Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15701 

granting, denying, withholding, and 

terminating access of contractor employees to 

HUD systems. The GTR will notify the 

contractor immediately when HUD has 

determined that an employee is unsuitable or 

unfit to be permitted access to a HUD system. 

The contractor shall immediately notify such 

employee that he/she no longer has access to 

any HUD system, physically retrieve the 

employee’s PIV Card from the employee, and 

provide a suitable replacement employee in 

accordance with the requirements of this 

clause. 

(g) Incident response notification. An 

incident is defined as an event, either 

accidental or deliberate, that results in 

unauthorized access, loss, disclosure, 

modification, or destruction of information 

technology systems, applications, or data. 

The contractor shall immediately notify the 

GTR and the Contracting Officer of any 

known or suspected incident, or any 

unauthorized disclosure of the information 

contained in the system(s) to which the 

contractor has access. 

(h) Nondisclosure of information. (1) 

Neither the contractor nor any of its 

employees shall divulge or release data or 

information developed or obtained during 

performance of this contract, except to 

authorized government personnel with an 

established need to know, or upon written 

approval of the Contracting Officer. 

Information contained in all source 

documents and other media provided by 

HUD is the sole property of HUD. 

(2) The contractor shall require that all 

employees who may have access to the 

system(s)/applications(s) identified in 

paragraph (b) sign a pledge of nondisclosure 

of information. The employees shall sign 

these pledges before they are permitted to 

perform work under this contract. The 

contractor shall maintain the signed pledges 

for a period of 3 years after final payment 

under this contract. The contractor shall 

provide a copy of these pledges to the GTR. 

(i) Security procedures. (1) The Contractor 

shall comply with applicable federal and 

HUD statutes, regulations, policies, and 

procedures governing the security of the 

system(s) to which the contractor’s 

employees have access including, but not 

limited to: 

(i) The Federal Information Security 

Management Act (FISMA) of 2002; 

(ii) OMB Circular A–130, Management of 

Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, 

Security of Federal Automated Information 

Resources; 

(iii) HUD Handbook 2400.25, Information 

Technology Security Policy; 

(iv) HUD Handbook 732.3, Personnel 

Security/Suitability; 

(v) Federal Information Processing 

Standards 201 (FIPS 201), Sections 2.1 and 

2.2; 

(vi) Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive 12 (HSPD–12); and 

(vii) OMB Memorandum M–05–24, 

Implementing Guidance for HSPD–12. 

The HUD Handbooks are available online 

at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/ 

hudclips/ or from the GTR. 

(2) The contractor shall develop and 

maintain a compliance matrix that lists each 

requirement set forth in paragraphs, (b), (c), 

(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i)(1), and (m) of this 

clause with specific actions taken, and/or 

procedures implemented, to satisfy each 

requirement. The contractor shall identify an 

accountable person for each requirement, the 

date upon which actions/procedures were 

initiated/completed, and certify that 

information contained in this compliance 

matrix is correct. The contractor shall ensure 

that information in this compliance matrix is 

complete, accurate, and up-to-date at all 

times for the duration of this contract. Upon 

request, the contractor shall provide copies of 

the current matrix to HUD. 

(3) The Contractor shall ensure that its 

employees, in performance of the contract, 

receive annual training (or once if the 

contract is for less than one year) in HUD 

information technology security policies, 

procedures, computer ethics, and best 

practices in accordance with HUD Handbook 

2400.25. 

(j) Access to contractor’s systems. The 

Contractor shall afford HUD, including the 

Office of Inspector General, access to the 

Contractor’s facilities, installations, 

operations, documentation (including the 

compliance matrix required under paragraph 

(i)(2)), databases, and personnel used in 

performance of the contract. Access shall be 

provided to the extent required to carry out, 

but not limited to, any information security 

program activities, investigation, and audit to 

safeguard against threats and hazards to the 

integrity, availability, and confidentiality of 

HUD data and systems, or to the function of 

information systems operated on behalf of 

HUD, and to preserve evidence of computer 

crime. 

(k) Contractor compliance with this clause. 

Failure on the part of the contractor to 

comply with the terms of this clause may 

result in termination of this contract for 

default. 

(l) Physical access to Federal Government 

facilities. The contractor and any 

subcontractor(s) shall also comply with the 

requirements of HUDAR clause 2452.237 75 

when the contractor’s or subcontractor’s 

employees will perform any work under this 

contract on site in a HUD or other Federal 

Government facility. 

(m) Subcontracts. The contractor shall 

incorporate this clause in all subcontracts 

where the requirements specified in 

paragraph (b) of this section are applicable to 

performance of the subcontract. 

(End of clause) 

Dated: February 10, 2012. 

Jemine A. Bryon, 

Chief Procurement Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6165 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 635 

[Docket No. 080603729–8750–01] 

RIN 0648–AW83 

Highly Migratory Species; 2006 

Consolidated Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan; 

Amendment 4 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: This fishery management plan 

(FMP) amendment addresses Atlantic 

highly migratory species (HMS) fishery 

management measures in the U.S. 

Caribbean Region. There are substantial 

differences between some segments of 

the HMS fisheries in the Caribbean 

Region and the HMS fisheries that occur 

off the mainland of the United States, 

including: Limited fishing permit and 

dealer permit possession; smaller 

vessels; limited availability of 

processing and cold storage facilities; 

shorter trips; limited profit margins; and 

high local consumption of catches. 

These differences can sometimes create 

an awkward fit between current Federal 

HMS fishery regulations applicable to 

the whole Atlantic HMS fishery and the 

traditional operation of Caribbean 

fisheries, which has led to fewer 

Caribbean Region fishermen and vessels 

obtaining required permits and 

reporting data needed for effective 

fisheries management. NMFS is 

proposing management measures that 

would amend the HMS fishery 

management regulations for the U.S. 

Caribbean Region to better correspond 

with the traditional operation of the 

fishing fleet in the region and to provide 

NMFS with an improved capability to 

monitor and sustainably manage those 

fisheries. With this amendment, NMFS 

proposes to create an HMS Caribbean 

Small Boat Commercial Permit (CSBP) 

allowing fishing for and sales of bigeye, 

albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack 

(BAYS) tunas, Atlantic swordfish, and 

Atlantic sharks within local Caribbean 

markets. The proposed CSBP 

management measures include specific 

authorized species and retention limits, 

modification of reporting requirements, 

authorization of specific gears, vessel 

size restrictions, and consideration of 

mandatory workshop training. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15702 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Additionally, NMFS proposes to 

stipulate that the CSBP could not be 

held in combination with any other 

HMS permit. 

This proposed rule modifies 

regulatory text that is also proposed to 

be amended by the HMS Electronic 

Dealer Reporting System (E-dealer) 

rulemaking (RIN 0648–BA75). The 

proposed language included in the HMS 

E-dealer rulemaking is being utilized in 

the proposed rule for this action. 

DATES: Written comments will be 

accepted until June 14, 2012. NMFS will 

announce the dates and locations of 

public hearings in a future Federal 

Register notice. 

ADDRESSES: NMFS will announce the 

dates and locations of public hearings in 

a future Federal Register notice. 

You may submit comments on this 

document, identified by NOAA–NMFS– 

2012–0053, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.

regulations.gov. To submit comments 

via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click 

the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, then 

enter NOAA–NMFS–2012–0053 in the 

keyword search. Locate the document 

you wish to comment on from the 

resulting list and click on the ‘‘Submit 

a Comment’’ icon on the right of that 

line. 

• Mail: Submit written comments to 

Margo Schulze-Haugen, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

• Fax: 301–713–1917; Attn: Margo 

Schulze-Haugen. 

Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Fairclough or Randy Blankinship at 

727–824–5399. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

tunas and swordfish are managed under 

the dual authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) and the Atlantic Tuna Conventions 

Act (ATCA), which authorizes the 

Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 

promulgate regulations as may be 

necessary and appropriate to implement 

recommendations of ICCAT. Federal 

Atlantic shark fisheries are managed 

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act. The authority to issue 

regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA has been 

delegated from the Secretary to the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NOAA (AA). On May 28, 1999, NMFS 

published in the Federal Register (64 

FR 29090) final regulations, effective 

July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery 

Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, 

Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). On 

October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the 

Federal Register (71 FR 58058) final 

regulations, effective November 1, 2006, 

implementing the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, which details the 

management measures for Atlantic HMS 

fisheries, including the HMS handgear 

fishery. 

Background 

A brief summary of the background of 

this proposed action is provided below. 

A more complete summary of Atlantic 

HMS management can be found in the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, in the 

annual HMS SAFE Reports, and online 

at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. 

In 2007, NMFS initiated a potential 

amendment to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP (Amendment 4) to develop 

and implement management measures 

for HMS in the Caribbean Region. Prescoping for the amendment commenced 

in the winter of 2007/2008. National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

scoping was initiated by publishing a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

in the Federal Register on May 27, 2008 

(73 FR 30381). The NOI indicated that 

the EIS would address issues regarding 

authorized fishing gear and fishing 

vessel and dealer permitting in the 

Caribbean Region, as well as examine 

management alternatives to improve 

vessel and dealer reporting, data 

collection, and Agency outreach. On 

July 14, 2008, NMFS announced the 

availability in the Federal Register (73 

FR 40301) of an ‘‘issues and options’’ 

paper describing measures that could be 

included in a potential amendment. In 

the same announcement, NMFS 

provided details for scoping meetings 

and requested comments on the issues 

and options document. The comment 

period was open until October 31, 2008. 

NMFS presented the issues and options 

paper to the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, 

South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New 

England Fishery Management Councils. 

Additionally, NMFS presented the 

issues and options presentation and a 

summary of the comments received 

during scoping to the HMS Advisory 

Panel (AP) at its September 2008 

meeting. A summary of the scoping 

comments was released on January 15, 

2009. A predraft of the proposed 

amendment, including specific 

management alternatives, was made 

available to the public on August 21, 

2009. On July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41216), 

NMFS published a NOI to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

Amendment 4. After considering 

potential environmental effects of the 

measure and substantive comments 

received through formal scoping and 

other means, NMFS preliminarily 

determined that an EA would provide 

an appropriate level of NEPA review for 

Amendment 4 and that preparing an EIS 

is not necessary. NMFS anticipates that 

this proposed action will have a low 

level of potential adverse environmental 

impacts due to the limited geographic 

area of the small-scale Caribbean HMS 

fishery, small size of the vessels 

involved, the relatively low number of 

known participants, and the use of 

traditional handgears. Additionally, any 

potential impacts to protected species 

are expected to be minimal. 

Currently, no HMS limited access 

fishing permits (LAPs) and only a small 

number of HMS open access fishing 

permits and dealer permits are held in 

the U.S. Caribbean Region. This is likely 

due to numerous factors, including the 

high costs typically associated with 

obtaining HMS LAPs and owning/ 

operating a commercial vessel, 

relatively low catch volume and 

revenue, the low number of HMS LAPs 

that were initially issued to residents of 

the U.S. Caribbean, language barriers, 

and a general lack of awareness of HMS 

fishing regulations, among other factors. 

The low number of LAPs initially issued 

to fishermen in the U.S. Caribbean 

Region may have also been due to local 

fishermen not meeting previous 

qualification requirements or because 

they failed to apply for LAPs during the 

issuance process. The small number of 

HMS dealer permits in the region may 

be a result of limited processing and 

cold storage facilities, and the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15703 

customary sales and distribution system 

for seafood in the U.S. Caribbean 

Region, among other reasons. The low 

number of HMS fishing and dealer 

permits has resulted in limited catch 

and landings data from the U.S. HMS 

fisheries in the U.S. Caribbean Region, 

even though there are small-scale 

commercial fishermen targeting HMS, 

particularly yellowfin tuna. The lack of 

catch and landings data complicates 

fishery management efforts in the 

region. In some cases, traditionally 

utilized fishing gears and economically 

necessary practices, such as targeting 

both pelagic and reef fish species with 

multiple gear types during a single trip, 

may diverge from existing regulations 

and fishing norms in U.S. mainland 

fisheries. 

NMFS has benefited from receiving 

various recommendations to improve 

management of the HMS permitting 

program and HMS fisheries in the U.S. 

Caribbean Region from the HMS AP, 

Caribbean Fishery Management Council 

(CFMC), territorial governments, local 

fishermen, and Non-Governmental 

Organizations (NGOs). Some suggested 

improvements to management of HMS 

fisheries in the U.S Caribbean Region 

received to date include: creating a new 

commercial Caribbean HMS permit; 

combining Caribbean vessel and dealer 

permits (thereby allowing small-scale 

vessels to retail/wholesale catch); 

authorizing specific gears; limiting 

small-scale vessel size; and providing 

additional training and outreach for 

compliance with regulations, species 

identification, and proper reporting. 

Based on discussions with the HMS 

AP, CFMC, and the territorial 

governments, NMFS believes that the 

depletion of continental shelf fishery 

resources may be increasing local 

interest in exploiting HMS resources in 

some areas. As local fishermen become 

more dependent on offshore fishery 

resources and increase fishing effort on 

HMS, there is an increased need for 

NMFS to consider ways of including 

small-scale Caribbean fishing vessels 

into the HMS permitting and reporting 

regime in order to collect better catch 

and effort data and provide for 

sustainably managed fisheries. 

This amendment is needed to 

implement management measures 

specific to the unique characteristics of 

the U.S. Caribbean Region. The purpose 

of this amendment is to enact HMS 

management measures that better 

correspond with the traditional 

operation of the fishing fleet in the U.S. 

Caribbean Region and to provide NMFS 

with an improved capability to monitor 

and sustainably manage those fisheries. 

The specific objectives for this action 

are to: 

• Increase participation in the HMS 

Federal fishery management program in 

the U.S. Caribbean Region; 

• Expand regional HMS permit 

availability and increase permitting 

program awareness, participation, and 

compliance in the U.S. Caribbean 

region; 

• Improve regional HMS catch and 

fishing effort data; 

• Examine and implement regionally 

tailored HMS management strategies, as 

appropriate; 

• Provide targeted training and 

outreach to HMS fishery participants; 

and 

• Improve NMFS’ capability to 

monitor and sustainably manage U.S. 

Caribbean HMS fisheries. 

With this amendment, NMFS 

proposes to create a U.S. CaribbeanRegion-specific permit allowing fishing 

for and sales of BAYS tunas, swordfish, 

and sharks in that region; collect HMS 

landings data through NMFS’ 

cooperation with existing territorial 

government programs; authorize the use 

of rod and reel, handline, harpoon, 

bandit gear, green-stick gear, and buoy 

gear; restrict the size of vessels eligible 

to be issued a CSBP to those 45 feet or 

less in length overall (LOA); limit the 

Caribbean permit to be valid only for 

fishing and sales in the U.S. Caribbean 

Region; and stipulate that the Caribbean 

permit may not be held in combination 

with any other HMS vessel permit. 

NMFS considered four alternatives 

ranging from maintaining the status quo 

to creating a new permit valid only in 

the Caribbean Region (as defined at 50 

CFR 622.2), which could allow fishing 

for and sales of BAYS tunas, swordfish, 

and sharks (excluding sandbar) under 

specific limitations. NMFS assessed the 

impacts of the alternatives, which are 

composed of seven key topics: 

permitting/workshop certification; 

authorized species; retention limit 

ranges; reporting; authorized gears; 

vessel size restrictions; and regions. 

Instead of analyzing a range of 

alternatives under each individual 

topic, NMFS analyzed four alternatives 

that are composed of various suites of 

measures under the seven key topics. 

Alternative 1 would, among other 

things, maintain the current Atlantic 

HMS vessel and dealer permits 

structure, current upgrading restrictions, 

current authorized species and gear 

structure, current retention limits, and 

current observer and reporting 

requirements. Alternative 2 would 

create a new permit allowing fishing for 

and sales of BAYS tunas and swordfish 

under specific limitations. Alternative 3 

would create a new permit allowing 

fishing for and sales of BAYS tunas, 

swordfish, and sharks, under specific 

limitations. Alternative 3 differs from 

Alternative 2 in that it could also allow 

for the retention of sharks. Alternative 4 

would create a new permit allowing 

fishing for and sales of BAYS tunas, 

swordfish, and sharks, under specific 

limitations. Alternative 4 differs from 

Alternative 3 in that it could allow for 

higher retention limits of BAYS tunas, 

SWO, and Atlantic sharks, and would 

not limit vessel size. 

The preferred alternative (Alternative 

3) would create an open access 

commercial vessel permit, the Caribbean 

Small Boat Commercial Permit (CSBP), 

which would authorize fishing for and 

sales of BAYS tunas, swordfish, and 

sharks in the U.S. Caribbean Region. 

CSBP holders would not be required to 

sell catches only to HMS permitted 

dealers and could retail their HMS 

catch, provided that specified reporting 

requirements are met. CSBP holders 

would be required to physically posses 

their permit, or a copy of their permit, 

at any point of HMS sale. The CSBP 

would not be valid for fishing for or 

sales of HMS outside of the U.S. 

Caribbean Region; nor could it be held 

on a vessel in combination with any 

other HMS vessel permit. The CSBP 

would be a commercial-only permit 

and, as such, would not allow the 

retention of billfish. Vessels issued a 

CSBP would be authorized to possess 

rod and reel, handline, harpoon, bandit 

gear, green-stick gear, and buoy gear. 

Under this alternative, rod and reel, 

handline, harpoon, bandit gear, greenstick gear, and buoy gear would be 

authorized for the harvest of BAYS 

tunas. Rod and reel, handline, harpoon, 

bandit gear, and buoy gear would be 

authorized for the harvest of SWO, and 

rod and reel, handline, and bandit gear 

would be authorized for the harvest of 

Atlantic sharks. 

Under the preferred alternative, 

retention limits could be set between 0 

and 24 BAYS per vessel per trip, 0 to 

6 swordfish per vessel per trip, and 0 to 

3 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip, 

and 0 to 16 SCS and pelagic sharks 

(combined) per vessel per trip. For both 

BAYS and swordfish, the current size 

limits and landing restrictions at 

§§ 635.20 and 635.30 would apply. For 

sharks, there would be no size limits, as 

there is no current Federal commercial 

shark size limit; however, current 

landing restrictions at § 635.30, such as 

‘‘fins attached’’ requirements, would 

apply. 

Although under the preferred 

alternative, NMFS intends to set the 

shark trip limits at 0, NMFS proposes to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15704 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

require applicants for a CSBP to 

complete a NMFS Atlantic Shark 

Identification Workshop and submit a 

copy of a valid workshop certificate 

with their permit application package if 

shark trip limits are set above 0 in future 

rulemaking. Additionally, NMFS is 

considering requiring CSBP holders to 

possess a valid NMFS Atlantic Shark 

Identification Workshop certificate (or a 

copy) at any point of shark sale. NMFS 

would conduct rulemaking to 

implement these requirements through 

the framework procedures at § 635.34(b) 

at the time that the shark trip limits are 

adjusted. 

Landings data for vessels issued 

CSBPs would be collected through 

cooperation between NMFS and 

territorial government fisheries data 

collection programs, as specified by 

those programs. The individual 

territorial governments would be 

responsible for supplying these data to 

the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center (SEFSC) and meeting 

requirements determined to be 

appropriate by NMFS. 

Under the preferred alternative, 

NMFS requests specific comment on an 

initial retention limit of 10 BAYS tunas, 

2 swordfish, and 0 sharks per vessel per 

trip. These limits were identified due to 

comments received during NEPA 

scoping and public comment on the 

Amendment 4 Pre-Draft. The trip limits 

fall within the ranges discussed above, 

and could be adjusted in the future 

through the framework procedures 

codified at § 635.34(b). 

NMFS is proposing Alternative 3 

because it accomplishes the objectives 

and best addresses public input. 

Additionally, this alternative provides 

an increased capability for fisheries data 

collection and flexibility to modify trip 

limits for BAYS, swordfish, and sharks 

as appropriate and necessary. 

Request for Comments 

Comments on this proposed rule may 

be submitted via http://www.

regulations.gov, mail, or fax. Comments 

may also be submitted at a public 

hearing (see Public Hearings and 

Special Accommodations below). NMFS 

solicits comments on this proposed rule 

by June 14, 2012 (see DATES and 

ADDRESSES). 

NMFS will announce the dates and 

locations of public hearings in a future 

Federal Register notice. 

Classification 

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that the proposed rule is 

consistent with the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and its amendments, other 

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, 

subject to further consideration after 

public comment. 

NMFS prepared an environmental 

assessment (EA) for this rule that 

discusses the impact on the 

environment that would result from this 

rule. In this proposed action, NMFS is 

considering options to increase the 

participation of small-scale Caribbean 

fishing vessels within the HMS 

permitting and reporting regime in order 

to better collect catch and effort data 

and provide for sustainably managed 

fisheries. A copy of the EA is available 

from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

An initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as 

required by section 603 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The 

IRFA describes the economic impact 

this proposed rule, if adopted, would 

have on small entities. A description of 

the action, why it is being considered, 

and the legal basis for this action are 

contained at the beginning of this 

section in the preamble and in the 

SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 

summary of the analysis follows. A copy 

of this analysis is available from NMFS 

(see ADDRESSES). 

Purpose and Objectives of the Action 

NMFS proposes this rule consistent 

with the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP and its amendments, to enact 

HMS management measures that better 

correspond with the traditional 

operation of the fishing fleet in the U.S. 

Caribbean Region and to provide NMFS 

with improved capability to monitor 

and sustainably manage those fisheries. 

Consistent with the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP, the MagnusonStevens Act, and other relevant federal 

laws, this rule is intended to increase 

participation in the HMS Federal fishery 

management program in the U.S. 

Caribbean Region; expand regional HMS 

permit availability and increase 

permitting program awareness, 

participation, and compliance in the 

U.S. Caribbean Region; improve regional 

HMS catch and fishing effort data; 

examine and implement regionally 

tailored HMS management strategies, as 

appropriate; provide targeted training 

and outreach to HMS fishery 

participants; and improve NMFS’ 

capability to monitor and sustainably 

manage U.S. Caribbean HMS fisheries. 

Number of Small Entities Affected 

If implemented, this rule would affect 

owners of vessels fishing for and selling 

HMS in the U.S. Caribbean Region. 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 

U.S.C. 603(b)(3), NMFS must estimate 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule would apply. The Small 

Business Administration, which 

implements the RFA, defines a small 

fishing entity as one that has average 

annual receipts less than $4.0 million; 

charter/headboats are small entities if 

they have average annual receipts of less 

than $6.5 million. Additionally, 

wholesale fish dealers with 100 or fewer 

employees are considered small entities, 

as are seafood processors with 500 or 

fewer employees. 

This proposed rule would apply to 

small-scale HMS handgear vessels that 

fish in the Caribbean Region. The 

current Caribbean HMS handgear 

fishery is comprised of fishermen who 

are currently required to hold an 

Atlantic General category or a HMS 

Charter/Headboat category permit and 

the related industries including 

processors, bait houses, and equipment 

suppliers. There may also be a few 

unknown entrants to the Caribbean 

small-scale HMS fishery; however, this 

number is expected to be low due to the 

isolated area, small vessels in the 

region, limited fishing area, and limited 

profit margins. In 2010, there were 92 

vessels permitted in the Atlantic tunas 

General category in Puerto Rico and 10 

in the USVI; also, there were 23 vessels 

permitted in the Charter/Headboat 

category in Puerto Rico and 21 in the 

USVI. NMFS anticipates that the 

universe of fishermen who might 

purchase and fish under a CSBP would 

likely be approximately 100 individuals 

in the U.S. Caribbean Region, with some 

potential shift of fishermen currently 

permitted in the HMS Angling and 

Charter/Headboat categories. All of 

these vessels are considered ‘‘small 

entities’’ under the RFA for the 

purposes of this analysis. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

any new reporting requirements, but 

would require fishermen to apply for a 

CSBP in a manner similar to the way 

NMFS currently requires permit holders 

to apply for open access HMS permits. 

Fishermen, dealers, and managers in 

these fisheries must comply with a 

number laws, including, but not limited 

to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, the 

High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act, the 

Endangered Species Act, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, and the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15705 

Coastal Zone Management Act. 

However, NMFS does not believe that 

the proposed regulations would 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 

relevant regulations, federal or 

otherwise. 

Alternatives 

NMFS considered three alternatives to 

this proposed rule. All of the entities 

affected by this rule are small entities, 

so the rule would not impose disparate 

impacts on small and large entities. 

Therefore, the analysis of alternatives to 

reduce the impact on small entities 

under section 603(c) of the RFA are 

inapplicable. This proposed action 

would modify existing requirements 

that may affect small entities and would 

simplify reporting requirements and 

better account for the business practices 

of Caribbean fishermen. Specifically, 

this rule would allow Caribbean smallscale fishermen with the CSBP to 

directly sell their catches of authorized 

HMS without possessing a dealer 

permit, provided that the fishermen 

report the harvest and sale of these 

animals to their respective territorial 

governments, which will report these 

data to the NMFS SEFSC. Small entities 

may not be exempted from the proposed 

reporting requirements if the objectives 

of this proposed rule are to be met, 

consistent with legal obligations. 

NMFS considered and analyzed three 

alternatives to the preferred alternative 

(this proposed rule). These alternatives 

ranged from the no-action alternative, or 

maintaining the status quo, to creating 

a CSBP permit valid only in the 

Caribbean Region which could allow 

fishing for and sales of BAYS tunas, 

swordfish, and Atlantic sharks 

(excluding sandbar) under specific 

limitations. NMFS assessed the impacts 

of the alternatives, which are composed 

of seven key topics: permitting/ 

workshop certification; authorized 

species; retention limit ranges; 

reporting; authorized gears; vessel size 

restrictions; and, regions. Instead of 

analyzing a range of alternatives under 

individual topics, the IRFA analyzes 

four alternatives that are composed of 

various suites of measures under the 

seven key topics. 

Alternative 1 would, among other 

things, maintain current Atlantic HMS 

vessel and dealer permits structure, 

current upgrading restrictions, current 

authorized species and gear structure, 

current retention limits, and, current 

observer and reporting requirements. 

Alternative 2 would create a CSBP 

allowing fishing for and sales of BAYS 

tunas and Atlantic swordfish under 

specific limitations. Alternative 3 would 

create a CSBP allowing fishing for and 

sales of BAYS tunas, Atlantic swordfish, 

and Atlantic sharks, under specific 

limitations. Alternative 3 differs from 

Alternative 2 in that it could also allow 

for the retention of Atlantic sharks. 

Alternative 4 would create a CSBP 

allowing fishing for and sales of BAYS 

tunas, Atlantic swordfish, and Atlantic 

sharks, under specific limitations. 

Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 

in that it could allow for higher 

retention limits of BAYS tunas, Atlantic 

swordfish, Atlantic sharks, and would 

not limit vessel size. Under alternatives 

2–4, modifications to the initial 

proposed retention limits could be made 

using the adjustment procedures 

codified at § 635.34(b). 

Under Alternative 1, NMFS does not 

anticipate any substantive change in 

economic impacts as the small-scale 

fishermen in the Caribbean Region are 

already operating under the current 

regulations. However, this alternative 

may be contributing to a loss of 

potential income by small-scale 

fishermen in the Caribbean Region, 

because these fishermen are limited in 

their ability to gain access to 

commercial limited access swordfish 

and shark fisheries due to the relatively 

high costs of obtaining permits 

considering the low volume of their 

catch and resulting profit. Additionally, 

the relative absence of a dealer structure 

in the U.S. Caribbean Region effectively 

restricts where fishermen may legally 

sell their catches, so they often sell to 

non-dealers or become individual 

dealers themselves. 

Alternative 2 would allow small-scale 

fishermen in the Caribbean Region to 

fish for, retain, and sell BAYS tunas and 

swordfish. Retention limits for BAYS 

tunas could be set between 0 and 24 fish 

per trip. The upper end of this range is 

equal to the current maximum 

recreational retention limit of yellowfin 

tuna (YFT) for an HMS charter vessel 

with 6 paying passengers and 2 crew 

members onboard. NMFS considered 

setting the initial limit at 10 BAYS tunas 

per trip. The Caribbean small-scale 

commercial tunas fishery is small, the 

vessels are limited in range and hold 

capacity, and are currently allowed to 

harvest unlimited numbers of BAYS 

tunas if they possess an Atlantic tunas 

General category permit. Alternative 2 

would also allow permit holders to 

retain and sell 0 to 6 swordfish per 

vessel per trip. This upper limit is equal 

to the current maximum swordfish 

retention limit for the open access HMS 

Charter/Headboat permit with 6 paying 

passengers onboard. NMFS considered 

setting the initial retention limit at 2 

swordfish per trip. In summary, NMFS 

would have framework adjustment 

authority under § 635.34(b) to modify 

BAYS tunas and swordfish limits in the 

future within the ranges identified 

above. Under Alternative 2, NMFS 

considered establishing an initial 

proposed limit of 10 BAYS tunas per 

trip, and an initial proposed retention 

limit of 2 swordfish per trip. Alternative 

2 would limit the length of vessels 

eligible for the CSBP to 45 feet or less. 

NMFS anticipates Alternative 2 

would result in positive economic 

impacts for affected fishermen. 

Alternative 2 would allow small-scale 

Caribbean fishermen (vessels limited to 

45 feet LOA or less) to use specific 

handgear (including buoy gear) and 

greenstick gear to fish for and retain 

BAYS tunas, and specific handgear to 

fish for and retain swordfish. Allowing 

small-scale fishermen in the U.S. 

Caribbean Region to use their traditional 

free-floating ‘‘yo-yo’’ handlines (buoy 

gear) to target BAYS tunas has been 

requested for many years. Establishing a 

trip limit range of 0 to 24 BAYS tunas 

with an initial proposed limit of 10 

BAYS tunas per trip is expected to 

produce positive economic impacts 

because 10 BAYS is reported to be a 

very successful trip for the small-scale 

fishermen (Lynn Rios, pers. comm.). 

According to NMFS’ ‘‘Fisheries of the 

United States, 2010,’’ YFT sells for 

approximately $1.75 per pound in 

Puerto Rico (this price likely includes 

lesser quality longline landings); 

however, according to information 

provided by the USVI DPNR, YFT and 

‘‘tunas’’ harvested in the handline 

fishery may sell for up to $7.00 per 

pound depending on quality and local 

demand (NMFS, 2011c). 

Using ICCAT conversions for YFT, a 

fish meeting the current U.S. minimum 

size (27 inches Curved Fork Length 

(CFL)) weighs approximately 14 lb. 

Therefore, if each fisherman conducted 

two BAYS tunas trips per month (24 

trips/yr.), and landed 10 YFT on each 

trip (240 YFT/yr.), then the annual 

revenue per vessel associated with this 

activity would range from $5,880.00 

(240 YFT × 14 lb × $1.75/lb) ¥ 

$23,520.00 (240 YFT × 14 lb × $7.00/lb). 

These estimates are based upon the 

initial retention limit of 10 BAYS tunas 

that NMFS considered under 

Alternative 2. Because NMFS would 

have authority to adjust the BAYS tunas 

retention limits from 0 to 24 fish under 

Alternative 2, the annual ex-vessel 

revenue estimates could vary from $0.00 

(under a 0 fish limit) to as much as 

$14,112 (576 YFT × 14 lb × $1.75/lb) ¥ 

$56,448 (576 YFT × 14 lb × $7.00/lb) 

under a 24 fish retention limit if the 

BAYS retention limit were to change. 

Also, it is important to reemphasize that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15706 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

a 10-fish trip is considered very 

successful and the likelihood that it 

would occur on multiple trips over an 

entire year is unknown. The small-scale 

commercial HMS fishery in the region 

consists primarily of small vessels that 

are limited by hold capacity, crew size, 

trip length, fishing gears, and market 

infrastructure. Improvements in data 

collection anticipated through this 

action will enable NMFS to better 

characterize the fishery and adjust 

management measures in the future. 

The ability to legally land and sell 

swordfish from federal waters under 

Alternative 2 could increase the 

profitability of the local handgear 

fishery. Swordfish is currently selling 

for approximately $4.00 to $6.00 per 

pound in the Caribbean Region (Lynn 

Rios, pers. comm.). Analyzing a trip 

limit range of 0 to 6 for swordfish per 

trip, and setting an initial proposed 

retention limit of 2 swordfish per trip 

would likely result in positive economic 

impacts for those fishermen able to 

target and store 1 or 2 swordfish on their 

vessels. 

Using ICCAT conversions for 

swordfish, a fish meeting the current 

U.S. minimum size (47 inches Lower 

Jaw Fork Length (LJFJ)) weighs 

approximately 44 lb. Therefore, if each 

fisherman conducted two swordfish 

trips per month (24 trips/yr.), and 

landed 2 swordfish on each trip (24 

swordfish/yr.), then the annual revenue 

per vessel associated with this activity 

would range from $4224.00 (24 

swordfish × 44 lb × $4.00/lb) ¥ 

$6,336.00 (24 swordfish × 44 lb × $6.00/ 

lb). These estimates are based upon the 

initial proposed retention limit of 2 

swordfish that NMFS considered under 

Alternative 2. Because NMFS would 

have authority to adjust the swordfish 

retention limit under this alternative 

from 0 to 6 fish using the framework 

procedures codified at 50 CFR 

635.34(b), the annual ex-vessel revenue 

estimates could vary from $0.00 (under 

a 0 fish limit) to as much as $25,344 

(144 swordfish × 44 lb × $4.00/lb) ¥ 

$38,016 (144 swordfish × 44 lb × $6.00/ 

lb) under a 6-fish limit if the swordfish 

limit were to change. Also, a 2-fish trip 

is considered very successful and the 

likelihood that it would occur on 

multiple trips over an entire year is 

unknown. The small-scale commercial 

HMS fishery in the region consists 

primarily of small vessels that are 

limited by hold capacity, crew size, trip 

length, fishing gears, and market 

infrastructure. Improvements in data 

collection anticipated through this 

action will enable NMFS to better 

characterize the fishery and adjust 

management measures in the future. 

Alternative 2 does not contain any 

new reporting requirements, but would 

require fishermen to apply for a CSBP 

in a manner similar to the way HMS 

permit holders apply for their current 

HMS permits, if they currently hold 

one. The relative absence of a dealer 

structure in the U.S. Caribbean Region 

restricts where fishermen may legally 

sell their catches, so they often sell 

catches to non-dealers or become 

individual dealers themselves. This 

alternative would simplify reporting 

requirements and better account for the 

business practices of small-scale 

Caribbean fishermen by allowing 

Caribbean fishermen with the CSBP to 

directly sell their catches of authorized 

HMS without possessing a dealer 

permit, provided that the fishermen 

report the harvest and sale of these 

animals to their respective territorial 

governments, which will report these 

data to the NMFS Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center (SEFSC). 

Alternative 3, the preferred alternative 

proposed here, would allow Caribbean 

small-scale fishermen to retain and sell 

from 0 and 24 BAYS tunas and from 0– 

6 swordfish, which are the same ranges 

as discussed in Alternative 2. These 

retention limits could be adjusted using 

the framework procedures at 

§ 635.34(b). Under Alternative 3, NMFS 

considered establishing an initial 

proposed limit of 10 BAYS tunas per 

trip, and an initial proposed retention 

limit of 2 swordfish per trip which are 

the same as Alternative 2. This suite 

could also allow for Caribbean smallscale fishermen to affordably participate 

in the commercial fishery for sharks. 

Under this alternative, shark retention 

limits could be set between 0 to 3 nonsandbar LCS and 0 to 16 SCS and 

pelagic sharks combined using the 

framework adjustment procedures at 

§ 635.34(b). To be conservative, NMFS 

considered setting the initial shark trip 

limit at 0, with the ability to modify the 

limits using the framework adjustment 

procedures at § 635.34(b). Alternative 3 

would limit the length of vessels eligible 

for the CSBP to 45 feet LOA or less. 

With regard to BAYS tunas and 

swordfish, the initial proposed retention 

limits in Alternative 3 (10 BAYS & 2 

swordfish) would have the same 

positive economic impacts as 

Alternative 2 discussed above (BAYS: 

$5,880.00–$23,520.00; swordfish: 

$4224.00–$6,336.00). Similarly, because 

NMFS would have authority to adjust 

the BAYS tunas retention limits from 0 

to 24 fish under Alternative 3, the 

annual ex-vessel revenue estimates 

could vary from $0.00 (under a 0 fish 

limit) to as much as $14,112 (576 YFT 

× 14 lb × $1.75/lb) ¥ $56,448 (576 YFT 

× 14 lb × $7.00/lb) under a 24 fish 

retention limit if the BAYS limit were 

to change. Also, because NMFS would 

have authority to adjust the swordfish 

retention limit under this alternative 

from 0 to 6 fish using the framework 

procedures codified at § 635.34(b), the 

annual ex-vessel revenue estimates 

could vary from $0.00 (under a 0 fish 

limit) to as much as $25,344 (144 

swordfish × 44 lb × $4.00/lb) ¥ $38,016 

(144 swordfish × 44 lb × $6.00/lb) under 

a 6-fish limit if the swordfish limit were 

to change. 

The potential ability for small-scale 

Caribbean fishermen to participate in 

the federal commercial shark fishery 

under this alternative by analyzing a 

retention limit range of 0 to 3 nonsandbar LCS and 0 to 16 SCS and 

pelagic sharks combined would produce 

larger potential positive economic 

impacts than Alternatives 1 and 2. 

According to NMFS’ ‘‘Fisheries of the 

United States, 2010,’’ ‘‘shark’’ sells for 

approximately $1.57 per pound in 

Puerto Rico (this price likely includes 

lesser quality longline landings); 

however according to information 

provided by the USVI Department of 

Planning and Natural Resources 

(DPNR), ‘‘shark’’ harvested in the 

handline fishery may sell for up to $4.00 

per pound depending on quality and 

demand (NMFS, 2011c). 

NMFS considered setting the initial 

proposed shark retention limit at 0 

under Alternative 3; this would produce 

$0.00 in ex-vessel revenues. There is a 

potential for future revenue increases 

under this alternative because NMFS 

would have the ability to modify the 

limits once the shark complexes have 

recovered and the Agency has more data 

on regional participants, catches, and 

discards in the CSBP fishery. The range 

of shark limits in Alternative 3 have the 

potential to provide increased revenues 

for fishermen who catch sharks and who 

have or can create a market for them in 

the U.S. Caribbean Region. 

Using information from the Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center (Kohler et al., 

1996), the average weight of a Caribbean 

non-sandbar LCS (i.e., tiger, blacktip, 

lemon, nurse, great hammerhead) fish is 

approximately 95 lb (ww), and the 

average weight of a Caribbean pelagic 

shark (i.e., common thresher, oceanic 

whitetip, blue) is approximately 150 lb 

(whole weight (ww)). For Caribbean 

SCS, a weight of 10 lb (ww) is assumed. 

Therefore, if each fisherman conducted 

two shark trips per month (24 trips/yr.), 

and landed 3 non-sandbar LCS and 16 

SCS on each trip (72 LCS/yr. & 384 

SCS), then the annual revenue per 

vessel associated with this activity 

would range from $16,768.00 (72 LCS × 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15707 

95 lb × $1.57/lb + 384 SCS × 10 lb × 

$1.57/lb) ¥$42,720.00 (72 LCS × 95 lb 

× $4.00/lb + 384 SCS × 10 lb × $4.00/ 

lb). These estimates are based upon the 

upper catch limit of 3 non-sandbar LCS 

and 16 SCS or pelagic sharks 

(combined) that NMFS could consider 

under Alternative 3. These estimates of 

annual revenues would be higher if 

more pelagic sharks were landed, due to 

their larger average size. The likelihood 

that the limits would be reached on 

multiple trips over an entire year is 

unknown. The small-scale HMS fishery 

in the region consists primarily of small 

vessels that are limited by hold 

capacity, crew size, trip length, fishing 

gears, and market infrastructure. 

Improvements in data collection 

anticipated through this action will 

enable NMFS to better characterize the 

fishery and adjust management 

measures in the future. 

Alternative 3 does not contain any 

new reporting requirements, but would 

require fishermen to apply for a CSBP 

in a manner similar to the way NMFS 

currently requires permit holders to 

apply for open access HMS permits. The 

relative absence of a dealer structure in 

the U.S. Caribbean Region restricts 

where fishermen may legally sell their 

catches, and thus they sell them to nonpermitted dealers or become individual 

dealers themselves. This alternative 

would simplify reporting requirements 

and better account for the business 

practices of Caribbean fishermen by 

allowing small-scale fishermen with the 

CSBP to directly sell their catches of 

authorized HMS without possessing a 

dealer permit, provided that the 

fishermen report the harvest and sale of 

these animals to their respective 

territorial governments, which will 

report these data to the SEFSC. 

Alternative 4 would establish a range 

that could allow Caribbean small-scale 

fishermen to retain and sell from 

between 0 to an unlimited number of 

BAYS tunas, with an initial proposed 

retention limit of 24 BAYS tunas per 

trip. This could potentially increase the 

number of BAYS tunas harvested in the 

region. Alternative 4 would also 

establish a range that could allow 

permit holders to retain and sell from 0 

to an unlimited number of swordfish 

per vessel per trip, with an initial 

proposed retention limit of 6 swordfish 

per trip. This alternative could 

potentially increase the number of 

swordfish harvested in the region. With 

regard to sharks, Alternative 4 could 

allow Caribbean small-scale fishermen 

to participate in the federal commercial 

fishery for sharks. Shark retention limits 

could be set between 0 to 33 nonsandbar LCS, and from 0 to no limit for 

SCS and pelagic sharks combined. In 

summary, NMFS would have the ability 

to modify BAYS tunas, swordfish, and 

shark trip limits within the identified 

ranges using the framework adjustment 

procedures at § 635.34(b). 

Under Alternative 4, NMFS 

considered setting an initial proposed 

limit of 24 BAYS tunas per trip; an 

initial proposed retention limit of 6 

swordfish per trip; and initial retention 

limits of 1 non-sandbar LCS and 2 SCS 

or pelagic sharks combined, with the 

ability to modify these retention limits 

using the framework adjustment 

procedures codified at § 635.34(b). 

Alternative 4 would not limit the size of 

vessel allowed to be issued a CSBP. 

During NEPA scoping and through 

public comment on the Predraft, NMFS 

received comment from fishermen 

concerned about over capitalization 

leading to depressed market prices. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would limit vessel 

size to 45 feet LOA or less. 

Alternative 4 could potentially have 

the largest positive economic impacts 

when compared with Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 3 discussed above; however, it 

could also result in local 

overcapitalization in the fishery, lead to 

depressed market prices, and other 

potential adverse economic impacts. It 

could increase the number of BAYS 

tunas harvested in the region, and the 

range would mirror the trip limits 

currently authorized for the open access 

Atlantic tunas General category permit. 

As discussed under Alternative 2, a trip 

where 10 BAYS tunas are harvested in 

the Caribbean small-scale HMS fishery 

is considered a very successful day, this 

alternative could increase the number of 

BAYS allowed to be harvested to an 

unlimited amount. This increased 

retention limit may result in additional 

positive economic impacts; however, it 

is not known if the Caribbean smallscale commercial fleet has the ability to 

hold and market this amount of tunas. 

Using ICCAT conversions for YFT, a 

fish meeting the current U.S. minimum 

size (27 inches CFL) weighs 

approximately 14 lb. Therefore, if each 

fisherman conducted two BAYS tunas 

trips per month (24 trips/yr.), and 

landed 24 YFT on each trip (576 YFT/ 

yr.), then the annual revenue per vessel 

associated with this activity would 

range from $14,112.00 (576 YFT × 14 lb 

× $1.75/lb) ¥$56,448.00 (576 YFT × 14 

lb × $7.00/lb). These estimates are based 

upon the initial proposed retention limit 

of 24 BAYS tunas that NMFS 

considered under Alternative 4. Because 

NMFS would have the ability to adjust 

the BAYS tunas retention limit from 0 

to an unlimited amount under 

Alternative 4, the annual ex-vessel 

revenue estimates would vary from 

either $0.00 to an unlimited amount if 

the BAYS retention limit were to change 

from the initial proposed limit of 24 

BAYS/trip. Also, it is important to 

reemphasize that a 10-fish trip is 

considered very successful, and the 

likelihood that a 24 fish trip would 

occur on multiple trips over an entire 

year is unknown. The small-scale HMS 

fishery in the region consists primarily 

of small vessels that are limited by hold 

capacity, crew size, trip length, fishing 

gears, and market infrastructure. 

Improvements in data collection 

anticipated through this action will 

enable NMFS to better characterize the 

fishery and adjust management 

measures in the future. 

The unlimited upper end of the range 

being considered for swordfish in 

Alternative 4 would be equal to the 

current limited access swordfish 

directed permit retention limit. NMFS 

has received anecdotal information that 

swordfish are being harvested by 

handgear fishermen in the Caribbean 

Region. Alternative 4 would provide 

small-scale fishermen in the Caribbean 

Region with access to the federal 

commercial swordfish fishery and the 

ability to legally market their catches. 

Currently, entrance to the federal 

limited access commercial swordfish 

fishery has been difficult for small-scale 

fishermen as permits are cost 

prohibitive. However, as stated above, 

the vessels participating in the 

Caribbean small-scale commercial 

fishery are small, limited in range, and 

limited in hold capacity. It is not known 

if these small vessels can hold and 

safely transport an unlimited amount of 

swordfish to port. 

Using ICCAT conversions for 

swordfish, a fish meeting the current 

U.S. minimum size (47 inches LJFL) 

weighs approximately 44 lb. Therefore, 

if each fisherman conducted two 

swordfish trips per month (24 trips/yr.), 

and landed 6 swordfish on each trip 

(144 swordfish/yr.), then the annual 

revenue per vessel associated with this 

activity would range from $25,344.00 

(144 swordfish × 44 lb × $4.00/lb) ¥ 

$38,016.00 (144 swordfish × 44 lb × 

$6.00/lb). These estimates are based 

upon the initial retention limit of 6 

swordfish that NMFS considered under 

Alternative 4. Because NMFS would 

have framework authority to adjust the 

swordfish retention limit from 0 to an 

unlimited amount under Alternative 4, 

the annual ex-vessel revenue estimates 

would vary from $0.00 to an unlimited 

amount if the swordfish limit were to 

change from 6 per trip. Also, a 2-fish 

trip is considered very successful within 

the region and the likelihood that a 6- 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15708 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

fish trip would occur on multiple trips 

over an entire year is unknown. The 

small-scale HMS fishery in the region 

consists primarily of small vessels that 

are limited by hold capacity, crew size, 

trip length, fishing gears, and market 

infrastructure. Improvements in data 

collection anticipated through this 

action will enable NMFS to better 

characterize the fishery and adjust 

management measures in the future. 

The shark retention limits in the range 

for Alternative 4 have the potential to 

provide increased revenues for 

fishermen who catch sharks and who 

have or can create a market for them in 

the U.S. Caribbean Region. 

Using information from the Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center (Kohler et al., 

1996), the average weight of a Caribbean 

non-sandbar LCS (i.e., tiger, blacktip, 

lemon, nurse, great hammerhead) fish is 

approximately 95 lb (whole weight 

(ww)), and the average weight of a 

Caribbean pelagic shark (i.e., common 

thresher, oceanic whitetip, blue) is 

approximately 150 lb (ww). For 

Caribbean SCS, a weight of 10 lb (ww) 

is assumed. Therefore, if each fisherman 

conducted two shark trips per month 

(24 trips/yr.), and landed 1 non-sandbar 

LCS and 2 SCS on each trip (24 LCS/yr. 

& 48 SCS), then the annual revenue per 

vessel associated with this activity 

would range from $4,296.00 (24 LCS × 

95 lb × $1.57/lb + 48 SCS × 10 lb × 

$1.57/lb) ¥ $11,040.00 (24 LCS × 95 lb 

× $4.00/lb + 48 SCS × 10 lb × $4.00/lb). 

These estimates are based upon the 

initial retention limit of 1 non-sandbar 

LCS and 2 SCS or pelagic sharks 

(combined) that NMFS considered in 

Alternative 4. These estimates of annual 

revenues would be higher if more 

pelagic sharks were landed due to their 

larger average size. Because NMFS 

would have framework authority to 

adjust the retention limits from 0 to 33 

non-sandbar LCS and from 0 to an 

unlimited amount of SCS or pelagic 

sharks (combined) under Alternative 4, 

the annual ex-vessel revenue estimates 

would vary from $0.00 to an unlimited 

amount if the retention limits were to 

change. The likelihood that the 

retention limits would be reached on 

multiple trips over an entire year is 

unknown. The small-scale HMS fishery 

in the region consists primarily of small 

vessels that are limited by hold 

capacity, crew size, trip length, fishing 

gears, and market infrastructure. 

Improvements in data collection 

anticipated through this action will 

enable NMFS to better characterize the 

fishery and adjust management 

measures in the future. 

Alternative 4 would not limit the size 

of vessel allowed to be issued a CSBP. 

During NEPA scoping and through 

public comment on the Predraft, the 

Agency received comments from 

fishermen concerned about over 

capitalization leading to depressed 

market prices. Alternatives 2 and 3 limit 

vessel size to 45 feet or less. Alternative 

4 does not identify a vessel size limit 

and could result in local 

overcapitalization in the fishery, lead to 

depressed market prices, and other 

potential adverse economic impacts. 

Alternative 4 does not contain any 

new reporting requirements, but would 

require fishermen to apply for a CSBP 

in a manner similar to the way HMS 

permit holders apply for their current 

HMS permits, if they currently hold 

one. The relative absence of a dealer 

structure in the U.S. Caribbean Region 

restricts where fishermen may legally 

sell their catches, so they often sell to 

non-dealers or become individual 

dealers themselves. This alternative 

would simplify reporting requirements 

and better account for the business 

practices of Caribbean fishermen by 

allowing small-scale fishermen with the 

CSBP to directly sell their catches of 

authorized HMS without possessing a 

dealer permit, provided that the 

fishermen report the harvest and sale of 

these animals to their respective 

territorial governments, which will 

report these data to the SEFSC. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing 

vessels, Foreign relations, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Statistics. 

50 CFR Part 635 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: March 13, 2012. 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 635 as 

amended at 76 FR 37750, June 28, 2011, 

are proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 600—MAGNUSON–STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

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. 

2. In § 600.725, paragraph (v), under 

the heading ‘‘IX. Secretary of 

Commerce,’’ entry 1, add N to read as 

follows: 

§ 600.725 General prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

Fishery Authorized gear types 

*******

IX. Secretary of Commerce 

1. Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fisheries (FMP):.

* * * * * * * 

N. Caribbean Small Boat Commercial Fishery ........................................ N. Rod and reel, handline, harpoon, bandit gear, green-stick gear, 

buoy gear. 

* * * * * PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY 

MIGRATORY SPECIES 

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. 

4. In § 635.4, 

a. Revise paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(10), 

(d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f)(1), 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15709 

(f)(2), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(2), (g)(3), (h)(1) 

introductory text, (m)(1), and (m)(2); 

and 

b. Add paragraph (o) to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.4 Permits and fees. 

(a) * * * 

(5) Display upon offloading. Upon 

offloading of Atlantic HMS, the owner 

or operator of the harvesting vessel must 

present for inspection the vessel’s HMS 

Charter/Headboat permit; Atlantic 

tunas, shark, or swordfish permit; 

Incidental HMS squid trawl; HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit; and/or the shark research permit 

to the first receiver. The permit(s) must 

be presented prior to completing any 

applicable landing report specified at 

§ 635.5(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(2)(i). 

* * * * * 

(10) Permit condition. An owner of a 

vessel with a valid swordfish, shark, 

HMS Angling, HMS Charter/Headboat, 

Incidental HMS squid trawl, or HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit issued pursuant to this part must 

agree, as a condition of such permit, that 

the vessel’s HMS fishing, catch, and 

gear are subject to the requirements of 

this part during the period of validity of 

the permit, without regard to whether 

such fishing occurs in the U.S. EEZ, or 

outside the U.S. EEZ, and without 

regard to where such HMS, or gear, are 

possessed, taken, or landed. However, 

when a vessel fishes within the waters 

of a state that has more restrictive 

regulations pertaining to HMS, persons 

aboard the vessel must abide by the 

state’s more restrictive regulations. 

* * * * * 

(d) Atlantic Tunas vessel permits. (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 issued under paragraph (b) of 

this section, an HMS Caribbean Small 

Boat Commercial 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, Purse 

Seine, or Trap. 

(2) Persons aboard a vessel with a 

valid Atlantic Tunas, HMS Angling, 

HMS Charter/Headboat, or an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

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, 

Purse Seine, or Trap category of the 

Atlantic Tunas permit or a valid HMS 

Charter/Headboat or an HMS Caribbean 

Small Boat Commercial permit. 

(3) A vessel issued an Atlantic Tunas 

permit in any category for a fishing year 

shall not be issued an HMS Angling 

permit, HMS Charter/Headboat permit, 

or an Atlantic Tunas permit in any other 

category for that same fishing year, 

regardless of a change in the vessel’s 

ownership. The owner of a vessel 

applying for an HMS Caribbean Small 

Boat Commercial permit as issued 

pursuant to paragraph (o) of this section 

is exempt from the requirements of this 

paragraph but is subject to restrictions 

set forth at § 635.4 (o)(3) and may not 

hold any other HMS fishing permit 

simultaneously. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * (1) The owner of each vessel 

used to fish for or take Atlantic sharks 

or on which Atlantic sharks are 

retained, possessed with an intention to 

sell, or sold must obtain, in addition to 

any other required permits, at least one 

of the Federal Atlantic commercial 

shark permits described below or an 

HMS Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit as issued pursuant to paragraph 

(o) of this section. A Federal Atlantic 

commercial shark permit or HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit is not required if the vessel is 

recreationally fishing and retains no 

more sharks than the recreational 

retention limit specified in § 635.22(c), 

is operating pursuant to the conditions 

of a shark display or EFP issued 

pursuant to § 635.32, or fishes 

exclusively within State waters. It is a 

rebuttable presumption that the owner 

or operator of a vessel without a permit 

issued pursuant to this part on which 

sharks are possessed in excess of the 

recreational retention limits intends to 

sell the sharks. 

(2) The owner of vessels that fish for, 

take, retain, or possess the Atlantic 

oceanic sharks listed in sections A, B, or 

C of Table 1 of Appendix A with an 

intention to sell must obtain a Federal 

Atlantic commercial shark directed or 

incidental limited access permit or an 

HMS Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit issued pursuant to paragraph (o) 

of this section. The only valid Federal 

commercial shark directed and shark 

incidental limited access permits are 

those that have been issued under the 

limited access program consistent with 

the provisions under paragraphs (l) and 

(m) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * (1) Except as specified in 

paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section, 

the owner of each vessel used to fish for 

or take Atlantic swordfish or on which 

Atlantic swordfish are retained or 

possessed with an intention to sell or 

from which Atlantic swordfish are sold 

must obtain, in addition to any other 

required permits, only one of three 

types of commercial limited access 

swordfish permits: Swordfish directed 

limited access permit, swordfish 

incidental limited access permit, or 

swordfish handgear limited access 

permit. It is a rebuttable presumption 

that the owner or operator of a vessel on 

which swordfish are possessed in excess 

of the recreational retention limits 

intends to sell the swordfish. 

(2) The only valid commercial Federal 

vessel permits for swordfish are those 

that have been issued under the limited 

access program consistent with the 

provisions under paragraphs (l) and (m) 

of this section, or those issued under 

paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) A first receiver, as defined in 

§ 635.2, of Atlantic bigeye, albacore, 

yellowfin, or skipjack tunas must 

possess a valid Federal Atlantic tunas 

dealer permit except as noted under 

paragraph (o) of this section. 

(2) Shark. A first receiver, as defined 

in § 635.2, of any Atlantic shark listed 

in Table 1 of Appendix A of this part 

must possess a valid dealer permit 

except as noted under paragraph (o) of 

this section. 

(3) Swordfish. A first receiver, as 

defined in § 635.2, of Atlantic swordfish 

must possess a valid Federal Atlantic 

swordfish dealer permit except as noted 

under paragraph (o) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) Atlantic Tunas, HMS Angling, 

HMS Charter/Headboat, Incidental HMS 

squid trawl, and HMS Caribbean Small 

Boat Commercial vessel permits. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * (1) General. Persons must 

apply annually for a dealer permit for 

Atlantic tunas, sharks, and swordfish, 

and for an Atlantic HMS Angling, HMS 

Charter/Headboat, tunas, shark, 

swordfish, Incidental HMS squid trawl, 

or HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial vessel permit. Except as 

specified in the instructions for 

automated renewals, persons must 

submit a renewal application to NMFS, 

along with a copy of the applicable 

valid workshop certificate or 

certificates, if required pursuant to 

§ 635.8, at an address designated by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

NMFS, at least 30 days before a permit’s 

expiration to avoid a lapse of permitted 

status. NMFS will renew a permit if the 

specific requirements for the requested 

permit are met, including those 

described in paragraphs (h)(1)(iv) and 

(l)(2) of this section; all reports required 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

ATCA have been submitted, including 

those described in § 635.5 and § 300.185 

of this title; the applicant is not subject 

to a permit sanction or denial under 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section; and the 

workshop requirements specified in 

§ 635.8 are met. 

(2) Shark and swordfish LAPs. The 

owner of a vessel of the U.S. that fishes 

for, possesses, lands or sells shark or 

swordfish from the management unit, or 

that takes or possesses such shark or 

swordfish as incidental catch, must 

have the applicable limited access 

permit(s) issued pursuant to the 

requirements in paragraphs (e) and (f) of 

this section, except as specified in 

paragraphs (n) and (o) of this section. 

Only persons holding non-expired shark 

and swordfish limited access permit(s) 

in the preceding year are eligible to 

renew those limited access permit(s). 

Transferors may not renew limited 

access permits that have been 

transferred according to the procedures 

in paragraph (l) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(o) HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permits. (1) The owner of a 

vessel who fishes in the U.S. Caribbean, 

as defined at § 622.2 of this chapter, 

possesses handgear or green-stick gear 

and retains, with the intention to sell, 

any BAYS tunas, Atlantic swordfish, or 

Atlantic sharks may obtain an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit. An HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permit is valid only within 

the U.S. Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2 

of this chapter. 

(2) To be eligible for an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit, vessel owners must provide 

documentation that the vessels is less 

than or equal to 13.7 m (45 ft) in length 

overall (LOA). 

(3) A vessel issued an HMS Caribbean 

Small Boat Commercial permit may not 

be issued any other HMS fishing permit, 

except those issued under § 635.32, as 

long as a valid HMS Caribbean Small 

Boat Commercial permit is issued to 

that vessel. 

(4) The owner of a vessel issued an 

HMS Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit may fish for, take, retain, or 

possess only BAYS tunas, Atlantic 

swordfish, and Atlantic sharks, subject 

to the trip limits specified at § 635.24 

and may possess unauthorized gears 

onboard as stated at § 635.21(b). 

(5) HMS landed under an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit may be sold by the owner or 

operator to individuals who do not 

possess the HMS dealer permits 

required under § 635.4(g). HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit holders are not considered to be 

dealers as defined at § 600.10 of this 

chapter because HMS Caribbean Small 

Boat Commercial permit holders may 

not purchase, barter, or trade for HMS 

harvested by other vessels with the 

intent to sell such landings. 

5. In § 635.21, revise paragraphs (b), 

(e)(1) introductory text, (e)(3)(i), 

(e)(4)(iii), and (e)(4)(iv) to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.21 Gear operation and deployment 

restrictions. 

* * * * * 

(b) General. No person may fish for, 

catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic 

HMS with gears other than the primary 

gears specifically authorized in this 

part. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (a)(2) of this section, secondary 

gears may be used at boat side to aid 

and assist in subduing, or bringing on 

board a vessel, Atlantic HMS that have 

first been caught or captured using 

primary gears. For purposes of this part, 

secondary gears include, but are not 

limited to, dart harpoons, gaffs, flying 

gaffs, tail ropes, etc. Secondary gears 

may not be used to capture, or attempt 

to capture, free-swimming or undersized 

HMS. Except for vessels permitted 

under § 635.4(o) or as specified in this 

paragraph (b), a vessel using or having 

onboard in the Atlantic Ocean any 

unauthorized gear may not possess an 

Atlantic HMS on board. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * (1) Atlantic tunas. A person 

that fishes for, retains, or possesses an 

Atlantic bluefin tuna may not have on 

board a vessel or use on board a vessel 

any primary gear other than those 

authorized for the category for which 

the Atlantic tunas or HMS permit has 

been issued for such vessel. Primary 

gears are the gears specifically 

authorized in this section. When fishing 

for Atlantic tunas other than BFT, 

primary gear authorized for any Atlantic 

Tunas permit category may be used, 

except that purse seine gear may be 

used only on board vessels permitted in 

the Purse Seine category and pelagic 

longline gear may be used only on board 

vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category tuna permit, a LAP 

other than handgear for swordfish, and 

a LAP for sharks. A person issued an 

HMS Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit who fishes for, retains, or 

possesses BAYS tunas in the U.S. 

Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2, may 

have on board and use handline, 

harpoon, rod and reel, bandit gear, 

green-stick gear, and buoy gear. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * (i) No person may possess 

a shark in the EEZ taken from its 

management unit without a permit 

issued under § 635.4. No person issued 

a Federal Atlantic commercial shark 

permit under § 635.4 may possess a 

shark taken by any gear other than rod 

and reel, handline, bandit gear, longline, 

or gillnet; except that individuals issued 

an HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permit may only harvest 

sharks with rod and reel, handline, and 

bandit gear in the U.S. Caribbean, as 

defined at § 622.2. No person issued an 

HMS Angling permit or an HMS 

Charter/headboat permit under § 635.4 

may possess a shark if the shark was 

taken from its management unit by any 

gear other than rod and reel or handline, 

except that persons on a vessel issued 

both an HMS Charter/Headboat permit 

and a Federal Atlantic commercial shark 

permit may possess sharks taken with 

rod and reel, handline, bandit gear, 

longline, or gillnet if the vessel is not 

engaged in a for-hire fishing trip. 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) A person aboard a vessel issued 

or required to be issued a valid directed 

handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish or 

an HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permit may not fish for 

swordfish with any gear other than 

handgear. A swordfish will be deemed 

to have been harvested by longline 

when the fish is on board or offloaded 

from a vessel using or having on board 

longline gear. Only vessels that have 

been issued, or that are required to have 

been issued, a valid directed or 

handgear swordfish LAP or an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit under this part may utilize or 

possess buoy gear. Vessels utilizing 

buoy gear may not possess or deploy 

more than 35 floatation devices, and 

may not deploy more than 35 individual 

buoy gears per vessel. Buoy gear must 

be constructed and deployed so that the 

hooks and/or gangions are attached to 

the vertical portion of the mainline. 

Floatation devices may be attached to 

one but not both ends of the mainline, 

and no hooks or gangions may be 

attached to any floatation device or 

horizontal portion of the mainline. If 

more than one floatation device is 

attached to a buoy gear, no hook or 

gangion may be attached to the mainline 

between them. Individual buoy gears 

may not be linked, clipped, or 

connected together in any way. Buoy 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 15711 

gears must be released and retrieved by 

hand. All deployed buoy gear must have 

some type of monitoring equipment 

affixed to it including, but not limited 

to, radar reflectors, beeper devices, 

lights, or reflective tape. If only 

reflective tape is affixed, the vessel 

deploying the buoy gear must possess 

on board an operable spotlight capable 

of illuminating deployed floatation 

devices. If a gear monitoring device is 

positively buoyant, and rigged to be 

attached to a fishing gear, it is included 

in the 35 floatation device vessel limit 

and must be marked appropriately. 

(iv) Except for persons aboard a vessel 

that has been issued a limited access 

North Atlantic swordfish permit, 

Incidental HMS squid trawl permit, or 

an HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permit under § 635.4, no 

person may fish for North Atlantic 

swordfish with, or possess a North 

Atlantic swordfish taken by, any gear 

other than handline or rod and reel. 

6. In § 635.24, revise the section 

heading and add paragraphs (a)(4)(iv), 

(b)(3), and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 635.24 Commercial retention limits for 

sharks, swordfish and BAYS tunas. 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iv) A person who owns or operates a 

vessel that has been issued an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit may retain, possess, or land any 

LCS, SCS or pelagic sharks only when 

the trip limit is set above zero. The 

current shark trip limit for HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit holders is set at zero. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Persons aboard a vessel that has 

been issued an HMS Caribbean Small 

Boat Commercial vessel permit may 

retain, possess, land, or sell no more 

than 2 swordfish per trip in or from the 

Atlantic Ocean north of 5° N. lat. 

(c) BAYS tunas. Persons aboard a 

vessel that has been issued an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit under § 635.4 may retain, 

possess, land, or sell no more than 10 

BAYS tunas per trip. 

7. In § 635.27, revise paragraph 

(c)(1)(i)(A) to read as follows: 

§ 635.27 Quotas. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) A swordfish from the North 

Atlantic stock caught prior to the 

directed fishery closure by a vessel for 

which a directed fishery permit, a 

handgear permit for swordfish, or an 

HMS Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit has been issued or is required to 

be issued is counted against the directed 

fishery quota. The annual fishery quota, 

not adjusted for over- or underharvests, 

is 2,937.6 mt dw for each fishing year. 

After December 31, 2007, the annual 

quota is subdivided into two equal 

semi-annual quotas of 1,468.8 mt dw: 

one for January 1 through June 30, and 

the other for July 1 through December 

31. 

* * * * * 

8. In § 635.31, revise paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(ii), and (d)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and 

purchase. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) A person that owns or operates a 

vessel from which an Atlantic tuna is 

landed or offloaded may sell such 

Atlantic tuna only if that vessel has a 

valid HMS Charter/Headboat permit; a 

valid General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse 

Seine, or Trap category permit for 

Atlantic tunas; or a valid HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit issued under this part. 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 

§ 635.23(c)). A person may sell Atlantic 

bluefin tuna only to a dealer that has a 

valid permit for purchasing Atlantic 

bluefin tuna issued under this part. A 

person may not sell or purchase Atlantic 

tunas harvested with speargun fishing 

gear. 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Dealers may first receive Atlantic 

bigeye, albacore, yellowfin and skipjack 

tunas only if they have submitted 

reports to NMFS according to reporting 

requirements of paragraphs 

§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii) and only from a vessel 

that has a valid Federal commercial 

permit for Atlantic tunas issued under 

this part in the appropriate category. 

Individuals issued a valid HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit, and operating in the U.S. 

Caribbean as defined at § 622.2, may sell 

their trip limits of BAYS tunas, codified 

at § 635.24(c), to dealers and nondealers. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * (1) Persons that own or 

operate a vessel on which a swordfish 

in or from the Atlantic Ocean is 

possessed may sell such swordfish only 

if the vessel has a valid commercial 

permit for swordfish issued under this 

part. Persons may offload such 

swordfish only to a dealer who has a 

valid permit for swordfish issued under 

this part; except that individuals issued 

a valid HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permit, and operating in 

the U.S. Caribbean as defined at § 622.2, 

may sell swordfish trip limits, codified 

at § 635.24(b)(3), to non-dealers. 

* * * * * 

9. In § 635.71, revise paragraphs 

(a)(3)(iii), (a)(4)(ii), (a)(53), (a)(55), (e)(1), 

(e)(10), (e)(11), (e)(16) to read as follows: 

§ 635.71 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) First receive, or attempt to first 

receive, Atlantic bigeye, albacore, 

yellowfin, and skipjack tunas, 

swordfish, or sharks without the 

appropriate valid Federal Atlantic HMS 

dealer permit issued under § 635.4 or 

submission of reports by dealers to 

NMFS according to reporting 

requirements of §§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii) and 

635.5(b)(1)(iii). This prohibition does 

not apply to HMS harvested by HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

vessel permit holders operating in the 

U.S. Caribbean as defined at § 622.2 or 

to a shark harvested by a vessel that has 

not been issued a permit under this part 

and that fishes exclusively within the 

waters under the jurisdiction of any 

state. 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Offload an Atlantic bigeye, 

albacore, yellowfin, or skipjack tuna, 

swordfish, or shark other than to a 

dealer that has a valid Federal Atlantic 

HMS dealer permit issued under 

§ 635.4, except that this does not apply 

to HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial vessel permit holders 

operating in the U.S. Caribbean as 

defined at § 622.2 or to a shark 

harvested by a vessel that has not been 

issued a permit under this part and that 

fishes exclusively within the waters 

under the jurisdiction of any state. 

* * * * * 

(53) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or 

land an Atlantic swordfish using, or 

captured on, ‘‘buoy gear’’, as defined at 

§ 635.2, unless the vessel owner has 

been issued a swordfish directed limited 

access permit or a swordfish handgear 

limited access permit in accordance 

with § 635.4(f) or an HMS Caribbean 

Small Boat Commercial permit in 

accordance with § 635.4(o). 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15712 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(55) For an individual issued an HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit to purchase, barter for, or trade 

for HMS harvested by other vessels with 

the intent to sell such landings. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) First receive or attempt to first 

receive Atlantic swordfish from the 

north or south Atlantic swordfish stock 

without a Federal Atlantic swordfish 

dealer permit as specified in § 635.4(g) 

unless the harvesting vessel possesses a 

valid HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permit issued under § 635.4 

of this part and harvested the swordfish 

in the U.S. Caribbean as defined at 

§ 622.2. 

* * * * * 

(10) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or 

land an Atlantic swordfish using, or 

captured on, ‘‘buoy gear’’ as defined at 

§ 635.2, unless the vessel owner has 

been issued a swordfish directed limited 

access permit or a swordfish handgear 

limited access permit in accordance 

with § 635.4(f) or a valid HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit in accordance with § 635.4(o). 

(11) As the owner of a vessel 

permitted, or required to be permitted, 

in the swordfish directed, swordfish 

handgear limited access permit 

category, or issued a valid HMS 

Caribbean Small Boat Commercial 

permit and utilizing buoy gear, to 

possess or deploy more than 35 

individual floatation devices, to deploy 

more than 35 individual buoy gears per 

vessel, or to deploy buoy gear without 

affixed monitoring equipment, as 

specified at § 635.21(e)(4)(iii). 

* * * * * 

(16) Possess any HMS, other than 

Atlantic swordfish, harvested with buoy 

gear as specified at § 635.21(e) unless 

issued a HMS Caribbean Small Boat 

Commercial permit and operating 

within the U.S. Caribbean as defined at 

§ 622.2. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–6455 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 120306154–2152–01] 

RIN 0648–XA920 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

2012 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota 

Specifications 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2012 quota 

specifications for the Atlantic bluefin 

tuna (BFT) fishery. This action is 

necessary to implement binding 

recommendations of the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by 

the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act 

(ATCA), and to achieve domestic 

management objectives under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 16, 2012. 

Dates and locations for public hearings 

on this proposed action will be 

specified in a separate document in the 

Federal Register to be published at a 

later date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2012– 

0048’’, by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, 

first click the ‘‘submit a comment’’ icon, 

then enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2012–0048’’ 

in the keyword search. Locate the 

document you wish to comment on 

from the resulting list and click on the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ icon on the right 

of that line. 

• Fax: 978–281–9340, Attn: Sarah 

McLaughlin 

• Mail: Sarah McLaughlin, Highly 

Migratory Species Management 

Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

(F/SF1), NMFS, 55 Great Republic 

Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 

• Instructions: Comments must be 

submitted by one of the above methods 

to ensure that the comments are 

received, documented, and considered 

by NMFS. Comments sent by any other 

method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered. All comments received are 

a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted for public viewing 

on http://www.regulations.gov without 

change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.) 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. Do not submit 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive or protected 

information. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Supporting documents, including the 

2011 Environmental Assessment, 

Regulatory Impact Review, and Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as well 

as others, such as the Fishery 

Management Plans described below may 

be downloaded from the HMS Web site 

at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. These 

documents also are available by sending 

your request to Sarah McLaughlin at the 

mailing address specified above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 

978–281–9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic 

bluefin tuna, bigeye tuna, albacore tuna, 

yellowfin tuna, and skipjack tuna 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Atlantic 

tunas’’) are managed under the dual 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and ATCA. As an active member of 

ICCAT, the United States implements 

binding ICCAT recommendations to 

comply with this international treaty. 

ATCA authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate 

regulations, as may be necessary and 

appropriate, to implement ICCAT 

recommendations. The authority to 

issue regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act and ATCA has been 

delegated from the Secretary to the 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

NMFS. 

Background 

On May 28, 1999, NMFS published in 

the Federal Register (64 FR 29090) final 

regulations, effective July 1, 1999, 

implementing the Fishery Management 

Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and 

Sharks (1999 FMP). The 1999 FMP 

included a framework process to 

promulgate annual specifications for the 

BFT fishery, in accordance with ATCA 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to 

implement the annual recommendations 

of ICCAT. Since 1982, ICCAT has 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS