed here:
    (i) Angling category. Rod and reel (including downriggers) and 
handline.
    (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 gear.
    (iv) Harpoon category. Harpoon.
    (v) Trap category. Pound net and fish weir.

[[Page 60004]]

    (vi) Longline category. Longline and green-stick gear.
    (2) BAYS. Subject to paragraph (b)(1) of this section that applies 
to possession or retention of BFT or fishing for or catching BFT, a 
person may otherwise use the primary gears authorized for the Atlantic 
Tunas or HMS permit categories and listed here to fish for, catch, 
retain, or possess BAYS:
    (i) Angling category. Speargun, rod and reel (including 
downriggers), and handline.
    (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 gear.
    (iv) Harpoon category. Harpoon.
    (v) Longline category. Longline and green-stick gear.
    (3) HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat Permit. 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, (c)(5)(iii)(B), and 
(c)(5)(iii)(C) introductory text; 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 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.  
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), and (d);
0
b. Remove paragraph (e);
0
c. Redesignate paragraphs (f) and (g) as paragraphs (e) and (f);
0
d. Revise newly redesignated paragraphs (e) introductory text and 
(e)(2); and
0
e. Add paragraph (e)(3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  635.23  Retention limits for bluefin tuna.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) To provide for maximum utilization of the quota for BFT, and as 
allowed under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, 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 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. (1) 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. The 
incidental catch of large medium BFT is limited as specified in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section. NMFS may increase or decrease the 
overall daily retention limit of large medium and giant BFT, combined, 
per vessel per day over a range of 5 to a maximum of 10 fish per vessel 
per day. Such increase or decrease will be based upon the criteria 
under Sec.  635.27(a)(7). NMFS will adjust the daily retention limit by 
filing an adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register for 
publication.
    (2) Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon 
category may retain, possess, or land an incidental catch of no more 
than two large medium BFT per vessel per day, unless adjusted. NMFS may 
increase or decrease the incidental daily catch limit through an 
inseason adjustment over a range of two to a maximum of four, large 
medium BFT per vessel per day, based upon the criteria under Sec.  
635.27(a)(7).
    (3) 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

[[Page 60005]]

retention restrictions in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (2) A vessel with pelagic longline gear onboard must retain and 
land all dead large medium or giant BFT.
    (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 the vessel is in 
compliance with all the IBQ requirements of Sec.  635.15, including the 
VMS set report requirement (Sec.  635.69(e)(4)), and IBQ allocation and 
usage requirements (Sec.  635.15(b)).
* * * * *

0
13. In Sec.  635.24, revise paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  635.24  Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and 
BAYS tunas.

* * * * *
    (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 NMFS has adjusted the commercial 
retention limit above zero pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this 
section and 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 NMFS has adjusted the commercial retention limit 
above zero pursuant to paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section and 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), and 
(a)(2) and (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), and (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 1,316.14 mt, not including an 
additional annual 25-mt allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section. This baseline BFT quota is divided among the categories 
according to the following percentages: General--54 percent (710.7 mt); 
Angling--22.6 percent (297.4 mt), which includes the school BFT held in 
reserve as described under paragraph (a)(6)(ii) of this section; 
Longline--15.9 percent (209.3 mt) (i.e., total not including the 25-mt 
allocation from paragraph (a)(3) of this section); Harpoon--4.5 percent 
(59.2 mt); Trap--0.1 percent (1.3 mt); and Reserve--2.9 percent (38.2 
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 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 710.7 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 permit or an HMS 
Charter/Headboat permit has been issued is 297.4 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.

[[Page 60006]]

    (ii) After adjustment (Angling category quota minus school and 
large medium/giant subquotas), resulting in a large school/small medium 
subquota of 154.1 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 
Sec.  600.105(c) of this chapter.
    (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 209.3 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). For purposes of the closure authority under 
Sec.  635.28(a)(1), regional IBQ allocations under Sec.  635.15(c)(3) 
and the BFT catch cap for fishing in the Gulf of Mexico (Sec.  
635.15(c)(3)(iii)) are considered quotas.
    (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 59.2 
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 1.3 mt.
    (6) * * *
    (i) The total amount of BFT that is held in reserve is 38.2 mt, 
which may be augmented by allowable underharvest from the previous 
year. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(7) through (a)(9) of this section, 
NMFS may allocate any portion of the Reserve category quota for 
inseason or annual adjustments to any fishing category quota. NMFS may 
also use any portion of the Reserve category quota for adjustments to, 
or appeals of, IBQ allocations (see Sec.  635.15(e)(1)(i)) and research 
using quota or subquotas (see Sec.  635.32).
    (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 (a)(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 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 must be 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) has been reached, 
or 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 permit with a commercial sale 
endorsement; a valid Atlantic Tunas General, Harpoon, Longline, or Trap 
category permit; or a valid HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat permit 
issued under this part, and the appropriate category has not been

[[Page 60007]]

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 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.  635.34, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.34  Adjustment of management measures.

* * * * *
    (b) In accordance with the framework procedures in the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or modify for species or 
species groups of Atlantic HMS the following management measures: 
Maximum sustainable yield or optimum yield based on the latest stock 
assessment or updates in the SAFE report; domestic quotas; recreational 
and commercial retention limits, including target catch requirements; 
size limits; fishing years or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions, 
or regional and/or sub-regional quotas; species in the management unit 
and the specification of the species groups to which they belong; 
species in the prohibited shark species group; classification system 
within shark species groups; permitting and reporting requirements; 
workshop requirements; the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for BFT; 
administration of the IBQ program (including but not limited to 
requirements pertaining to leasing of IBQ allocations, regional or 
minimum IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps (individual or by 
category), permanent sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); de minimis 
BFT quota set-aside for new entrants and associated requirements, 
process and conditions; time/area restrictions; allocations among user 
groups; gear prohibitions, modifications, or use restriction; effort 
restrictions; observer coverage requirements; EM requirements; 
essential fish habitat; and actions to implement ICCAT recommendations, 
as appropriate.
* * * * *

0
19. In Sec.  635.69, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) 
and (4), add paragraph (a)(5), and revise paragraphs (e)(4) 
introductory text and (e)(4)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  635.69  Vessel monitoring systems.

    (a) Applicability. To facilitate enforcement of time/area and 
fishery closures, enhance reporting, and support the IBQ Program (Sec.  
635.15), an owner or operator of a commercial vessel 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, the length of BFT retained (actual), and the numbers and 
lengths of all BFT discarded dead or alive (approximate), must be 
reported within 12 hours of the completion of the retrieval of each 
set.
* * * * *

0
20. In Sec.  635.71:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (a)(14) and (37) and (b)(3), (8) through (10), and 
(17);
0
b. Remove and reserve paragraphs (b)(18) and (20) through (22).
0
c. Revise paragraphs (b)(30), (31), and (33) through (36), (39) through 
(41), (46) through (59), (c)(7), (d)(13), (22), (23), (25), and (28), 
and (e)(11) and (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 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 permit as authorized 
under Sec.  635.23(b) and (c).
* * * * *
    (8) Fail to pay cost recovery fees as instructed by NMFS, as 
specified at Sec.  635.15(m)(4).
    (9) Hold or acquire more than 25 percent of the total IBQ shares or 
associated allocations annually as specified under Sec.  635.15(n).
    (10) Fail to retain and land all dead large medium or giant BFT 
when pelagic longline gear is on board a vessel, as specified in Sec.  
635.23(e)(2).
* * * * *
    (17) Fish for, catch, retain, or possess BAYS tunas with gear not 
authorized for the category permit issued to the vessel, as specified 
in Sec.  635.19(b).
* * * * *
    (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).
* * * * *

[[Page 60008]]

    (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).
    (36) Possess J-hooks onboard a vessel that has pelagic longline 
gear on board, and that has been issued or required to be issued a LAP 
under this part, except when green-stick gear is on board, as specified 
at Sec.  635.21(c)(2)(iv) and (c)(5)(iii)(C).
* * * * *
    (39) Use or deploy more than 10 hooks at one time on any individual 
green-stick gear, as specified in Sec.  635.21(c)(2)(iv), 
(c)(5)(iii)(C), or (i).
    (40) Possess, use, or deploy J-hooks smaller than 1.5 inch (38.1 
mm), when measured in a straight line over the longest distance from 
the eye to any part of the hook, when fishing with or possessing green-
stick gear on board a vessel that has been issued or required to be 
issued a LAP under this part, as specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(2)(iv) or 
(c)(5)(iii)(C).
    (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 
BFT 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.
    (47) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy or fish with any fishing 
gear from a vessel with a pelagic longline on board without a minimum 
amount of IBQ allocation available for that vessel, as specified in 
Sec.  635.15(f)(2), as applicable.
    (48) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy or fish with any fishing 
gear from a vessel with a pelagic longline on board without accounting 
for BFT as specified in Sec.  635.15(f)(3).
    (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).
    (50) Fish in the Gulf of Mexico with pelagic longline gear on board 
if the vessel has only designated Atlantic IBQ allocation, as specified 
under Sec.  635.15(c)(3).
    (51) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy or fish with any fishing 
gear from a vessel with a pelagic longline on board in the Gulf of 
Mexico, without a minimum amount of designated GOM IBQ allocation 
available for that vessel, as specified in Sec.  635.15(f)(2).
    (52) If leasing IBQ allocation, fail to provide all required 
information on the application, as specified under Sec.  635.15(g)(2).
    (53) Lease IBQ allocation in an amount that exceeds the amount of 
IBQ allocation associated with the lessor, as specified under Sec.  
635.15(g)(2).
    (54) Sell quota share, as specified under Sec.  635.15(h).
    (55) Fail to provide BFT landings and dead discard information as 
specified at Sec.  635.15(f)(3)(iii).
    (56) Fish with or have pelagic longline gear on board if any quota 
debt associated with the permit from a preceding calendar year quarter 
has not been settled as specified in Sec.  635.15(f)(4)(i).
    (57) Lease IBQ allocation during the period from 6 p.m. December 31 
to 2 p.m. January 1 (Eastern Time) as specified at Sec.  
635.15(g)(3)(iv).
    (58) Lease IBQ allocation if the conditions of Sec.  635.15(g)(2) 
are not met.
    (59) Fish with or have pelagic longline gear on board if any annual 
level quota debt associated with the vessel from a preceding year has 
not been settled, as specified at Sec.  635.15(f)(4)(ii).
    (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).
* * * * *
    (25) Fail to follow the fleet communication and relocation protocol 
for dusky sharks as specified at Sec.  635.21(c)(6), (d)(2), and 
(f)(5).
* * * * *
    (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. 2022-21167 Filed 9-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P