68784 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 71 

Time zones. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

Office of the Secretary proposes to 

amend Title 49 Part 71 as follows: 

PART 71—STANDARD TIME ZONE 

BOUNDARIES 

1. The authority citation for part 71 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 1–4, 40 Stat. 450, as 

amended; sec. 1, 41 Stat. 1446, as amended; 

secs. 2–7, 80 Stat. 107, as amended; 100 Stat. 

764; Act of Mar. 19, 1918, as amended by the 

Uniform Time Act of 1966 and Pub. L. 97–

449, 15 U.S.C. 260–267; Pub. L. 99–359; Pub. 

L. 106–564, 15 U.S.C. 263, 114 Stat. 2811; 49 

CFR 1.59(a). 

2. Paragraph (b) of § 71.5 is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 71.5 Boundary line between eastern and 

central zones. 

* * * * * 

(b) Indiana-Illinois. From the junction of 

the western boundary of the State of 

Michigan with the northern boundary of the 

State of Indiana easterly along the northern 

boundary of the State of Indiana to the east 

line of LaPorte County; thence southerly 

along the east line of LaPorte County to the 

north line of Starke County; thence east along 

the north line of Starke County to the west 

line of Mashall County; thence south along 

the west line of Marshall County thence west 

along the north line of Pulaski County to the 

east line of Jasper County; thence south along 

the east line of Jasper County to the south 

line of Jasper County; thence west along the 

south lines of Jasper and Newton Counties to 

the western boundary of the State of Indiana; 

thence south along the western boundary of 

the State of Indiana to the north line of Knox 

County; thence easterly along the north line 

of Knox, Daviess, and Martin Counties to the 

west line of Lawrence County; thence south 

along the west line of Lawrence, Orange, and 

Crawford Counties to the north line of Perry 

County; thence easterly and southerly along 

the north and east line of Perry County to the 

Indiana-Kentucky boundary. 

Issued in Washington, DC on November 22, 

2006. 

Rosalind A. Knapp, 

Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 06–9432 Filed 11–22–06; 2:27 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 061121306–6306–01; I.D. 

110206A] 

RIN 0648–AU86 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS); U.S. Atlantic Swordfish Fishery 

Management Measures 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend 

regulations governing the U.S. Atlantic 

swordfish fishery to enable a more 

thorough utilization of the U.S. North 

Atlantic swordfish quota. The U.S. 

North Atlantic swordfish quota is 

derived from the recommendations of 

the International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 

and is implemented under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). 

For the past several years, the U.S. 

Atlantic swordfish fishery has not fully 

harvested its available quota. The 

objective of this proposed action is to 

provide a reasonable opportunity for 

U.S. vessels to fully harvest the ICCATrecommended U.S. North Atlantic 

swordfish quota, as specified in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, in recognition 

of the improved stock status of North 

Atlantic swordfish. This proposed rule 

would increase swordfish retention 

limits for Incidental swordfish permit 

holders, and modify recreational 

swordfish retention limits for HMS 

Charter/headboat and Angling category 

permit holders. The proposed rule 

would also modify HMS limited access 

vessel upgrading restrictions for pelagic 

longline (PLL) vessels. These actions are 

necessary to address persistent 

underharvests of the domestic swordfish 

quota, while continuing to minimize 

bycatch to the extent practicable, so that 

swordfish are harvested in a sustainable, 

yet economically viable manner. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule must be received by 5 

p.m. on January 31, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule or the Draft 

Environmental Assessment(Draft EA) 

may be submitted to Sari Kiraly, 

Fisheries Management Specialist, 

Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division, using any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: SF1.110206A@noaa.gov. 

• Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark 

the outside of the envelope ‘‘Comments 

on Proposed Swordfish Rule’’. 

• Fax: 301–713–1917. 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Include in the 

subject line the following identifier: 

‘‘I.D. 110206A.’’

Copies of the Draft EA, the 2006 Final 

Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory 

Species Fishery Management Plan 

(Consolidated HMS FMP) and other 

relevant documents are also available 

from the Highly Migratory Species 

Management Division website at http:// 

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by 

contacting Sari Kiraly (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sari 

Kiraly, by phone: 301–713–2347; by fax: 

301–713–1917; or by e-mail: 

Sari.Kiraly@noaa.gov,or Richard A. 

Pearson, by phone: 727–824–5399; by 

fax: 727–824–5398; or by e-mail: 

Rick.A.Pearson@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery 

The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is 

managed under the Consolidated HMS 

FMP. Implementing regulations at 50 

CFR part 635 are issued under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and ATCA (16 

U.S.C. 971 et seq). Under ATCA, the 

United States is obligated to implement 

the recommendations of ICCAT, 

including those for Atlantic swordfish 

quotas (ICCAT Recommendations 02–

02, 03–03, and 04–02). ICCAT is an 

inter-governmental fishery organization, 

currently consisting of 42 contracting 

parties, that is responsible for the 

conservation of tunas and tuna-like 

species, including swordfish, in the 

Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas. 

In 2001, ICCAT established its 

‘‘Criteria for the Allocation of Fishing 

Possibilities’’ (ICCAT Recommendation 

01–25) that included 15 separate criteria 

to be considered when allocating quota 

within the ICCAT framework. The first 

two criteria relate to the past and 

present fishing activity of qualifying 

participants. These criteria specify that 

‘‘historical catches’’ and ‘‘the interests, 

fishing patterns and fishing practices’’

of qualifying participants are to be 

considered when making allocation 

recommendations. Other criteria, 

including conservation measures, 

economic importance of the fishery, 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 68785 

geographical occurrence of the stock, 

compliance with ICCAT management 

measures, and dependence on the 

stocks, must also be considered when 

allocating quota. 

At its 2002 meeting, ICCAT 

established an annual Total Allowable 

Catch (TAC) for North Atlantic 

swordfish of 14,000 mt (ww) for the 

years 2003, 2004, and 2005 (ICCAT 

Recommendation 02–02). A 14,000 mt 

(ww) TAC was later established for 2006 

(ICCAT Recommendation 04–02) as 

well. 1,185 mt (ww) of the TAC were 

allocated to ‘‘other contracting parties 

and others,’’ with the remainder being 

distributed to the European Community 

(52.42 percent), United States (30.49 

percent), Canada (10.52 percent), and 

Japan (6.57 percent), using the 

allocation criteria described above. This 

resulted in a baseline U.S. North 

Atlantic swordfish quota of 3,907 mt 

(ww) for the period 2004 - 2006. 

An examination of historical catches 

reveals that U.S. North Atlantic 

swordfish catches, as reported to 

ICCAT, have declined by approximately 

40 percent from 4,026 mt (ww) in 1995 

to 2,424 mt (ww) in 2005, although they 

have stabilized since 2001. As a percent 

of the ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota, 

the decline in U.S. North Atlantic 

swordfish landings is even more 

apparent. Because landings below the 

baseline quota (an ‘‘underage’’) in one 

year may be added to the subsequent 

year’s baseline quota, the ‘‘adjusted’’

U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota has 

continued to increase. The United States 

has landed less than its ICCATrecommended ‘‘baseline’’ and 

‘‘adjusted’’ swordfish quota since 1997. 

Based on reported landings to ICCAT, 

the United States went from exceeding 

its ‘‘baseline’’ quota in 1996 to landing 

only 29 percent of its ‘‘adjusted’’ quota 

in 2005. As indicated above, reported 

catches in 2005 were 2,424 mt (ww) 

versus a 2005 ‘‘adjusted’’ quota of 8,319 

mt (ww). This trend is likely to continue 

in 2006 because the ‘‘adjusted’’ quota is 

again significantly higher (9,803 mt 

(ww)). U.S. North Atlantic swordfish 

landings have also been less than the 

unadjusted ‘‘baseline’’ ICCATrecommended quota since 1997. The 

United States landed approximately 62 

percent (2,424 mt (ww)) of its 

unadjusted North Atlantic swordfish 

‘‘baseline’’ quota (3,907 mt (ww)) in 

2005. 

The ICCAT Standing Committee on 

Research and Statistics (SCRS) just 

completed a stock assessment for North 

Atlantic swordfish in October 2006. The 

2006 assessment indicated that North 

Atlantic swordfish biomass had 

improved, possibly due to strong 

recruitment in the late 1990’s combined 

with reductions in reported catch since 

then. The SCRS estimated the biomass 

of North Atlantic swordfish at the 

beginning of 2006 ( B2006) to be at 99 

percent of the biomass necessary to 

produce maximum sustainable yield 

(BMSY). The 2005 fishing mortality rate 

(F2005) was estimated to be 0.86 times 

the fishing mortality rate at maximum 

sustainable yield (FMSY). In other words, 

in 2006, the North Atlantic swordfish 

stock is almost fully rebuilt and fishing 

mortality is low. 

NMFS has implemented several 

important management measures in 

recent years, primarily to reduce the 

bycatch of undersized swordfish, nontarget species, and protected species. 

These actions have been very effective 

at reducing bycatch, but they may also 

have had the unintended consequence 

of contributing to persistent 

underharvests of the U.S. swordfish 

quota, and a precipitous decline in the 

number of active PLL vessels (‘‘active’’

is defined as vessels that report landings 

in the HMS logbook). Some of these 

measures include: Year-round closures 

in the DeSoto Canyon and East Florida 

Coast areas; seasonal closures in the 

Charleston Bump and Northeastern 

areas; limited access vessel permits; 

mandatory utilization of Vessel 

Monitoring Systems (VMS); mandatory 

circle hook and bait requirements; 

possession and utilization of release and 

disentanglement gear; utilization of nonstainless hooks; and a live bait 

prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies 

that NMFS shall provide a reasonable 

opportunity for domestic vessels to 

harvest quota allocations that are 

derived from international fishery 

agreements, such as ICCAT 

recommendations. In this action, NMFS 

prefers alternatives that would modify 

some management measures (swordfish 

retention limits and vessel upgrading 

provisions) to increase domestic 

swordfish landings and revenues, but 

that would also retain important 

bycatch reduction provisions. The 

preferred alternatives are intended to 

demonstrate that the United States is 

committed to revitalizing its historical 

swordfish fishery in recognition of the 

improved stock status of North Atlantic 

swordfish, and help to maintain or 

increase the historical U.S. North 

Atlantic swordfish quota allocation. 

These actions are necessary to address 

persistent underharvests of the domestic 

swordfish quota, while continuing to 

minimize bycatch to the maximum 

extent practicable, so that swordfish are 

harvested in a sustainable, yet 

economically viable manner. 

This action would reduce swordfish 

dead discards by increasing swordfish 

retention limits for Incidental swordfish 

permit holders, and modify recreational 

swordfish retention limits for HMS 

Charter/headboat and Angling category 

permit holders. This proposed rule 

would also modify HMS limited access 

vessel upgrading and permit transfer 

upgrading restrictions for PLL vessels. 

The Agency conducted an 

Environmental Assessment to analyze 

alternatives for increasing incidental 

and recreational swordfish retention 

limits, and modifying HMS limited 

access vessel upgrading restrictions, 

while continuing to minimize the 

bycatch of target, non-target and 

protected species to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

North Atlantic Swordfish Retention 

Limits 

Under current regulations, vessels 

issued valid Incidental swordfish 

limited access permits, other than those 

in the squid trawl fishery, are allowed 

to retain, possess or land no more than 

two swordfish per vessel per trip in or 

from the Atlantic Ocean north of 5° N. 

lat. Vessels issued valid Incidental 

swordfish limited access permits and 

participating in the squid trawl fishery 

are allowed to retain, possess, or land 

no more than five swordfish per trip 

from the same area. HMS Angling and 

Charter/Headboat vessel permit holders 

are allowed to retain one North Atlantic 

swordfish per person, up to three per 

vessel per trip. 

In addressing swordfish retention 

limits, three preferred alternatives were 

identified. One preferred alternative 

would increase the North Atlantic 

swordfish retention limit for vessels 

issued valid Incidental swordfish 

limited access permits to 30 fish per 

vessel per trip; and, for vessels issued 

valid Incidental swordfish limited 

access permits that participate in the 

squid trawl fishery, would increase the 

limit to 15 fish per vessel per trip. This 

alternative would allow vessels issued 

valid Incidental swordfish limited 

access permits to land incidentally 

caught swordfish that might otherwise 

be discarded under the current two-fish 

limit. Also, it provides a reasonable 

opportunity for swordfish Incidental 

permit holders to harvest the U.S. 

swordfish quota, but prevents a large 

increase in additional directed fishing 

effort on swordfish. This alternative is 

expected to have limited adverse 

ecological impacts because vessel 

operators are not expected to 

substantially alter their fishing practices 

for the opportunity to land 28 additional 

swordfish. 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
68786 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

A second preferred alternative would 

allow HMS Charter/headboat vessels to 

retain one fish per paying passenger 

(i.e., not including the captain or crew), 

up to six swordfish per trip for charter 

vessels, and 15 swordfish per trip for 

headboat vessels. This alternative would 

maintain the current recreational limit 

of one swordfish per person, but 

increase the allowable upper retention 

limit from three fish per vessel. A sixfish upper vessel retention limit for 

charter vessels was the only alternative 

analyzed for this sector, besides the no 

action alternative, because these vessels 

are licensed to carry a maximum of six 

passengers per trip. Although headboats 

can carry upwards of 50 passengers, a 

15–fish retention limit was analyzed 

because it would provide a better 

opportunity for anglers on headboats to 

land a swordfish while maintaining a 

recreational aspect to the charter/ 

headboat fishery. In addition, given the 

lack of data for swordfish retention by 

anglers, a 15 fish limit is in keeping 

with a precautionary approach in that 

this limit is five times the limit now 

allowed, but is still conservative enough 

so as to preclude potential negative 

effects on the swordfish stock. This 

alternative is preferred in recognition of 

the fact that charter and headboat 

vessels may carry many paying 

passengers, and because it could 

provide additional U.S. swordfish 

landings with limited adverse ecological 

impacts. 

A third preferred alternative would 

allow HMS Angling category vessels to 

retain one fish per person, up to four 

swordfish per vessel per trip. This 

alternative maintains the current 

recreational limit of one swordfish per 

person, but increases the upper 

retention limit from three fish to four 

fish per vessel per trip. A four-fish 

upper vessel retention limit for angling 

vessels was the only alternative 

analyzed for this sector, besides the no 

action alternative, because it would 

provide a modest increase in the 

opportunity to land a swordfish, while 

maintaining a recreational aspect to the 

fishery. Because there were 25,238 

vessels issued HMS Angling category 

permits, as of February 1, 2006, an 

increase in the upper retention limit of 

more than one fish per angling vessel 

was considered, but rejected, due to 

concerns about potentially excessive 

recreational landings. HMS Angling 

category vessels do not carry paying 

passengers, so a higher limit based on 

the number of paying passengers 

onboard was considered, but rejected. 

This alternative is preferred because it 

could provide additional U.S. swordfish 

landings, with limited adverse 

ecological impacts. 

NMFS does not expect significant 

adverse ecological impacts to result 

from the proposed regulations to 

increase swordfish retention limits. The 

ecological impacts would vary based 

upon the resulting level of fishing effort. 

Currently, the U.S. swordfish fleet has 

been unable to catch the entire U.S. 

North Atlantic swordfish quota, causing 

significant amounts to be carried over to 

the subsequent fishing years. Adjusting 

incidental and recreational swordfish 

retention limits would allow swordfish 

that otherwise may have been discarded 

to be landed, thereby providing 

economic benefits while contributing to 

domestic swordfish landings. The 

proposed measures are not expected to 

significantly increase fishing effort 

because other management measures to 

mitigate adverse ecological impacts 

would remain in place. These include 

PLL time/area closures, mandatory PLL 

circle hook and bait requirements, 

mandatory PLL possession and use of 

release and disentanglement gear, a PLL 

live bait prohibition in the Gulf of 

Mexico, PLL VMS requirements, 

species-specific quotas, retention limits, 

minimum size limits, authorized gears, 

dealer and vessel logbook reporting, 

observer requirements, and HMS 

limited access vessel permits. 

The social and economic impacts 

associated with the proposed 

regulations to increase swordfish 

retention limits would vary based upon 

the amount of swordfish kept minus any 

additional costs associated with 

catching the additional swordfish. The 

potential economic benefits associated 

with increased retention limits for 

Incidental swordfish permit holders are 

estimated by taking the difference 

between the value of two swordfish and 

the value of 30 swordfish, 

approximately $7,864 per vessel per 

trip. For Charter/headboat vessels, the 

economic benefit would be derived from 

an increased perceived value of a forhire or private trip for an angler, due to 

the ability to land more fish. 

Recreational anglers might take more 

trips, which could also lead to some 

multiplier benefits to tackle shops, boat 

dealers, hotels, fuel suppliers, and other 

related businesses. 

HMS Limited Access Vessel Upgrading 

Restrictions 

Under current regulations, owners 

may upgrade vessels or transfer permits 

to another vessel only if the vessel 

upgrade or permit transfer does not 

result in an increase in horsepower (HP) 

of more than 20 percent, or an increase 

of more than 10 percent in length 

overall (LOA), gross registered tonnage 

(GRT), or net tonnage (NT), relative to 

the respective specifications of the first 

vessel issued the initial limited access 

permit (the baseline vessel). If any of the 

three vessel size specifications is 

increased, any increase in the other two 

must be performed at the same time. 

The current regulations also specify that 

vessel horsepower and vessel size may 

be increased only once. However, vessel 

size may be increased separately from 

an increase in vessel horsepower. 

The proposed regulations establish 

new HMS limited access vessel 

upgrading and permit transfer 

upgrading restrictions only for HMS 

vessels that are authorized to fish with 

pelagic longline gear for swordfish and 

tunas, equivalent to 35 percent LOA, 

GRT, and NT, as measured relative to 

the baseline vessel specifications (i.e., 

the specifications of the vessel first 

issued an HMS limited access permit), 

and removes HP upgrading and HP 

permit transfer upgrading restrictions 

for these vessels. The proposed 

regulations also specify that vessel size 

may be increased only once subsequent 

to publication of the final regulations. 

This alternative is preferred because it 

could improve the ability of U.S. vessels 

to fully harvest the domestic ICCAT 

recommended North Atlantic swordfish 

quota, but imposes some limits on 

vessel upgrading by restricting the 

universe of potentially impacted entities 

only to PLL vessels, and limits the 

magnitude of allowable upgrades. 

Under the proposed measures, fishing 

effort could potentially increase. 

However, any potential adverse 

ecological impacts associated with an 

increase in effort are expected to be 

mitigated by existing PLL management 

measures that would remain in effect, 

and which have significantly reduced 

bycatch in recent years. These include 

PLL time/area closures, PLL circle hook 

and bait restrictions, and all of the other 

measures that were described above. 

Because these existing management 

measures would remain in effect, and 

because of the limits on the magnitude 

and number of vessels affected by the 

upgrading modifications, NMFS does 

not expect significant adverse ecological 

impacts from the proposed regulations 

to modify PLL vessel upgrading 

restrictions. 

Under the proposed regulations, 

positive social and economic impacts 

are anticipated. Vessel owners would 

gain economic benefits by having 

increased flexibility to adjust their 

vessel configurations to better fit their 

business needs. In addition, they would 

have a better ability to safely carry 

observers. The ability to upgrade could 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 68787 

also enhance the quality of life for crew 

and captains by providing larger, more 

comfortable, and more modern vessels. 

Finally, the potential to lengthen vessels 

and upgrade engine horsepower might 

have important positive safety 

implications, especially for smaller 

vessels operating far offshore in areas 

prone to extreme weather. The preferred 

alternative is not expected to adversely 

affect recreational fishing, as larger PLL 

vessels may be more likely to fish 

further offshore, and away from 

ecologically sensitive nearshore areas. 

NMFS intends to hold public hearings 

to receive comments from fishery 

participants and other members of the 

public regarding the proposed swordfish 

regulations. The public hearing dates 

and locations will be announced in a 

forthcoming notice to be published in 

the Federal Register. 

Classification 

This proposed rule is published under 

the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and ATCA. NMFS has preliminarily 

determined that this action is consistent 

with section 304(b)(1) of the MagnusonStevens Act, including the national 

standards, and other applicable law. 

An EA has been prepared that 

describes the impact on the human 

environment that could result from the 

implementation of alternative 

management measures to provide a 

reasonable opportunity for U.S. fishing 

vessels to harvest the ICCAT 

recommended domestic swordfish quota 

allocation by increasing recreational and 

incidental swordfish retention limits, 

and modifying HMS limited access 

vessel upgrading restrictions. Based on 

the EA, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), 

and Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and a review of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) criteria for significance 

evaluated above (NAO 216–6 Section 

6.02), no significant effect on the quality 

of the human environment is 

anticipated from this action. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

In compliance with Section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was 

prepared for this rule. The IRFA 

analyzes the anticipated economic 

impacts of the preferred actions and any 

significant alternatives to the proposed 

rule that could minimize economic 

impacts on small entities. A summary of 

the IRFA is below. The full IRFA and 

analysis of economic and ecological 

impacts are available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

In compliance with Section 603(b)(1) 

and (2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

the purpose of this proposed rulemaking 

is, consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA, to modify North 

Atlantic swordfish incidental and 

recreational retention limits and HMS 

limited access vessel upgrading 

restrictions to provide a reasonable 

opportunity for U.S. vessels to fully 

harvest the ICCAT recommended 

domestic swordfish quota. 

Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to 

provide an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the rule would 

apply. The proposed actions to modify 

recreational swordfish retention limits 

could directly affect approximately 

4,173 HMS Charter/headboat permit 

holders, and 25,238 HMS Angling 

category permit holders. The proposed 

action to increase incidental swordfish 

retention limits could directly affect 48 

vessel owners possessing valid 

swordfish Incidental permits. The 

proposed action to modify PLL vessel 

upgrading restrictions could directly 

affect approximately 176 PLL vessel 

owners possessing valid swordfish 

permits. In total, the proposed actions 

could directly affect 29,587 HMS permit 

holders. Of these, 4,349 permit holders 

(the combined number of HMS Charter/ 

headboat permit holders and valid 

swordfish-permitted PLL vessel owners) 

are considered small business entities 

according to the Small Business 

Administration’s standard for defining a 

small entity. Other small entities 

involved in HMS fisheries such as 

processors, tackle shops, bait suppliers, 

marinas, and gear manufacturers might 

be indirectly affected by the proposed 

regulations. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 

603(c)(1)-(4)). Similarly, this proposed 

rule does not conflict, duplicate, or 

overlap with other relevant Federal 

rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5). 

One of the requirements of an IRFA, 

under Section 603 of the Regulatory 

flexibility Act, is to describe any 

alternatives to the proposed rule that 

accomplish the stated objectives and 

that minimize any significant economic 

impacts (5 U.S.C. 603(c)). Additionally, 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

603 (c)(1)-(4)) lists four categories for 

alternatives that must be considered. 

These categories are: (1) Establishment 

of differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, 

or simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for such small entities; (3) use of 

performance rather than design 

standards; and (4) exemptions from 

coverage for small entities. 

In order to meet the objectives of this 

proposed rule, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), NMFS 

cannot exempt small entities or change 

the reporting requirements only for 

small entities. Thus, there are no 

alternatives that fall under the first and 

fourth categories described above. In 

addition, none of the alternatives 

considered would result in additional 

reporting or compliance requirements 

(category two above). NMFS does not 

know of any performance or design 

standards that would satisfy the 

aforementioned objectives of this 

rulemaking while, concurrently, 

complying with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. NMFS analyzed six different 

alternatives to increase swordfish 

retention limits, and five different 

alternatives to modify HMS limited 

access vessel upgrading restrictions. As 

described below, NMFS has provided 

justification for the selection of the 

preferred alternatives to achieve the 

desired objectives. 

Alternative 1a is considered the no 

action, or status quo, alternative for 

modifying recreational and incidental 

swordfish retention limits. Under 

current regulations, vessels issued valid 

Incidental swordfish limited access 

permits, other than those in the squid 

trawl fishery, are allowed to retain, 

possess or land no more than two 

swordfish per vessel per trip in or from 

the Atlantic Ocean north of 5° N. lat. 

Vessels issued valid Incidental 

swordfish limited access permits that 

participate in the squid trawl fishery are 

allowed to retain, possess, or land no 

more than five swordfish per trip from 

the same area. HMS Angling and 

Charter/headboat vessel permit holders 

are allowed to retain one North Atlantic 

swordfish per person, up to three per 

vessel per trip. 

Under alternative 1a, there would be 

no change in the current baseline 

economic and social impacts associated 

with previously implemented North 

Atlantic swordfish retention limits. This 

alternative is not preferred because it 

may be contributing to persistent 

underharvests of the domestic swordfish 

quota. Nineteen percent of trips 

reported by Incidental swordfish permit 

holders in the HMS logbook from 2002 

- 2005 reported swordfish discards. If 

any of these swordfish discards were 

attributable to exceeding the current two 

fish limit, then these discards could 

potentially represent lost revenues 

associated with the status quo 

alternative. The current recreational 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
68788 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

swordfish retention limit of one fish per 

person, up to three per trip, may be 

lowering the demand for charter and 

headboat trips, especially when several 

people are on board, since each person 

may not be able to retain a swordfish. 

Under alternative 1b, the North 

Atlantic swordfish retention limit for 

vessels issued valid Incidental 

swordfish limited access permits would 

be removed, except that, for vessels 

issued valid Incidental swordfish 

permits which participate in the squid 

trawl fishery, the limit would be 

increased to ten, until 70 percent of the 

adjusted domestic semi-annual North 

Atlantic swordfish quota is projected to 

be landed. After 70 percent of the 

directed semi-annual is projected to be 

landed, the Incidental swordfish 

retention limit would revert back to two 

swordfish per trip, and five swordfish 

per trip for squid trawl vessels, for the 

remainder of the semi-annual period. 

Alternative 1b is not preferred 

because it could potentially have the 

most significant adverse ecological 

impacts if vessel owners with Incidental 

swordfish permits alter their strategies 

and choose to deploy additional sets to 

target swordfish. The potential 

economic gain from this alternative 

would be associated with increased 

landings from two swordfish per trip up 

to as many as 605 swordfish per trip 

(the highest number of swordfish 

reported landed by a directed vessel) 

minus what vessels could make tuna 

fishing during the same time if they 

switch entirely to swordfish fishing. 

Using the mean weight of swordfish 

landed in 2005 of 75.7 lb and the mean 

ex-vessel price of $3.71 per lb in 2005, 

the estimated value of potentially 

retaining up to an additional 603 

swordfish could be as high as $169,351 

per trip. However, this should only be 

considered an upper bound, especially 

because it does not take into account 

reductions in the retention of other 

species that might occur in order to 

make room to hold swordfish on the 

vessel. More typically, vessels issued 

Swordfish Directed permits during the 

period from 2002 to 2005 averaged 60 to 

77 swordfish kept per trip. That would 

equate to potentially $16,289 to $21,064 

in additional revenue per trip for 

Incidental swordfish permit holders that 

engage in directed fishing for swordfish, 

assuming they share a similar capability 

to harvest swordfish as the Directed 

swordfish permit holders. 

Alternative 1b would also increase the 

swordfish retention limit from 5 to 10 

swordfish for vessels issued valid 

Incidental swordfish limited access 

permits that participate in the squid 

trawl fishery. This effectively doubles 

the current retention limit for these 

vessels. From 1998 - 2004, all squid 

trawl vessels landed a combined average 

of 6.3 mt (ww) of swordfish per year. 

Increasing the limit for squid trawl 

vessels by an additional five swordfish 

per trip could potentially increase 

annual landings of swordfish by all 

squid trawl vessels to 12.6 mt (ww) in 

total per year. This increase of 6.3 mt 

(ww) of swordfish would be worth a 

total of $38,743 per year among all 

squid trawl vessels, based on the 2005 

average ex-vessel price of swordfish of 

$3.71 per lb and a ratio of whole weight 

to dressed weight of 1.33. 

Alternative 1c, a preferred alternative, 

would increase the North Atlantic 

swordfish retention limit for vessels 

issued valid Incidental swordfish 

limited access permits to 30 fish per 

vessel per trip; and, for vessels issued 

valid Incidental swordfish limited 

access permits that participate in the 

squid trawl fishery, would increase the 

limit to 15 fish per vessel per trip. This 

alternative is preferred because it would 

provide an opportunity for Incidental 

swordfish permit holders to land 

swordfish that might otherwise be 

discarded, but prevent a large increase 

in additional directed fishing effort on 

swordfish. As many as 52 swordfish 

have been reported discarded on a 

single trip by Incidental swordfish 

permit holders, although most trips 

report few discards. A 30 fish limit is 

just below the median number of 

swordfish that have been landed by 

Directed swordfish permit holders from 

2002 - 2005 (36 fish). Thus, this 

alternative is expected to have limited 

adverse ecological impacts, because 

fishing effort is not expected to greatly 

exceed current levels. 

The economic benefits associated 

with this alternative are estimated by 

taking the difference between the value 

of two swordfish and the value of 30 

swordfish. Using the mean weight of 

swordfish landed in 2005 of 75.7 lb and 

the mean ex-vessel price of $3.71 per lb 

in 2005, the estimated value of 

potentially retaining an additional 28 

swordfish under this alternative is 

$7,864 per vessel per trip. Using 

logbook records from 2005, it is 

projected that total annual landings of 

swordfish could increase from 10,787 lb 

to 34,879 lb, if all reported discards 

were converted to landings, up to 30 

fish. Using the average ex-vessel price of 

$3.71 per lb for 2005, the estimated total 

value of these additional landings 

would be $89,381 amongst all active 

Incidental swordfish vessels per year. 

Alternative 1c would also increase the 

swordfish retention limit from 5 to 15 

swordfish for vessels issued valid 

Incidental swordfish limited access 

permits that participate in the squid 

trawl fishery. This would triple the 

current retention limit for these vessels. 

From 1998 - 2004, all squid trawl 

vessels landed an average of 6.3 mt 

(ww) of swordfish in total per year. 

Increasing the limit for squid trawl 

vessels by an additional ten swordfish 

per trip could potentially increase 

annual landings by all squid trawl 

vessels to 18.9 mt (ww) in total per year. 

This increase of 12.6 mt (ww) of 

swordfish would be worth a total of 

$77,487 per year among all squid trawl 

vessels, based on the same prices and 

ratios discussed above in alternative 1b. 

Alternative 1d would increase the 

North Atlantic swordfish retention limit 

for vessels issued valid Incidental 

swordfish limited access permits to 15 

fish per vessel per trip; and, for vessels 

issued valid Incidental swordfish 

limited access permits that participate 

in the squid trawl fishery, would 

increase the limit to 10 fish per vessel 

per trip. 

Alternative 1d would provide an 

opportunity for Incidental swordfish 

permit holders to land swordfish that 

otherwise might be discarded, and 

would prevent a large increase in 

additional directed fishing effort on the 

swordfish. Therefore, this alternative 

would have only limited adverse 

ecological impacts because effort would 

be expected to remain at current levels. 

However, alternative 1d is not preferred 

because a 15 fish limit is significantly 

below the mean number of swordfish 

landed by Directed swordfish permit 

holders (36 fish), although it is much 

higher than the current limit of two fish. 

The economic benefits of alternative 

1d are estimated by taking the difference 

between the value of two swordfish and 

the value of 15 swordfish. Using the 

mean weight and ex-vessel price of 

swordfish landed in 2005, as described 

in alternative 1c above, the estimated 

value of potentially retaining an 

additional 13 swordfish under this 

alternative is $3,651 per vessel per trip. 

Using logbook records from 2005, it is 

projected that total annual landings of 

swordfish could increase from 10,787 lb 

to 30,350 lb, if all reported discards 

were converted to landings, up to 15 

fish. Using the average ex-vessel price of 

$3.71 per lb for 2005, the estimated total 

value of these additional landings 

would be $72,579 amongst all active 

Incidental swordfish vessels per year. 

Alternative 1d would increase the 

swordfish retention limit from 5 to 10 

swordfish for vessels issued valid 

Incidental swordfish limited access 

permits that participate in the squid 

trawl fishery. This doubles the current 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 68789 

retention limit for these vessels. From 

1998 - 2004, all squid trawl vessels 

landed an average of 6.3 mt (ww) in 

total per year. Increasing the limit for 

squid trawl vessels by an additional five 

swordfish per trip could potentially 

increase annual landings by squid trawl 

vessels to 12.6 mt (ww) per year. This 

increase of 6.3 mt (ww) of swordfish 

would be worth a total of $38,743 

among all squid trawl vessels per year, 

based on the same prices and ratios 

discussed above in alternative 1b. 

Alternative 1e, a preferred alternative, 

would implement a North Atlantic 

swordfish retention limit for HMS 

Charter/headboat vessels of one fish per 

paying passenger, up to six swordfish 

per trip for charter vessels and 15 

swordfish per trip for headboat vessels. 

This alternative would maintain the 

current recreational limit of one 

swordfish per person, but increase the 

allowable upper retention limit from 

three to six fish for charter vessels, or 

from three fish to fifteen fish for 

headboat vessels. This alternative is 

preferred because for-hire vessels often 

carry multiple paying passengers. A sixfish upper vessel retention limit for 

charter vessels was the only alternative 

analyzed for this sector, besides the no 

action alternative, because these vessels 

are licensed to carry a maximum of six 

passengers per trip. Although headboats 

can carry upwards of 50 passengers, a 

15–fish retention limit was analyzed 

because it would provide a better 

opportunity for anglers on headboats to 

land a swordfish while maintaining a 

recreational aspect to the charter/ 

headboat fishery. In addition, given the 

lack of data for swordfish retention by 

anglers, a 15 fish limit is in keeping 

with a precautionary approach in that 

this limit is five times the limit now 

allowed, but is still conservative enough 

so as to preclude potential negative 

effects on the swordfish stock. Thus, 

alternative 1e provides a reasonable 

opportunity for paying passengers to 

land swordfish, and may increase U.S. 

swordfish landings. Few adverse 

ecological impacts are anticipated under 

this alternative as swordfish are nearly 

rebuilt, and the recreational rod and reel 

fishery has been determined to have 

only minor impacts on protected 

species. 

In 2005, approximately 25 percent of 

the swordfish reported landed by 

Charter/headboat vessels in the HMS 

non-tournament recreational reporting 

database were in groups of three fish on 

the same date. Even though a quarter of 

the trips may have been limited in the 

amount of swordfish retained under the 

existing vessel trip limit, the benefits of 

raising the limit could extend beyond 

those trips. The economic benefits 

would result from additional bookings 

of charter trips, because the perceived 

value of a trip for an angler may be 

increased by the ability to land more 

fish. The 2004 average daily HMS 

charterboat rate for day trips was 

$1,053. The willingness-to-pay for 

swordfish charterboat trips is likely to 

be much higher than this value. 

Increased charter and headboat 

bookings could lead to positive 

economic multiplier impacts to tackle 

shops, boat dealers, hotels, fuel 

suppliers, and other associated local 

and regional businesses. 

Alternative 1f, a preferred alternative, 

would implement a North Atlantic 

swordfish recreational retention limit 

for HMS Angling category vessels of one 

fish per person per trip, up to four 

swordfish per vessel per trip. This 

alternative would maintain the current 

recreational limit of one swordfish per 

person, but increase the upper retention 

limit from three fish to four fish per 

vessel per trip. A four-fish upper vessel 

retention limit for angling vessels was 

the only alternative analyzed for this 

sector, besides the no action alternative, 

because it would provide a modest 

increase in the opportunity to land a 

swordfish, while maintaining a 

recreational aspect to the fishery. 

Because there were 25,238 vessels 

issued HMS Angling category permits, 

as of February 1, 2006, an increase in 

the upper retention limit of more than 

one fish per angling vessel was 

considered, but rejected, due to 

concerns about potentially excessive 

recreational landings. HMS Angling 

category vessels do not carry paying 

passengers, so a higher limit based on 

the number of paying passengers 

onboard was considered, but rejected. 

Thus, alternative 1f provides a 

reasonable opportunity for recreational 

anglers to land swordfish, and may 

increase U.S. swordfish landings. Few 

adverse ecological impacts are 

anticipated under this alternative as 

swordfish are nearly rebuilt, and the 

recreational rod and reel fishery has 

been determined to have only minor 

impacts on protected species. 

Approximately seven percent of the 

swordfish reported landed by Angling 

category vessels in the HMS nontournament recreational reporting 

database were in groups of three fish on 

the same day. Therefore, the increase 

from three to four swordfish per vessel 

per trip under this alternative would 

likely affect a similar percentage of 

trips. The economic benefit of this 

alternative would derive from an 

increased perceived value of a trip for 

an angler due to the ability to land more 

fish. Recreational anglers might take 

more trips, which could lead to some 

multiplier benefits to tackle shops, boat 

dealers, hotels, fuel suppliers, and other 

related businesses. The average 

expenditure on HMS related trips is 

estimated to be $122 per person per day 

based on the recreational fishing 

expenditure survey add-on to the 

NMFS’ Marine Recreational Fisheries 

Statistical Survey (MRFSS). The 

expenditure data include the costs of 

tackle, food, lodging, bait, ice, boat, fuel, 

processing, transportation, party/charter 

fees, access/boat launching, and 

equipment rental. 

Alternative 2a is the no action, or 

status quo, alternative for modifying 

HMS limited access vessel upgrading 

restrictions, because it would retain the 

existing regulations. Under current 

regulations, owners may upgrade 

vessels or transfer permits to another 

vessel only if the vessel upgrade or 

permit transfer does not result in an 

increase in horsepower (HP) of more 

than 20 percent, or an increase of more 

than 10 percent in length overall (LOA), 

gross registered tonnage (GRT), or net 

tonnage (NT), relative to the respective 

specifications of the first vessel issued 

the initial limited access permit (the 

baseline vessel). If any of the three 

vessel size specifications is increased, 

any increase in the other two must be 

performed at the same time. The current 

regulations also specify that vessel 

horsepower and vessel size may be 

increased only once. However, vessel 

size may be increased separately from 

an increase in vessel horsepower. These 

regulations have been in effect since 

1999. 

Alternative 2a is not preferred 

because it may be contributing to 

persistent underharvests of the domestic 

ICCAT recommended swordfish quota. 

It may also be contributing to a decline 

in the number of active PLL vessels (i.e., 

vessels reporting landings) by limiting 

vessel owners’ ability to optimally 

configure their vessels to maximize 

profits given changing ecological, 

regulatory, and market conditions. 

Under alternative 2a, there would be 

no change in the current baseline 

economic and social impacts associated 

with previously implemented North 

Atlantic swordfish vessel upgrade 

restrictions. By itself, the status quo 

alternative does not create any new 

economic burdens on HMS limited 

access permit holders. However, it 

would likely continue several negative 

economic impacts associated with 

upgrade restrictions. First, as previously 

mentioned, vessels may not be 

optimally configured for current market 

conditions, and therefore profits may be 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
68790 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

less than optimal. Second, current 

upgrade restrictions may make it 

burdensome for some vessels to comply 

with observer accomodation 

requirements, due to inadequate bunk or 

berthing space. Third, some fishing 

vessels may wish to enhance their crew 

quarters in order to better attract labor. 

Finally, limitations on vessel upgrading 

may be affecting safety at sea. In general, 

a larger vessel is oftentimes more 

seaworthy than a smaller vessel, 

especially in rough seas. Current 

restraints on vessel size may also affect 

the ability to modernize or purchase 

new vessels. Without changes to 

upgrading restrictions, the number of 

active vessels in the swordfish PLL fleet 

may continue to decline, and persistent 

underharvests of the annual swordfish 

quota may continue to accrue. The 

following alternatives may allow for 

greater flexibility and provide for a more 

efficient deployment of the swordfish 

fleet. 

It is not possible to precisely quantify 

the economic impacts associated with 

the alternatives to modify HMS limited 

access permit vessel upgrading 

restrictions. This is because the decision 

to upgrade is a business decision, and 

depends largely upon whether the 

returns expected from an upgrade 

outweigh the costs of planning the 

upgrade, construction, financing, time 

to complete the necessary work, age of 

the current vessel, and the forgone 

revenues associated with being out of 

the fishery while vessel work is being 

completed. The potential economic 

benefits of vessel upgrades largely 

depend upon future harvests, ex-vessel 

prices, fuel prices, and labor costs. 

These factors fluctuate, often 

dramatically, with market forces from 

year to year making any estimated 

benefits difficult to assess. Independent 

of those factors, however, vessel owners 

will gain the economic benefits 

associated with having the increased 

flexibility to adjust vessel configurations 

in terms of length and horsepower to 

best fit their business. In addition, 

vessel owners under the following 

alternatives would be better able to 

more easily comply with observer 

accommodation requirements, and thus 

avoid lost fishing time. The potential to 

expand bunk and berthing areas could 

enhance the quality of life for crew and 

captains, providing intangible benefits 

and also potentially reducing the actual 

costs of retaining labor. Finally, the 

potential to upgrade vessels might have 

important positive safety implications, 

especially for smaller vessels operating 

far offshore in areas prone to extreme 

weather. 

Under each of the following 

alternatives, vessel owners will have to 

weigh the costs of potentially upgrading 

the length or horsepower of their vessels 

by the potential economic benefits 

associated with an upgrade. Many 

vessel owners may choose not to 

upgrade, even with relaxed upgrade 

restrictions, because of the capital costs 

associated with upgrading. The main 

economic benefit associated with the 

following alternatives will likely be 

from not having to acquire a permit 

from a larger vessel, including the 

associated transaction costs, when an 

owner wishes to increase vessel size or 

horsepower. 

The capital costs associated with 

potential upgrades are difficult to 

estimate. Large vessel length upgrades 

are not likely to occur by modifying 

existing vessels, according to several 

marine engineers and shipyards that 

NMFS contacted. They are more likely 

to result from the purchase of another 

vessel and the subsequent transfer of 

permits to that vessel. Horsepower 

upgrades are more likely to occur on 

existing vessels in conjunction with an 

engine replacement due to capital 

depreciation. 

NMFS contacted several shipyards 

regarding the potential costs of new 

vessels and upgrades to existing vessels. 

The shipyards agreed that it is probably 

more economical to perform large 

increases in vessel length by acquiring 

another larger vessel, than by modifying 

existing vessels. However, the estimated 

cost of building a new vessel is 

uncertain because few new vessels have 

been built since the upgrade restrictions 

were implemented in 1999, according to 

the shipyards contacted. The overall 

cost of upgrading would likely depend 

on the current size of the vessel, the age 

of the vessel, where the work will be 

done, financing costs, and whether an 

existing used vessel is available with the 

desired specifications, versus 

constructing a new vessel. For example, 

a 68 foot PLL vessel over 20 years old 

recently had a sales price of $245,000, 

according to a vessel broker list. To 

better quantify the associated costs and 

potential scope of vessel upgrades, 

NMFS seeks comments from the public 

on the current market costs of upgrading 

PLL and swordfish Handgear vessels. 

Alternative 2b would waive HMS 

limited access vessel upgrading and 

permit transfer upgrading restrictions 

for all vessels that are authorized to fish 

with pelagic longline gear for swordfish 

and tunas for 10 years, after which a 

new vessel baseline would be 

established and the current 10 percent 

LOA, GRT, NT; and 20 percent HP 

restrictions would go back into effect. A 

ten-year sunset provision was selected 

for this alternative because it provides a 

reasonable amount of time for owners to 

purchase or upgrade vessels, but 

establishes a deadline to account for any 

unanticipated future changes in the 

fishery or status of stocks. 

This alternative would likely have 

positive economic benefits for PLL 

vessel owners because it could provide 

increased operational flexibility for 

business owners to modify their vessels. 

However, it is not possible to predict 

how many vessels would be upgraded 

under this alternative, as any estimate is 

predicated upon the decisions of many 

different owners. Waiving vessel 

upgrade restrictions for PLL vessels 

could produce secondary and regional 

economic impacts. Shoreside support 

businesses such as shipyards, marine 

architects, and other commercial vessel 

suppliers could receive increased 

business from owners wanting to 

upgrade their vessels. Fish dealers may 

need to expand their operations to 

handle any greater supplies of swordfish 

that could result from increased fleet 

capacity. It is also possible that there 

could be reductions in the value of 

limited access permits from waiving the 

upgrade restrictions. The supply of 

usable permits for vessel owners that 

want to upgrade under the current 

limited access regulations is restricted, 

because permits have to meet certain 

characteristics in order to be transferred 

to a different vessel. Removing the 

upgrading restrictions would give a 

potential new entrant into the fishery a 

larger selection of permits to choose 

from, since they would be able to select 

from a larger pool of potential permits 

for sale. This increased supply could 

reduce the value of limited access 

permits. However, any improvements in 

the profitability of the fishery might 

increase demand for permits and could 

potentially offset any decrease in permit 

value. 

Alternative 2b is not preferred 

because there would be no limit on the 

size that PLL vessels could be upgraded 

to. Therefore, unquantifiable ecological 

impacts could occur, especially over the 

long term. However, it is also possible 

that larger PLL vessels might operate 

further offshore, thereby reducing 

adverse impacts in nearshore areas. 

Alternative 2c would waive HMS 

limited access swordfish handgear 

vessel upgrading and permit transfer 

upgrading restrictions for 10 years, after 

which a new baseline would be 

established and the current restrictions 

would go back into effect. A ten-year 

sunset provision was selected for this 

alternative because it provides a 

reasonable amount of time for owners to 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 68791 

purchase or upgrade vessels, but 

establishes a deadline to account for any 

unanticipated future changes in the 

fishery or status of stocks. 

This alternative would likely have 

positive economic benefits for swordfish 

Handgear permit holders because it 

could increase operational flexibility for 

business owners to modify their vessels 

according to their business needs. 

However, for the same reasons 

discussed above, it is not possible to 

predict how many vessels would be 

upgraded under this alternative, or the 

anticipated economic impacts, because 

the estimate is predicated upon the 

decisions of many different vessel 

owners. In general, similar direct and 

indirect economic benefits to vessel 

owners, dealers, shipyards, processors, 

and shoreside support businesses that 

were discussed under alternative 2b 

could result. 

Alternative 2c is not preferred 

because it could result in unquantifiable 

ecological impacts, as there would be no 

limit on the size that swordfish 

Handgear vessels could be upgraded to. 

Therefore, unquantifiable ecological 

impacts could occur, especially over the 

long term. In addition, because the 

swordfish handgear fleet is currently 

most active in the East Florida Coast 

PLL closed area, ecological benefits 

associated with the area, including 

reductions in the bycatch of undersized 

swordfish, and non-target and protected 

species, could be compromised with a 

large expansion of the swordfish 

handgear fishery. 

Alternative 2d would waive all HMS 

limited access vessel upgrading and 

permit transfer upgrading restrictions 

for 10 years, after which a new baseline 

would be established and the current 

restrictions would go back into effect. 

This alternative would likely have the 

largest potential economic benefits as 

well as the largest potential adverse 

ecological costs, particularly on sharks, 

because the universe of impacted 

entities is the largest among all of the 

alternatives, and there would be no 

limit on the size that vessels could be 

upgraded to. For this reason, it is not the 

preferred alternative. 

Alternatives 2b and 2c would be 

limited to vessels that are eligible to fish 

for swordfish and tunas with PLL gear, 

and swordfish Handgear vessels, 

respectively. Alternative 2d includes 

those vessels, as well as all other HMS 

limited access vessels, including those 

eligible to fish for sharks with bottom 

longline gear. Therefore, approximately 

376 additional vessels would be eligible 

for unlimited upgrades under this 

alternative. While all of these additional 

shark vessels could be upgraded under 

this alternative, few are anticipated to 

take immediate advantage of the 

opportunity because of current 

regulatory conditions in the domestic 

shark fishery. NMFS intends to amend 

the current shark regulations, so vessel 

owners may choose to wait for the 

amendment to be published before 

making major capital outlays. Also, 

Incidental shark permit holders are 

governed by retention limits for large 

coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal 

sharks (SCS), and pelagic sharks. 

Directed shark permit holders are 

governed by retention limits for LCS. 

Because of these retention limits, vessel 

size may not be a limiting factor in the 

shark fishery. Nevertheless, because 

many shark fisheries are overexploited, 

the potential for adverse ecological 

impacts from increased effort on these 

species exists under alternative 2d. 

Other economic benefits and costs are 

similar to Alternatives 2b and 2c, 

including any secondary economic 

impacts to shoreside industries. 

Alternative 2e, the preferred 

alternative, would establish new HMS 

limited access vessel upgrading and 

permit transfer upgrading restrictions 

only for HMS vessels that are authorized 

to fish with pelagic longline gear for 

swordfish and tunas (i.e., vessels that 

possess directed or incidental shark and 

swordfish permits, and a Tuna longline 

permit), equivalent to 35 percent LOA, 

GRT, and NT, as measured relative to 

the baseline vessel specifications (i.e., 

the specifications of the vessel first 

issued an HMS limited access permit), 

and remove horsepower upgrading and 

permit transfer upgrading restrictions 

for these vessels. This alternative is 

preferred because it would improve the 

ability of U.S. vessels to fully harvest 

the domestic ICCAT recommended 

swordfish quota, but would impose 

some limits on vessel upgrading by 

restricting the universe of potentially 

impacted entities to PLL vessels only, 

and by limiting the magnitude of 

allowable upgrades. 

Alternative 2e is anticipated to have 

slightly lower economic benefits to 

permit holders than alternative 2d, and 

would likely have a very similar 

outcome to alternative 2b, except that a 

few dramatic upgrades would not 

qualify and there would be no reversion 

back to the current regulations after 10 

years. For the same reasons discussed 

above under alternative 2a, however, it 

is not possible to accurately predict how 

many vessels will be upgraded, or the 

anticipated future capacity of the 

fishery, because the prediction is 

dependent upon the business decisions 

of many individual boat owners. 

For an ‘‘average’’ 55–foot swordfish 

vessel, this alternative could result in a 

69 - 74 foot vessel, depending upon 

whether the vessel has already been 

upgraded. At the opposite ends of the 

spectrum, it is also possible that all PLL 

vessels could increase by 25 - 35 percent 

or, conversely, none of the PLL vessels 

would be upgraded. PLL vessel owners 

would gain the economic benefits 

associated with having increased 

operational flexibility to adjust vessel 

configurations in terms of length and 

horsepower to best fit their business 

needs. However, that flexibility would 

be capped by imposing a 35 percent 

limit on increases in vessel length, gross 

tonnage, and net tonnage, unlike 

alternatives 2b, 2c, and 2d which have 

no limits on the size of upgrades. 

Other economic benefits and costs are 

similar to alternatives 2b, 2c, and 2d, 

including any secondary economic 

impacts to shoreside industries. 

These proposed regulations are not 

expected to substantially increase 

endangered species or marine mammal 

interaction rates, or impacts on critical 

habitat beyond those that have already 

been considered in the June 2001 

Biological Opinion (BiOp) on Atlantic 

HMS Fisheries, and the June 2004 BiOp 

for the HMS PLL fisheries. In the June 

2001 BiOp, it was determined that the 

continued operation of the Atlantic 

HMS rod and reel fishery is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

the right whale, humpback, fin, or 

sperm whales, or Kemp’s ridley, green, 

loggerhead, hawksbill, or leatherback 

sea turtles. The June 2004 BiOp 

determined that the continued operation 

of the PLL fishery is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s 

ridley, or olive ridley sea turtles, but is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of leatherback sea turtles. 

NMFS has since promulgated 

regulations on the PLL fishery required 

by the 2004 BiOp to avoid jeopardy of 

leatherback sea turtles, including sea 

turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality 

mitigation measures for all Atlantic 

vessels with PLL gear onboard. These 

regulations require PLL vessels to use 

only 18/0 (or larger) circle hooks with 

whole mackerel and/or squid bait when 

fishing in the Northeast Distant (NED) 

Statistical Reporting Area, and to use 

only 16/0 and/or 18/0 circle hooks with 

whole finfish or squid bait when fishing 

everywhere outside of the NED. In 

addition, PLL vessels must possess and 

use sea turtle release equipment 

according to specified sea turtle 

handling and release protocols. 

Handling and release guidelines are also 

required to be posted in the 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
68792 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

wheelhouse. NMFS also implemented 

several time/area closures between 1999 

and 2002, which, in combination with 

other management measures including 

quotas, minimum fish sizes, observer 

requirements, VMS requirements, a PLL 

live bait prohibition in the Gulf of 

Mexico, retention limits, authorized 

gears, billfish possession prohibition, 

and dealer and vessel logbook reporting, 

have contributed to a significant 

reduction in the bycatch of target, nontarget, and protected species. These 

management measures would remain in 

effect, and are expected to mitigate any 

potential increase in fishing effort that 

could result from the proposed 

regulations. Thus, NMFS believes that 

the proposed regulations do not change 

the conclusion of, nor would they result 

in effects that have not been considered 

in, the June 2001 and June 2004 BiOps. 

Accordingly, no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources is 

expected from the proposed action. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, 

Management, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: November 22, 2006. 

Samuel D. Rauch III 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For reasons set out in the preamble, 

50 CFR part 635 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY 

MIGRATORY SPECIES 

1. The authority citation for part 635 

continues to read as follows: 

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

1801 et seq. 

2. In § 635.4, paragraphs (l)(2)(i), 

(l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iv), the first sentence in 

paragraph (l)(2)(v), and the first 

sentence in paragraph(l)(2)(vi) are 

revised; and paragraph (l)(2)(x) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 635.4 Permits and fees. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Subject to the restrictions on 

upgrading the harvesting capacity of 

permitted vessels in paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) 

and (x) of this section and to the 

limitations on ownership of permitted 

vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this 

section, an owner may transfer a shark 

or swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit to another 

vessel that he or she owns to another 

person. Directed handgear LAPs for 

swordfish may be transferred to another 

vessel but only for use with handgear 

and subject to the upgrading restrictions 

in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section and 

the limitations on ownership of 

permitted vessels in paragraph (iii) of 

this section. Incidental catch LAPs are 

not subject to the requirements specified 

in paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and (l)(2)(iii) of 

this section. 

(ii) Except as specified in paragraph 

(l)(2)(x) of this section, an owner may 

upgrade a vessel with a shark, 

swordfish, or tuna longline limited 

access permit, or transfer the limited 

access permit to another vessel, and be 

eligible to retain or renew a limited 

access permit only if the upgrade or 

transfer does not result in an increase in 

horsepower of more than 20 percent or 

an increase of more than 10 percent in 

length overall, gross registered tonnage, 

or net tonnage from the vessel baseline 

specifications. 

* * * * * 

(iv) In order to transfer a swordfish, 

shark or tuna longline limited access 

permit to a replacement vessel, the 

owner of the vessel issued the limited 

access permit must submit a request to 

NMFS, at an address designated by 

NMFS, to transfer the limited access 

permit to another vessel, subject to 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(l)(2)(ii) or (l)(2)(x), of this section, as 

applicable. The owner must return the 

current valid limited access permit to 

NMFS with a complete application for 

a limited access permit, as specified in 

paragraph (h) of this section, for the 

replacement vessel. Copies of both 

vessels’ U.S. Coast Guard 

documentation or state registration must 

accompany the application. 

(v) For swordfish, shark, and tuna 

longline limited access permit transfers 

to a different person, the transferee must 

submit a request to NMFS, at an address 

designated by NMFS, to transfer the 

original limited access permit(s), subject 

to the requirements specified in 

paragraphs (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), and 

(l)(2)(x) of this section, as applicable. * 

* * 

(vi) For limited access permit 

transfers in conjunction with the sale of 

the permitted vessel, the transferee of 

the vessel and limited access permit(s) 

issued to that vessel must submit a 

request to NMFS, at an address 

designated by NMFS, to transfer the 

limited access permit(s), subject to the 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), and (l)(2)(x) of this 

section, as applicable. * * * 

* * * * * 

(x) An owner may upgrade a vessel 

that has been issued valid swordfish, 

shark and Atlantic tunas longline 

category permits, inclusive, or transfer 

the limited access permits to another 

vessel, and be eligible to retain or renew 

the limited access permits only if the 

upgrade or transfer does not result in an 

increase of more than 35 percent in 

length overall, gross registered tonnage, 

or net tonnage from the vessel baseline 

specifications. Horsepower for vessels 

that have been issued these three 

permits is not limited. 

(A) The vessel baseline specifications 

are the respective specifications (length 

overall, gross registered tonnage, net 

tonnage) of the first vessel that was 

issued an initial limited access permit 

or, if applicable, of that vessel’s 

replacement owned as of May 28, 1999. 

(B) Subsequent to [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the 

vessel’s length overall, gross registered 

tonnage, and net tonnage may be 

increased only once, relative to the 

baseline specifications of the vessel 

initially issued the LAP, whether 

through refitting, replacement, or 

transfer. An increase in any of these 

three specifications of vessel size may 

not exceed 35 percent of the baseline 

specifications of the vessel initially 

issued the LAP. If any of these three 

specifications is increased, any increase 

in the other two must be performed at 

the same time. The one allowable 

increase in these three specifications 

may be performed even if an increase in 

these three specifications has already 

been performed prior to [DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], 

provided that the increase in any of 

these three specifications of vessel size 

does not exceed 35 percent of the 

baseline specifications of the vessel 

initially issued the LAP. 

3. In § 635.22, paragraph (f) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 635.22 Recreational retention limits. 

* * * * * 

(f) North Atlantic swordfish. The 

recreational retention limits for North 

Atlantic swordfish apply to persons 

who fish in any manner, except to 

persons aboard a vessel that has been 

issued a limited access North Atlantic 

swordfish permit under § 635.4(f). 

(1) Vessels issued an HMS Charter/ 

Headboat permit under § 635.4(b), that 

are charter boats as defined under 

§ 600.10 of this chapter, may retain, 

possess, or land no more than one North 

Atlantic swordfish per paying passenger 

up to six per vessel per trip. 

(2) Vessels issued an HMS Charter/ 

Headboat permit under § 635.4(b), that 

are headboats as defined under § 600.10 

of this chapter, may retain, possess, or 

land no more than one North Atlantic 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 28, 2006 / Proposed Rules 68793 

swordfish per paying passenger up to 

fifteen per vessel per trip. 

(3) Vessels issued an HMS Angling 

category permit under § 635.4(c), may 

retain, possess, or land no more than 

one North Atlantic swordfish per person 

up to four per vessel per trip. 

4. In § 635.24, paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(2) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.24 Commercial retention limits for 

sharks and swordfish. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Persons aboard a vessel that has 

been issued an incidental LAP for 

swordfish may retain, possess, land, or 

sell no more than 30 swordfish per trip 

in or from the Atlantic Ocean north of 

5° N. lat. 

(2) Persons aboard a vessel in the 

squid trawl fishery that has been issued 

an incidental LAP for swordfish may 

retain, possess, land, or sell no more 

than 15 swordfish per trip in or from the 

Atlantic Ocean north of 5° N. lat. A 

vessel is considered to be in the squid 

trawl fishery when it has no commercial 

fishing gear other than trawls on board 

and when squid constitute not less than 

75 percent by weight of the total fish on 

board or offloaded from the vessel. 

[FR Doc. 06–9436 Filed 11–22–06; 2:52 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[I.D. 112106C] 

Pacific Fishery Management Council; 

Groundfish Allocation Committee 

Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: The Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) 

Groundfish Allocation Committee(GAC) 

will hold a working meeting which is 

open to the public. 

DATES: The GAC working meeting will 

begin Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 

8:30 a.m. and may go into the evening 

if necessary to complete business for the 

day. The meeting will reconvene at 8:30 

a.m. Wednesday, December 13, 2006, 

and continue until business for the day 

is complete; and will reconvene at 8:30 

a.m. on Thursday, December 14, 2006, 

and adjourn by 4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in 

Portland, Oregon, exact location to be 

determined. Contact the Council office 

for the meeting location address. 

Council address: Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 7700 NE 

Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, 

OR 97220–1384. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jim Seger, Staff Officer (Economist), 

503–820–2280. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the GAC meeting is to 

discuss the trawl individual quota 

alternatives under development by the 

Council. Specifically, the GAC will 

review alternatives; develop 

recommendations for the Council to 

narrow and refine the alternatives as 

analytical work on the environmental 

impact statement progresses; and 

develop recommendations on other 

aspects of the Council process for 

considering individual quotas for the 

trawl fishery. 

Although nonemergency issues not 

contained in the meeting agenda may be 

discussed, those issues may not be the 

subject of formal action during this 

meeting. Action will be restricted to 

those issues specifically listed in this 

document and any issues arising after 

publication of this document that 

require emergency action under section 

305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 

provided the public has been notified of 

the intent to take final action to address 

the emergency. 

Special Accommodations 

The meeting is physically accessible 

to people with disabilities. Requests for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. 

Carolyn Porter at (503) 820–2280 at least 

five days prior to the meeting date. 

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

Dated: November 21, 2006. 

James P. Burgess, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–20163 Filed 11–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


ycherry on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS