71510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 902 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 120328229–4949–02] 

RIN 0648–BC09 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly 

Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 

Management Plan; Amendment 7 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule implements 

Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

Fishery Management Plan (2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP) to ensure 

sustainable management of bluefin tuna 

consistent with the 2006 HMS FMP and 

address ongoing management challenges 

in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fisheries. 

This final rule also implements minor 

regulatory changes related to the 

management of Atlantic HMS. 

Amendment 7 management measures 

were developed by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). 

This final rule: Allocates U.S. bluefin 

tuna quota among domestic fishing 

categories; implements measures 

applicable to the pelagic longline 

fishery, including Individual Bluefin 

Quotas (IBQs), two new Gear Restricted 

Areas, closure of the pelagic longline 

fishery when annual bluefin tuna quota 

is reached, elimination of target catch 

requirements associated with retention 

of incidental bluefin tuna in the pelagic 

longline fishery, mandatory retention of 

legal-sized bluefin tuna caught as 

bycatch, expanded monitoring 

requirements, including electronic 

monitoring via cameras and bluefin tuna 

catch reporting via Vessel Monitoring 

System (VMS), and transiting provisions 

for pelagic and bottom longline vessels; 

requires VMS use and reporting by the 

Purse Seine category; changes the start 

date of the Purse Seine category from 

July 15 to a date within a range of June 

1 to August 15, to be established by an 

annual action; requires use of the 

Automated Catch Reporting System by 

the General and Harpoon categories; 

provides additional flexibility for 

inseason adjustment of the General 

category quota and Harpoon category 

retention limits; and changes the 

allocation of the Angling category 

Trophy South subquota for the Gulf of 

Mexico. Finally, this rule implements 

several measures not directly related to 

bluefin tuna management, including a 

U.S. North Atlantic albacore tuna quota; 

modified rules regarding permit 

category changes; and minor changes in 

the HMS regulations for administrative 

or clarification purposes. 

DATES: Effective January 1, 2015, except 

for § 635.9(b)(2)(ii), (e)(1), which are 

effective June 1, 2015; and 

§ 635.15(b)(3), (b)(4)(ii), and (b)(5)(i), 

which are effective January 1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 7 to 

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, 

including the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS), and other 

relevant documents are available from 

the HMS Management Division Web site 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Warren or Brad McHale at 978– 

281–9260. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed 

under the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP 

and regulations at 50 CFR part 635, 

pursuant to the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. 

Under ATCA, the Secretary shall 

promulgate such regulations as may be 

necessary and appropriate to carry out 

International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (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, 

NOAA (AA). 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 

incidental and directed Atlantic bluefin 

tuna fisheries. 

Background 

A brief summary of the background of 

this final action is provided below. A 

more detailed history of the 

development of these regulations, and 

the alternatives considered, are 

described in Amendment 7 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(Amendment 7 FEIS, August, 2014), 

which can be found online at the HMS 

Web site noted above. 

NMFS published a proposed rule on 

August 21, 2013 (78 FR, 52032), which 

proposed the ‘‘preferred alternatives’’ 

analyzed in the Draft Amendment 7 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

solicited public comments on the 

measures, which were designed to 

address the following objectives: (1) 

Prevent overfishing of and rebuild 

bluefin tuna stock, achieve on a 

continuing basis optimum yield, and 

minimize bluefin bycatch to the extent 

practicable by ensuring that domestic 

bluefin tuna fisheries continue to 

operate within the overall total 

allowable catch (TAC) set by ICCAT 

consistent with the existing rebuilding 

plan; (2) optimize the ability for all 

permit categories to harvest their full 

bluefin quota allocations, account for 

mortality associated with discarded 

bluefin in all categories, maintain 

flexibility of the regulations to account 

for the highly variable nature of the 

bluefin fisheries, and maintain fairness 

among permit/quota categories; (3) 

reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna 

and minimize reductions in target catch 

in both directed and incidental bluefin 

fisheries, to the extent practicable; (4) 

improve the scope and quality of catch 

data through enhanced reporting and 

monitoring to ensure that landings and 

dead discards do not exceed the quota 

and to improve accounting for all 

sources of fishing mortality; and (5) 

adjust other aspects of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary 

and appropriate, including northern 

albacore tuna quota implementation. 

On August 22, 2013 (78 FR 52123), 

NMFS published a notice in the Federal 

Register informing the public of the date 

and locations of public hearings on 

Amendment 7. From August 2013 to 

January 2014, NMFS conducted 11 

public hearings, and consulted with the 

New England Fishery Management 

Council, the Gulf of Mexico 

Management Council, and the South 

Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 

The hearings were held in diverse 

locations in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

coastal states. On August 30, 2013, the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

published a Notice of Availability of the 

draft environmental impact statement 

(DEIS) (78 FR 53754; August 30, 2013). 

The August 21, 2013, Amendment 7 

proposed rule set the end of the public 

comment period as October 23, 2013, 

but given the length and complexity of 

the rule, and to provide additional time 

for consideration of public comments in 

light of the November meeting of 

ICCAT, the end of the comment period 

was extended to December 10, 2013 (78 

FR 57340; September 18, 2013). 

Subsequently, due to the government 

shutdown in October 2013, and NMFS’ 

inability to respond to constituents 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71511 

during that time frame and based on 

requests for an extension due to the 

complexity of the measures covered in 

the DEIS, NMFS again extended the end 

of the public comment period until 

January 10, 2014, to provide additional 

opportunity for informed comment (78 

FR 75327; December 11, 2013). On 

December 26, 2013, NMFS published a 

Federal Register notice announcing a 

public hearing conference call and 

webinar to provide additional 

opportunity for the public from all 

geographic areas to comment (78 FR 

78322). 

The comments received on Draft 

Amendment 7 and its proposed rule, 

and responses to those comments, are 

summarized below in the section 

labeled ‘‘Response to Comments.’’ 

The bluefin tuna fishery is managed 

principally through a quota. Currently, 

NMFS implements and codifies the 

ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota 

through rulemaking, annually or biannually depending on the length of the 

relevant ICCAT recommendation. Also 

through rulemaking (the ‘‘quota 

specifications process’’) NMFS annually 

adjusts the U.S. baseline bluefin quota 

to account for any underharvest or 

overharvest of the adjusted U.S. quota 

from the prior year; specifies subquotas 

that result from application of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP allocations; and 

adjusts subquotas as appropriate 

following consideration of domestic 

management needs. NMFS must 

account not only for landings but for 

bluefin tuna discarded dead. NMFS 

estimates and accounts for dead 

discards in the pelagic longline fishery, 

which cannot target bluefin tuna but 

catches them while targeting swordfish 

and other tunas. 

National Standard 1 requires that 

‘‘conservation and management 

measures shall prevent overfishing 

while achieving, on a continuing basis, 

the optimum yield from each fishery for 

the United States fishing industry.’’ The 

Magnuson-Stevens Act defines 

‘‘optimum yield’’ as the amount of fish 

that, among other things, provides for 

rebuilding to a level consistent with 

producing the maximum sustainable 

yield from the fishery. In ATCA, 

Congress also directed NMFS to manage 

the bluefin fishery to ensure that NMFS 

provides U.S. fishing vessels ‘‘with a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest such 

allocation, quota, or at such fishing 

mortality level. . . .’’ This rule builds 

upon an extensive regulatory framework 

for management of the domestic bluefin 

fishery pursuant to the 20-year 

rebuilding program adopted in the 1999 

FMP and continued under the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP. As described 

below, the final rule measures were 

designed to allow fishery participants to 

fully harvest, but not exceed, the U.S. 

bluefin quota by refining the existing 

management tools. NMFS is 

implementing a detailed, multi-level 

approach to resolving challenges in 

administering and carrying out the 

current quota system, which, if left 

unaddressed, may otherwise result in 

overharvests of the U.S. quota in the 

future. These final rule measures 

directly support the goals of reducing 

overfishing, rebuilding the western 

bluefin stock, and achieving optimum 

yield by ensuring that the fishery 

continues to be managed within the 

ICCAT-approved TAC, and consistent 

with National Standard 1’s 

requirements. 

Northern Albacore Tuna 

Amendment 7 also includes measures 

for management of north Atlantic 

albacore (or ‘‘northern albacore’’) tuna. 

Since 1998, ICCAT has adopted 

recommendations regarding the 

northern albacore tuna fishery. A multiyear management measure for northern 

albacore tuna was first adopted in 2003, 

setting the TAC at 34,500 mt. ICCAT’s 

Standing Committee on Research and 

Statistics (SCRS) assessed the northern 

albacore tuna stock in 2009 and 

concluded that the stock continues to be 

overfished with overfishing occurring, 

recommending a level of catch of no 

more than 28,000 mt to meet ICCAT 

management objectives by 2020. In 

response, in 2009 ICCAT established a 

North Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding 

program via Recommendation 09–05, 

setting a 28,000mt TAC and including 

several provisions to limit catches by 

individual ICCAT parties (for major and 

minor harvesters) and reduce the 

amount of unharvested quota that could 

be carried forward from one year to the 

next, from 50 percent to 25 percent of 

a party’s initial catch quota. The 2009 

recommendation expired in 2011. 

In 2011, ICCAT Recommendation 11– 

04 again set a TAC of 28,000 mt for 2012 

and for 2013 and contained specific 

recommendations regarding the North 

Atlantic albacore tuna rebuilding 

program, including an annual TAC for 

2012 and 2013 allocated among the 

European Union, Chinese Taipei, the 

United States, and Venezuela. The U.S. 

quota for 2012 and 2013 is 527 mt. The 

recommendation limits Japanese 

northern albacore tuna catches to 4 

percent in weight of its total Atlantic 

bigeye tuna longline catch, and limits 

the catches of other ICCAT parties to 

200 mt. The recommendation also 

specifies that quota adjustments for a 

given year’s underharvest or overharvest 

may be made for either 2 or 3 years from 

the subject year (i.e., adjustments based 

on 2013 catches would be made in 

either 2015 or 2016). Pursuant to ATCA 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in this 

final rule NMFS implements the ICCATrecommended U.S. quota and 

establishes provisions to adjust the base 

quota for over or underharvests via 

annual quota specifications. 

Implemented Measures 

The rule finalizes most of the 

management measures that were 

contained in the proposed rule for 

Amendment 7 as they were proposed, 

with several exceptions. This section 

provides a summary of the final 

management measures being 

implemented by Amendment 7 and 

notes certain changes from the proposed 

rule to this final rule that may be of 

particular interest to the regulated 

community. These include changes to 

the basis for annual purse seine quota 

availability, changes to two Gear 

Restricted Areas (GRAs), changes to the 

range of years used in the performance 

metrics and BFT quota allocations 

formula, changes to VMS requirements, 

and changed to effective dates. 

Measures that are different from the 

proposed rule, or measures that were 

proposed but not implemented, are 

described in detail in the section titled, 

‘‘Changes from the Proposed Rule.’’ 

1. Quota Reallocation 

Codified Quota Reallocation 

The Longline category’s percentage of 

the baseline U.S. bluefin tuna quota 

remains at 8.1 percent, but each year the 

Longline category quota will be 

increased by a net amount of 62.5 mt 

based on deductions from the other 

quota categories, to more fully and 

predictably account for Longline 

category incidental bluefin catch, 

including both dead discards and 

landings. This measure does not modify 

the previously-codified category quota 

allocation percentages. Rather, NMFS 

will calculate the bluefin quota for each 

of the quota categories through the 

following process: First, 68 mt will be 

subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. 

BFT quota for reallocation to the 

Longline category quota. All quota 

categories will be reduced consistent 

with the allocation percentages codified 

at 50 CFR 635.27. Second, the remaining 

quota will be divided among the 

categories according to those allocation 

percentages. Third, the 68 mt derived in 

Step One from all categories, including 

the Longline category, will be added to 

the Longline category quota. The net 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

amount of quota increase for the 

Longline category will be 62.5 mt. 

Thus, 32.0 mt will be deducted from 

the General category (i.e., 47.1 percent 

of 68 mt), 2.7 mt from the Harpoon 

category (3.9 percent), 12.6 mt from the 

Purse Seine category (18.6 percent), 5.5 

mt from the Longline category (8.1 

percent), 13.4 mt from the Angling 

category (19.7 percent), and 1.7 mt from 

the Reserve category (2.5 percent). This 

equals 68 mt, which will be added to 

the Longline category, resulting in a net 

increase to the Longline category of 62.5 

mt (68 mt minus the Longline category’s 

contribution of 5.5 mt). If, for example, 

the baseline annual U.S. quota is 923.7 

mt in a given year, then 403.0 mt would 

be allocated to the General category (i.e., 

47.1 percent of 855.7 mt), 33.4 mt to the 

Harpoon category (3.9 percent), 159.1 

mt to the Purse Seine category (18.6 

percent), 137.3 mt for the Longline 

category (8.1 percent plus the 62.5 mt), 

168.6 mt for the Angling category (19.7 

percent), and 21.4 mt for the Reserve 

category (2.5 percent) 

This measure provides additional 

quota to the Longline category to 

facilitate the ability to account for both 

landings and dead discards within the 

Longline category quota, consistent with 

the historical separate dead discard 

allocation, yet limits the amount of 

reallocation to the Longline category if 

the total U.S. quota increases. For more 

information on the historical dead 

discard allocation and the associated 

rationale for the 68 mt augmentation of 

the Longline category, see the Codified 

Reallocation section (2.1.2) of the FEIS. 

Annual Quota Reallocation 

NMFS will annually adjust the Purse 

Seine quota, using a formula based on 

the weights of reported landings and 

estimated weights of dead discards 

(calculated from reported lengths) by 

purse seine fishery participants in the 

previous year. Twenty-five percent of 

each Purse Seine category participant’s 

base quota will be available as a 

minimum to each Purse Seine fishery 

participant annually. Beyond that 

amount, quota will be available to such 

participants based on the fishery 

participant’s catch in the previous year. 

Any quota not allocated to the Purse 

Seine category participants will be 

allocated to the Reserve category for 

possible redistribution consistent with 

specified regulatory criteria to other 

quota categories, and to support other 

objectives of the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP. By moving portions of the 

unused Purse Seine quota to the Reserve 

category annually, this measure will 

give NMFS more flexibility in 

administering the quota system. 

Based on public comment, this 

measure was modified from the 

proposed rule so that the annual 

formula for quota availability is based 

on the previous year’s individual purse 

seine participant’s catch, rather than 

based on the catch of the Purse Seine 

category as a whole. This modification 

ties quota allocation more closely to the 

individual participants catch and 

creates incentive for fishery participants 

to remain active in the fishery. Without 

this modification, individual allocations 

would be tied to the catch of the other 

vessels in the fishery, which could have 

unfair results if catch were to vary 

greatly among the vessels. For example, 

in a year where overall category catch 

were low, an individual purse seine 

participant could have a relatively low 

amount of quota available for use, even 

if that participant landed a substantial 

portion of its allocation during the 

previous year. 

Annually, NMFS will make a 

determination regarding the quota 

available for each purse seine 

participant for the year, based on the 

bluefin catch by such participants in the 

previous year. Purse Seine participants 

will have available for use either 100 

percent, 75 percent, 50 percent, or 25 

percent of their base quota, according 

the following allocation criteria: If the 

individual catch is between 0 and 20 

percent of the individual base quota in 

year one, the Purse Seine fishery 

participant will have available for use 

25 percent of their base quota in year 

two, and 75 percent of their quota will 

be available to the Reserve Category for 

that year. If the individual catch is 

greater than 20 percent and up to 45 

percent of their individual base quota in 

year one, the Purse Seine fishery 

participant will be allocated 50 percent 

of their quota in year two, and 50 

percent of their quota will be available 

to the Reserve Category for that year. If 

the individual catch is greater than 45 

percent and up to 70 percent of their 

base quota in year one, the Purse Seine 

fishery participant will have available 

for use 75 percent of their individual 

base quota in year two, and 25 percent 

of their quota will be available to the 

Reserve Category for that year. If the 

individual catch is greater than 70 

percent of their base quota in year one, 

the Purse Seine fishery participant will 

have available for use 100 percent of 

their baseline quota in year two, and no 

quota will be available to the Reserve 

Category for that year. These thresholds 

(>20 percent, >45 percent, >70 percent) 

will apply following the same pattern in 

years beyond year two, with each year’s 

quota reflecting the previous year’s 

catch. In summary, if Purse Seine 

fishery participants catch a large portion 

of their individual allocated base quota 

in one year, they have available for use 

a large portion of their base quota in the 

next year. If a Purse Seine fishery 

participant’s catch is low in one year, a 

larger portion of their Purse Seine base 

quota becomes available for other 

management purposes. The Purse Seine 

quota available would not be ‘‘lockedin’’ at a low level because the criteria 

are structured to enable increased 

utilization of available quota. For 

example, if the catch in year one is 

between 0 and 20 percent of their 

individual year one baseline Purse 

Seine quota, the Purse Seine fishery 

participant would have available for use 

25 percent of their individual baseline 

quota in year two. If, in year two, the 

individual catch is greater than 20 

percent of their individual baseline 

quota, but still within their individual 

annual allocation (i.e., catch is between 

20 percent and 25percent), the Purse 

Seine fishery participant would have 

available for use 50% of their individual 

baseline quota in year three. The Purse 

Seine participants catch levels and 

allocation levels have been staggered to 

allow for an increase in allocation in the 

following year, without causing the 

Purse Seine fishery participant to 

exceed the current year’s allocation to 

do so. 

This measure balances the need to 

provide the Purse Seine category 

participants a reasonable amount of 

fishing opportunity in a predictable 

manner, while making use of quota that 

may otherwise be unused. As described 

under ‘‘Modifications to the Reserve 

Category,’’ quota that is available to the 

Reserve Category may be utilized in a 

variety of ways to meet multiple 

objectives. NMFS will annually 

calculate the Purse Seine catch for that 

year and publish a notice in the Federal 

Register regarding the amount of quota 

that would be allocated to the Purse 

Seine fishery participants, as well as the 

corresponding amount allocated to the 

Reserve category and any disposition of 

the quota from the Reserve category for 

the subsequent year made at that time. 

After the initial adjustment, NMFS may 

make additional modifications to the 

Purse Seine quota inseason in 

accordance with the criteria for inseason 

adjustments specified at § 635.27(a), or 

make subsequent use of quota from the 

Reserve category. 

Modifications to the Reserve Category 

This measure gives NMFS 

management flexibility by augmenting 

the amount of quota in the Reserve 

category under certain circumstances 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71513 

and adds new criteria to the list of 

determination criteria NMFS considers 

in redistributing quota to or from the 

Reserve category, to be responsive to the 

current conditions in the fisheries and 

facilitate adaptation to future changes in 

the fisheries. The potential sources of 

quota for the Reserve category on top of 

its baseline allocation of 2.5 percent are: 

(1) Available underharvest of the U.S. 

quota that is allowed to be carried 

forward; and (2) unused Purse Seine 

quota, under the Annual Quota 

Reallocation measure described above. 

For example, under the Annual Quota 

Reallocation, NMFS will annually 

adjust the purse seine quota, using a 

formula based on the weights of 

reported landings and estimated weights 

of dead discards (calculated from 

reported lengths) by each Purse Seine 

fishery participants in the previous year. 

Any remaining amount of Purse Seine 

quota will then be reallocated to the 

Reserve category for that subsequent 

year. NMFS could utilize quota from the 

Reserve category inseason after 

considering defined criteria and 

objectives. NMFS adds five criteria to 

the existing nine criteria to consider 

when making inseason or annual quota 

adjustments. The five new criteria, 

added to § 635.27(a)(8)(1)–(9) are: (10) 

Optimize fishing opportunity; (11) 

account for dead discards; (12) facilitate 

quota accounting; (13) support other 

fishing monitoring programs through 

quota allocations and/or generation of 

revenue; and (14) support research 

through quota allocations andr 

generation of revenue. 

These modifications to the Reserve 

category will increase management 

flexibility in administering the quota 

system in a way that takes into account 

fluctuations in the characteristics of the 

fishery. 

2. Gear Restricted Areas 

Modified Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted 

Area, With Conditional Access 

This final rule establishes a GRA off 

Cape Hatteras, NC, and limits access to 

this area for vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear during the 5-month period 

from December through April. The 

shape of the GRA has been modified 

from the proposed rule to remove the 

southeastern corner of the defined 

geographic area. This change was to 

avoid unintended effects on fishing 

outside the closed area that would have 

occurred if the action were 

implemented as proposed because it did 

not account for the effect of the 

prevailing currents on how pelagic 

longline gear drifts in that area. 

Under this management measure, 

NMFS annually will grant qualified 

vessels conditional access to this GRA 

to fish with pelagic longline gear. 

Access will be granted based on a 

formula consisting of the following 

metrics: Ratio of bluefin tuna 

interactions to designated species catch, 

compliance with the Pelagic Observer 

Program requirements, and compliance 

with HMS logbook reporting 

requirements. Vessels will not qualify to 

fish in the area with pelagic longline 

gear if they have not demonstrated their 

ability to avoid bluefin tuna and/or 

comply with reporting and monitoring 

(observer) requirements. Non-qualifying 

vessels will be allowed to use other gear 

types to fish for non-bluefin HMS 

species authorized for use by pelagic 

longline vessels, such as buoy gear, 

green-stick gear, or rod and reel, in the 

area during the months of the restriction 

(December through April), but they may 

not fish with pelagic longline gear in 

during those months. Although 

originally proposed in the Proposed 

Rule, the final rule does not allow nonqualifying vessels access to the GRA to 

fish under the General category 

regulations and target bluefin (discussed 

further in the Comments and 

Responses). The principal objective of 

conditional access to the GRA is to 

balance the objective of reducing dead 

discards with the objective of providing 

reasonable fishing opportunity. The 

second objective is to provide strong 

incentives to modify fishing behavior to 

avoid bluefin tuna and reduce dead 

discards, as well as improve compliance 

with the logbook reporting and observer 

requirements. This regulatory approach 

is based on the fact that, historically, 

relatively few vessels have consistently 

been responsible for the majority of the 

bluefin tuna dead discards within the 

Longline category. Conditioning access 

on compliance with reporting and 

monitoring requirements reflects the 

critical importance of fishery data to the 

successful management of the fisheries. 

The initial evaluation of performance 

metrics will be based upon data from 

2006 through 2012, and subsequent 

‘‘performance scores’’ will be based 

upon the most recent complete threeconsecutive-year period for which data 

are available. In a situation where an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit has 

been transferred from one vessel to 

another, or there has been an ownership 

change of a permitted vessel, the 

relevant vessel fishing history used for 

the calculation of the performance score 

regarding access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA remains with the vessel. As further 

explained in the Response to Comments 

below (Comment 26), NMFS modified 

the relevant historical time period from 

the proposed rule (which was 2006– 

2011). Atlantic Tuna Longline permit 

holders will be notified annually of the 

status of their relevant vessel, and only 

aggregated information regarding the 

vessel status will be made public. 

Atlantic Tuna Longline permit holders 

will be able to appeal their relevant 

vessel performance scores to NMFS by 

submitting a written request to appeal, 

indicating the reason for the appeal and 

providing supporting documentation for 

the appeal (e.g., copies of landings 

records and/or permit ownership, 

Pelagic Observer Program information, 

logbook data, etc.). NMFS will evaluate 

the appeal based upon the following 

criteria: (1) The accuracy of NMFS 

records regarding the relevant 

information; and (2) correct assignment 

of historical data to the vessel owner/

permit holder. Such permit holders may 

also appeal on the basis of changes in 

vessel ownership or permit transfers. 

Appeals based on hardship factors will 

not be considered. See below for more 

information on appeals. 

NMFS will have the authority to 

terminate access for all pelagic longline 

vessels or individual pelagic longline 

vessels to the GRA via inseason action 

to address issues including: (1) Failure 

to achieve or effectively balance the 

objective of reducing dead discards with 

the objective of providing fishing 

opportunity; (2) bycatch of bluefin tuna 

or other HMS species that may be 

inconsistent with the objectives or 

regulations or the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, or ICCAT recommendations; 

or (3) bycatch of marine mammals or 

protected species that is inconsistent 

with the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), Pelagic Longline Take 

Reduction Plan (PLTRP), or the 2004 

Biological Opinion (BiOP). 

The performance metric formula will 

enable qualified vessels to continue to 

fish in the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, 

yet will substantially reduce bluefin 

tuna dead discards by precluding 

fishing in the GRA by those with a 

history of high bluefin tuna interaction 

in relation to other designated species 

catch. In order to characterize vessel 

performance in a manner that is fair, 

consistent, and feasible to administer, 

the performance metric formula is based 

on relatively simple, objective, and 

quantifiable information. For each of the 

three performance metrics, a vessel will 

be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 

reflecting better performance. Vessels 

with a ratio of bluefin tuna interactions 

to designated species catch of 1 will not 

be allowed to fish in the Modified Cape 

Hatteras GRA using pelagic longline 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

gear. If a vessel’s Pelagic Observer 

Program Compliance score is 2 or less, 

that vessel will not be allowed to access 

the area and fish with pelagic longline 

gear, unless the vessel’s logbook 

compliance score is 4 or 5. 

The performance metric formula will 

reflect bluefin tuna interactions as 

measured by the ratio of the number of 

bluefin tuna interactions (landings, dead 

discards, and live discards, in number 

of fish) to the weight of designated 

species landings (in pounds). These 

designated species will consist of the 

more common marketable catch 

harvested by pelagic longline vessels: 

Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, 

and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and 

porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher 

sharks. The use of a ratio incorporating 

both designated species landings and 

bluefin tuna interactions provides a 

metric that is intended to eliminate bias 

resulting from the differences among 

vessels in size or fishing effort. 

The Pelagic Observer Program metric 

reflects compliance with requirements 

regarding communications, and other 

aspects of observer deployment. The 

scoring system is designed to be neutral 

with respect to valid reasons that a 

vessel was selected by the observer 

program but did not take an observer, 

and designed to weigh trips that were 

not observed due to noncompliance 

with the communication requirements 

more heavily than those that were not 

observed due to noncompliance with 

the safety and accommodation 

requirements. The logbook reporting 

metric reflects compliance with the 

requirement that the vessel owner/

operator must submit the logbook forms 

postmarked within 7 days of offloading 

the catch, and, if no fishing occurred 

during a month, must submit a nofishing form postmarked no later than 7 

days after the end of that month. 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline 

Gear Restricted Areas 

This final rule establishes two GRAs 

in the Gulf of Mexico and limits access 

to these areas for vessels fishing with 

pelagic longline gear during the 2- 

month period from April through May 

to reduce dead discards and protect 

bluefin tuna on their spawning grounds, 

while maintaining fishing opportunities 

for pelagic longline vessels as 

appropriate. As described in the 

Response to Comments below 

(Comments 52 and 53), the size and 

location of the geographic area of the 

GRA has been modified from the 

proposed rule to take into account the 

best available information about the 

location of bluefin interactions 

(eastward trend), the high variability of 

bluefin tuna distribution, the economic 

importance of the fishery, and other 

factors. 

Other gear types authorized for use by 

pelagic longline vessels such as buoy 

gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel are 

allowed in these areas, provided the 

vessel abides by any rules/regulations 

that apply to those gear types 

Transiting Closed Areas 

This final rule allows vessels with an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, 

Swordfish Incidental or Directed 

Limited Access permit, or a Shark 

Limited Access permit fishing with 

bottom or pelagic longline gear to transit 

areas that are closed or restricted to 

such gear, if they remove and stow the 

gangions, hooks, and buoys from the 

mainline and drum. No baited hooks are 

allowed. The specific closed and 

restricted areas to which this transiting 

provision applies include those 

established by this rule (Spring Gulf of 

Mexico GRAs and Modified Cape 

Hatteras GRA), as well as the following 

pelagic longline closed areas in effect: 

Northeastern U.S. Closure, Northeast 

Distant Restricted Fishing Area, 

Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast 

Closed Area, and DeSoto Canyon Closed 

Area. This measure will allow vessels to 

transit the following bottom longline 

closed areas in effect: Mid-Atlantic 

Shark, Snowy Grouper Wreck, Northern 

South Carolina, Edisto, Charleston Deep 

Artificial Reef, Georgia, North Florida, 

St Lucie Hump, East Hump, MadisonSwanson, Steamboat Lumps, and Edges 

40 Fathom Contour. 

This regulatory provision reduces 

travel costs by allowing more direct 

routes of travel, and addresses the 

safety-at-sea concern associated with the 

requirement to steam around restricted 

areas. 

3. Quota Controls 

NMFS Closure of the Pelagic Longline 

Fishery 

Under measures adopted in the final 

rule, the pelagic longline fishery will 

close (i.e., use of pelagic longline gear is 

prohibited) when the total Longline 

category quota is reached, projected to 

be reached or exceeded, or when there 

is high uncertainty regarding the 

estimated or documented levels of 

bluefin tuna catch. These closures will 

help prevent overharvest of the Longline 

category quota and prevent further 

discards of bluefin tuna. When NMFS 

projects that the quota will be reached, 

it will file a closure action with the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. Vessels will be required to 

offload all bluefin tuna prior to the 

closure date/time. Criteria NMFS will 

consider include those listed under 

§ 635.27(a)(8) as well as: Total estimated 

bluefin tuna catch (landings and dead 

discards) in relation to the quota; 

estimated amount by which the bluefin 

tuna quota might be exceeded; 

usefulness of data relevant to 

monitoring the quota; uncertainty in the 

documented or estimated dead discards 

or landings of bluefin tuna; amount of 

bluefin tuna landings or dead discards 

within a short time; effects of continued 

fishing on bluefin tuna rebuilding and 

overfishing; provision of reasonable 

opportunity for pelagic longline vessels 

to pursue the target species; variations 

in seasonal distribution, abundance or 

migration patterns of bluefin tuna; and 

other relevant factors. NMFS will use 

the best available data to calculate the 

most recent, complete, and available 

estimate of dead discards on a fisherywide basis consistent with current 

regulations. Best available data may 

include, among other things, vesselbased reports, electronic monitoring 

data, and observer data, as appropriate. 

Individual Bluefin Quotas (IBQs) 

This final rule implements an IBQ 

management system, which is 

summarized and then described in 

further detail below. 

Summary of the IBQ Program 

NMFS is implementing an IBQ 

Program pursuant to section 303A of the 

MSA, which authorizes development of 

limited access privilege programs 

(LAPP). A LAPP creates permits, which 

are issued for a period of not more than 

10 years, to harvest a quantity of fish 

expressed by a unit(s) representing a 

portion of the total allowable catch that 

may be received or held for exclusive 

use by a person. Section 303A(c), 16 

U.S.C. 1853a, identifies the 

requirements for such a program (note 

that the referendum requirements of 

section 303A(c)(6)(D) are inapplicable to 

this program for the Atlantic HMS 

fisheries). This final rule implements 

IBQs for vessels permitted in the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

(provided they also hold necessary 

limited access swordfish and shark 

permits). Specifically, the IBQ Program 

requires vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear to account for bluefin tuna 

landings and dead discards using IBQ 

allocation (obtained through shares or 

leases of allocation), and prohibits the 

use of pelagic longline gear when the 

vessel’s IBQ allocation has been caught. 

An IBQ share is a percentage of the total 

available Longline quota. Thus, if the 

total available Longline quota is 

modified as a result of an ICCAT 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71515 

recommendation and the Longline quota 

is changed as a result, the share (specific 

percentage) associated with an eligible 

permit would not change, but would 

result in a modified amount of IBQ 

allocation (mt or equivalent pounds). 

The Northeast Distant Area (NED) is 

a distinctly managed geographic area 

due to the specification of a separate 

ICCAT quota relative to the rest of the 

pelagic longline fishery and is not 

managed under the full IBQ Program 

restrictions. However, there are 

provisions of the IBQ Program that will 

apply to vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear in the NED. For example, 

vessels will be required to have the 

minimum IBQ allocation to operate in 

the NED starting in 2016 and when NED 

bluefin quota has been exhausted, 

permitted vessels must abide by all the 

requirements of the IBQ Program. 

The IBQ Program is a suite of 

management measures intended to work 

together. An IBQ share is the percentage 

of the Longline category quota that is 

associated with an eligible vessel, based 

upon the IBQ share formula and the 

relevant vessel history, and an IBQ 

allocation is the amount (mt) of bluefin 

tuna quota that is distributed to a 

permitted vessel, based upon the 

relevant IBQ share, and the annual 

Longline category quota. Eligible pelagic 

longline vessels will receive one of three 

IBQ share percentages (1.2%, 0.6%, or 

0.37%), which must be used by 

individual vessels to account for all 

their bluefin tuna landings and dead 

discards. Shares and allocations are 

designated as either Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM) or Atlantic (ATL). Vessels are 

prohibited from using Atlantic 

allocation to account for bluefin tuna 

catch in the Gulf of Mexico, thereby 

limiting potential shifts in effort. 

Specifically, a vessel with bluefin catch 

in the Gulf of Mexico may not use 

Atlantic allocation to account for such 

catch. However, vessels may use Gulf of 

Mexico allocation to account for bluefin 

catch in both the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic. Allocations may be leased 

annually by Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit holders or Purse Seine 

category participants, and a minimum 

amount of allocation is required for a 

pelagic longline vessel to depart on a 

trip in the Atlantic (0.125 mt) using 

pelagic longline gear. A higher 

minimum amount of quota (allocation) 

is required for a pelagic longline vessel 

to depart on a fishing trip in the Gulf of 

Mexico (0.25 mt). A pelagic longline 

vessel may not use Atlantic allocation to 

satisfy the minimum share requirement 

for a fishing trip in the Gulf of Mexico. 

If a vessel retains legal sized bluefin 

tuna in excess of its allocation (‘‘quota 

debt’’), it may land the fish, but must 

lease additional IBQ allocation from 

another vessel to account for the excess 

catch, and is not allowed to fish with 

pelagic longline gear until the quota 

debt is balanced in the system (is 

accounted for) and the minimum 

allocation required for a vessel to depart 

on a trip is acquired. A vessel’s IBQ 

allocation cannot carry-over from one 

year to the next, but if a vessel is unable 

to satisfy its quota ‘debt’ in a particular 

fishing year, quota will be deducted 

from the vessel’s allocation during the 

subsequent year. 

Although temporary leasing of IBQ 

allocation can occur, no permanent sale 

of IBQ shares is allowed at this time, to 

reduce risks for permit holders during 

the initial stages of the IBQ Program, 

when the market for bluefin tuna quota 

shares is new and uncertain. Measures 

to allow permanent sale of bluefin tuna 

quota shares may be implemented in the 

future through separate proposed and 

final rulemaking. This will allow time 

for IBQ fishermen to familiarize 

themselves with the IBQ Program and 

market for bluefin tuna shares. 

As described in more detail below, 

NMFS is implementing an internetbased system to track bluefin tuna catch 

(pelagic longline and purse seine), and 

the use and leases of IBQ allocation. 

VMS must be used by vessel operators 

to report bluefin tuna catches to 

increase the timeliness of dead discard 

data; and electronic monitoring 

(cameras and associated equipment) are 

required on pelagic longline vessels as 

one element of the monitoring program. 

The IBQ Program will be evaluated 

after 3 years, and NMFS will implement 

a cost recovery program through 

separate rulemaking. 

What vessels are eligible to receive 

initial bluefin tuna quota shares? 

Vessels must meet two requirements 

to be eligible to receive IBQ shares: 

(1) Vessels must have a valid Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit; and (2) 

vessel must be deemed to be ‘‘active’’. 

Vessels that made at least one set using 

pelagic longline gear between 2006 and 

2012 (based on pelagic longline logbook 

data) are defined as ‘‘active’’ This date 

range includes 2012, and therefore is 

one year longer than that proposed to 

ensure that recent participants in the 

fishery are defined as ‘‘active.’’ For the 

purpose of IBQ share eligibility, a ‘‘valid 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit’’ is one held as of the date the 

proposed rule was published, which 

was August 21, 2013. 

Vessels with valid Atlantic Tunas 

Longline permits that do not meet the 

initial eligibility criteria may lease 

bluefin tuna IBQ allocation from IBQ 

allocation holders. Permits that are not 

associated with a vessel, such as a 

permit characterized as ‘‘No Vessel ID,’’ 

are not eligible for an initial IBQ share 

but would be eligible to receive IBQ 

allocation (through a lease) if and when 

the permit is reassociated with a vessel. 

Such a vessel would be required to lease 

IBQ allocation before fishing with 

pelagic longline gear. New entrants to 

the fishery must either obtain an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit with 

associated quota share, or if the valid 

permit did not have quota share, obtain 

bluefin tuna quota through lease/sale to 

fish. 

How much bluefin tuna quota does 

each eligible vessel get? 

A vessel’s IBQ share of the Longline 

quota is based upon two elements: The 

amount of bluefin tuna caught between 

2006 and 2012, and the amount of 

designated species landings (i.e., 

swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, 

and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and 

porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher 

sharks). As discussed below in the 

‘‘Response to Comments’’ (Comment 

76), this date range includes 2012, and 

therefore is one year longer than that 

proposed to consider the most recent 

fishing activity of vessels, and to be 

inclusive regarding the important 

elements. More specifically, the two 

factors that are the basis of the 

allocation formula are: (1) Historical 

bluefin tuna catch (from vessel logbook 

data) expressed as ratio of the number 

of bluefin tuna interactions to 

‘designated species’ landings; and (2) 

‘designated species’ landings (from the 

NMFS dealer data (weigh-out slips) and 

logbook information). The use of these 

two factors in the quota share allocation 

formula is intended to acknowledge past 

bluefin tuna avoidance, ensure a fair 

initial allocation, and consider the 

diversity in vessel fishing patterns and 

harvest characteristics. Past fishing that 

resulted in fewer bluefin tuna 

interactions will result in larger IBQ 

shares of bluefin tuna. Landings of 

designated species are an indicator of 

both the level of fishing effort and 

activity as well as vessel success at 

targeting those species and minimizing 

bluefin bycatch interactions. This 

method incorporates the rate of 

historical bluefin tuna interactions but 

also includes the amount of designated 

species landings, recognizing that 

greater levels of fishing activity are 

likely to be correlated with a greater 

number of bluefin tuna interactions. 

The specific IBQ allocation formula is 

as follows: Because the bluefin tuna 

interactions to designated species 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

landings ratio is very small, designated 

species landings were multiplied by 

10,000 in order to derive a ratio that is 

more practical (i.e., 0.95 instead of 

0.000095). In order to combine the two 

metrics, scores were assigned to each 

metric (the bluefin tuna catch to 

designated species landings ratio and 

historical designated species landings) 

as described below. Active vessels were 

sorted into three categories, using total 

designated species landings from 2006 

through 2011, based on percentiles of 

landings from lowest to highest (low, 

medium, and high, 0 to <33 percent; 33 

to <66 percent and 66 to 100 percent, 

respectively). Similarly, the active 

vessels were sorted according to the 

ratio of bluefin interactions to HMS 

landings, from lowest to highest. For 

example, a vessel with a 2006–2011 

weight of designated species landings of 

greater than or equal to 367,609 lb (the 

66 to 100th percentile of landings) 

would be placed in the ‘‘High’’ category 

and assigned a score of 3 (the highest 

score). In contrast, a vessel with a total 

designated species landing of only 

95,000 pounds for 2006 through 2011 

would receive a designated species 

landings score of 1. A vessel with a 

bluefin to designated species landings 

ratio of less than 0.2884 (66 to 100th 

percentile of bluefin to designated 

species landings ratios), would place in 

the top category and receive a bluefin to 

designated species landings ratio score 

of 3. A low ratio indicates relatively few 

bluefin interactions and therefore 

receives a high score. 

Finally, the two scores were 

combined to form the basis of the 

allocation. For each vessel, the score for 

designated species landings was added 

to the score for bluefin to designated 

species ratio. For example, if a vessel 

scored in the ‘‘High’’ category for both 

designated species landings and bluefin 

to designated species landings its 

combined score would be 6 (3 + 3). If 

a vessel scored High for bluefin ratio, 

but Low for designated landings, it 

would be scored a 4 (1 + 3) and it would 

be placed in the Medium rating score 

category. Vessels assigned to a 

particular category will be allocated the 

same percentage share. 

Vessels are allocated shares of 1.2%, 

0.6%, or 0.37% of the Longline category 

quota. For 2015 (unless the U.S. quota 

is modified by ICCAT in 2014), based on 

a revised baseline Longline category 

bluefin tuna quota of 137 mt (baseline 

plus 62.5 mt), vessels will be allocated 

1.64 mt, 0.82 mt, or 0.51 mt of bluefin 

tuna, respectively. These specific 

allocations are larger than those 

proposed because the actual number of 

eligible vessels was less than the 

number of eligible vessels analyzed at 

the proposed rule stage. The number of 

eligible vessels determined by the 

proposed rule was higher because the 

proposed rule analysis included permits 

that were not associated with vessels at 

the time of the publication of the 

proposed rule (August 21, 2013), and 

did not reflect both eligibility criteria. 

Allocation among fewer eligible vessels 

increases the allocation amount per 

vessel. The rationale for this measure is 

to implement criteria that reflect 

participation in the fishery. By 

allocating only to ‘‘active’’ vessels, the 

measure will facilitate continued 

participation in the fishery by vessels 

that have made past investments in the 

fishery. Permitted vessels that do not 

meet the initial eligibility criteria 

necessary to receive bluefin quota share 

allocation will still be eligible to obtain 

quota through a lease of IBQ allocation. 

The criteria did not include 2013 or 

2014 because the DEIS and FEIS, 

respectively, were being written, during 

those years, and there were limitations 

on the availability of finalized data. 

Availability of finalized logbook and 

dealer data during 2013 and 2014 was 

limited to 2011 and 2012 data, 

respectively. 

As described below, under ‘‘Appeal of 

Initial IBQ Shares,’’ when NMFS 

determines that all requests for appeal 

have been resolved, NMFS may adjust 

all IBQ shares as necessary to 

accommodate permitted holders that 

have been deemed eligible or provided 

an increased IBQ share through the 

appeals process. 

All bluefin tuna quota allocated to 

Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine participants 

is also designated as ‘‘Atlantic,’’ subject 

to the restriction that it may only be 

used in the Atlantic (by either a Purse 

Seine vessel or via a lease to a pelagic 

longline vessel). 

If a vessel has fishing history in both 

the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, it may 

receive quota shares of both the Gulf of 

Mexico and Atlantic, depending upon 

the amount of quota share and the 

proportion of fishing history in the two 

areas. A relatively small percentage of 

sets in one area will not be reflected in 

the quota share. If a vessel would be 

allocated less than a minimum share 

amount for a particular area (i.e., less 

than 0.125 mt for the Atlantic or less 

than 0.25 mt for the Gulf of Mexico), 

then no allocation will be designated for 

that area and all of the permit holder’s 

share would be designated to the other 

area (Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico). For 

example, if a vessel is eligible for an 

allocation of 0.51 mt, and historically 

landed 10 percent of their catch in the 

Gulf of Mexico, the vessel would receive 

an allocation of 100 percent ‘‘Atlantic’’ 

quota (and none designated as ‘‘Gulf of 

Mexico’’) because 10 percent of 0.51 mt 

(.005 mt) is less than the minimum 

share required to fish in the Gulf of 

Mexico (0.25 mt). Owners of vessels 

with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit will be sent certified 

letters informing them of their IBQ share 

and resultant allocation. In determining 

initial quota share eligibility and 

calculating the initial quota share NMFS 

used data associated with a vessel’s 

history. In the future, the IBQ share will 

be associated with the permit, not the 

vessel. For example, if a permitted 

vessel has IBQ shares, and the owner of 

the permitted vessel decides to sell the 

permit but keep the vessel, the seller of 

the permit (the vessel owner) would no 

longer have any quota share or 

privileges with respect to the IBQ 

Program because IBQ shares would be 

associated with the permit that was 

sold. In contrast, the buyer of the permit 

would receive IBQ shares and allocation 

associated with that permit once the 

permit is associated with a vessel. 

Appeals of Initial IBQ Shares and GRA 

Access Determinations 

This final rule implements a two-step 

appeals process for review of the 

Secretary’s decisions regarding initial 

assignment of IBQ shares. This rule also 

adds an opportunity for HMS 

Management Division to initially review 

a request for a quota share adjustment 

or access to the Cape Hatteras GRA, in 

order to facilitate possible expedited 

resolution of such requests without a 

requestor needing to go through a full 

National Appeals Office process. 

Specifically, the final rule describes an 

initial review step by the HMS 

Management Division through which 

the appellant must first submit a written 

request to appeal their initial IBQ share 

or access the Cape Hatteras GRA prior 

to submitting any appeals to the 

National Appeals Office. It also adds 

administrative details about the process 

(i.e., on acceptable supporting 

documentation, and the specific timing 

of the steps). This modification was 

made in response to public comment 

requesting clarification of the process. 

Although this final rule adds 

administrative details regarding the 

appeals process, the range of criteria 

that permit holders may base an appeal 

on did not change from the proposed to 

the final rule. Additional discussion of 

these changes is in the section of this 

preamble called ‘‘Changes to the 

Proposed Rule.’’ 

Upon publication of this final rule, 

NMFS will notify all permit holders by 

certified letter of their initial IBQ share 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71517 

and resultant allocation and whether 

they have granted access to the Cape 

Hatteras GRA. If permit holders wish to 

appeal their IBQ share determination or 

GRA access determination, they must 

first submit a written request for 

adjustment of their initial IBQ share or 

GRA access determination to the HMS 

Management Division, indicating the 

reason for the requested change and 

providing supporting documentation as 

detailed below. All requests for 

adjustment to initial IBQ shares or GRA 

access determination must be submitted 

to the HMS Management Division 

within 90 days of publication of the 

final rule. HMS Management Division 

staff will evaluate all such requests and 

supporting documentation, then notify 

the appellant by letter signed by the 

HMS Management Division Chief of 

NMFS’ decision to approve or deny the 

request. If the request is approved, then 

NMFS will appropriately adjust the 

appellant’s initial IBQ share and 

resultant allocation and/or grant access 

to the Cape Hatteras GRA. If denied, the 

permit holder may appeal the decision 

to the NMFS National Appeals Office 

within 90 days of receipt of the notice 

of denial by submitting a written 

petition of appeal. Appeals will be 

governed by the regulations and policy 

of the National Appeals Office at 15 CFR 

part 906. National Appeals Office 

regulations detail the procedure for 

appealing the quota share decision (See 

§ 906.3). 

The decisions subject to a request for 

appeal are: (1) Initial eligibility for IBQ 

shares based on ownership of an active 

vessel (as defined by this rule under 

§ 635.15) with a valid Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit combined 

with the shark and swordfish limited 

access permits required under the 

current permit regulations; (2) the 

accuracy of NMFS records regarding a 

vessel’s amount of designated species 

landings and/or bluefin interactions; 

and (3) correct assignment of target 

species landings and bluefin 

interactions to the vessel owner/permit 

holder. As discussed under the IBQ 

measures above, the IBQ share formula 

is based upon historical data associated 

with a permitted vessel. Because vessels 

may have changed ownership, or 

permits may have been transferred 

during 2006 through 2012, the current 

owner of a permitted vessel may also 

appeal on the basis of historical changes 

in vessel ownership or permit transfers, 

if current owner believes that the data 

used in the analysis were not accurate 

because of such changes. NMFS will 

consider only written requests for 

appeals. When permit holders are 

informed of their initial IBQ shares and 

resultant allocations and/or access 

determination, they will be provided 

instructions regarding the process to 

appeal that decision. Landings 

eligibility criteria require evidence of 

documented legal landings during the 

timeframe from January 1, 2006, through 

December 31, 2012. Public comment on 

the DEIS and proposed rule reflected a 

need to clarify aspects of the appeals 

process. Thus, NMFS is clarifying in 

this final rule that, regarding what will 

be considered ‘‘documented legal 

landings,’’ NMFS will consider official 

NMFS logbook records or weighout 

slips for landings between January 1, 

2006, through December 31, 2012, that 

were submitted to NMFS prior to March 

2, 2013 (60 days after the cutoff date for 

eligible landings), and verifiable sales 

slips, receipts from registered dealers, 

state landings records, and permit 

records as accompanying 

documentation of an appeal. Landings 

data are required to be submitted within 

7 days of landing under the applicable 

regulations. Recognizing that somewhatlate reporting could have occurred for a 

variety of reasons, however, NMFS is 

clarifying that it will consider 

‘‘documented’’ landings for appeals 

purposes to be those reported within 60 

days. NMFS will count only those 

designated species landings that were 

landed legally when the vessel owner 

had a valid permit. Appeals regarding 

bluefin interactions may be based on 

HMS logbook records as described, 

observer data, or other NMFS data. No 

other proof of catch history will be 

considered. NMFS permit records will 

be the sole basis for determining permit 

transfers . Photocopies of the written 

documents are acceptable in the original 

application or appeal; NMFS may 

request the originals at a later date. 

NMFS may refer any submitted 

materials that are of questionable 

authenticity to the NMFS Office of 

Enforcement for investigation. Appeals 

based on hardship factors will not be 

considered. Consistent with most 

limited effort and catch share programs, 

hardship is not a valid basis for appeal 

due to the multitude of potential 

definitions of hardship and the 

difficulty and complexity of 

administering such criteria in a fair 

manner. 

When NMFS determines that all 

requests for IBQ share appeals have 

been resolved, NMFS may adjust all IBQ 

share percentages as appropriate to 

accommodate permitted holders that are 

deemed eligible or that are provided an 

increased IBQ share through the appeals 

process. 

Mandatory Retention of Legal-Sized 

Bluefin Tuna 

Pelagic longline vessels must retain 

all legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna 

that are dead at haul-back. Because 

these fish must be retained, regulatory 

discards and the waste of fish will be 

decreased, and it will be more likely 

that such fish are accurately accounted 

for and have a positive use (e.g., 

marketed, used for scientific 

information, etc.). Bluefin tuna, of all 

size classes, that are live at haul-back 

should be carefully removed from the 

hooks and returned to the ocean to 

ensure survivability. Legal-sized 

commercial bluefin tuna that are alive at 

haul-back may be retained; however 

they will be accounted for under the 

IBQ allocation. 

Fishing Under the IBQ Program 

This section provides a brief example 

of how some of the Amendment 7 

requirements applicable to a vessel 

fishing with pelagic longline gear will 

work together. Additional details 

regarding the VMS and electronic 

monitoring programs are provided 

below in sections of this preamble titled 

‘‘VMS’’: and ‘‘Electronic Monitoring.’’ 

As discussed in the proposed rule, 

IBQ allocation leases would be executed 

by the eligible vessel owners, or their 

representatives, through the internet 

and a NMFS database. Ownerperformed leases will provide the 

quickest execution of leases because any 

eligibility criteria will be verified 

automatically based on information 

loaded into that system, and will not 

involve the submission or review of a 

paper application, or any lag time 

associated with NMFS staff being 

directly involved in the lease approval 

process. The online IBQ System used to 

track and lease bluefin IBQ shares and 

resultant allocations will be operated 

out of NMFS’s Southeast Regional 

Office (SERO). The administrative 

functions associated with this IBQ 

System (e.g., registration and account 

setup, landing and dead discard 

tracking, and leases of allocation) are 

designed to be accomplished online; 

therefore, a participant must have an 

IBQ System account to participate. 

NMFS will provide instructions to IBQ 

participants about the required software, 

how to use the IBQ System to lease IBQ 

allocation and track IBQ use and 

balances, how to perform the necessary 

accounting actions that support 

administration of the program, and how 

to obtain assistance with using the 

system. An eligible permit holder must 

create an IBQ System account online, 

and log into the password protected IBQ 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

System to execute an IBQ allocation 

lease, to check the amount of IBQ in 

their account, or perform other 

functions, according to instructions 

provided by NMFS. Similarly, a dealer 

purchasing bluefin tuna caught from a 

vessel fishing with pelagic longline or 

Purse Seine gear must have an online 

dealer account, computer access, and 

internet access. 

Before they may depart to fish with 

pelagic longline gear vessels must have 

the required minimum IBQ allocation 

and must have balanced any 

outstanding quota debt from previous 

trips, and comply with the VMS and 

electronic monitoring requirements. 

Vessels are required to haul gear and 

handle catch in accordance with the 

electronic monitoring program 

requirements (described below under 

electronic monitoring requirements), 

retain any legal sized dead bluefin, and 

report bluefin catch and information on 

sets through their VMS during the trip 

(described below under VMS 

Requirements). If a vessel retains legalsized bluefin tuna in excess of its IBQ 

allocation, it may land and sell the fish, 

but the permit holder must acquire 

additional IBQ allocation to account for 

the excess catch, and is not allowed to 

fish with, or have onboard, pelagic 

longline gear until the quota debt has 

been resolved. 

At the end of the trip, the permitted 

dealer purchasing the landings must 

enter all bluefin landing information 

from the trip. The vessel owner or 

operator, or their designee, must 

coordinate with the dealer to enter their 

dead discards, into the IBQ System. The 

landing transaction completed by the 

dealer must include the name and 

permit number of the vessel that landed 

the bluefin and any other information 

regarding the landings, as instructed by 

NMFS (such as the shareholder’s 

account number, vessel account 

number, individual tag number, weights 

for landed bluefin tuna, and the number 

of dead discarded bluefin tuna by 

appropriate length bin). The permit 

holder, or designee, must validate the 

landings information and enter the dead 

discard information (such as numbers of 

fish by approximate size) before the 

transaction is processed. If, by the end 

of the fishing year a permit holder does 

not have adequate allocation (obtained 

either through leasing under paragraph 

(c)), or additional allocation under 

paragraph (f) to settle their vessel’s 

quota debt, the vessel’s allocation will 

be reduced in the amount equal to the 

quota debt, in the subsequent year, or 

years, until the quota debt is fully 

accounted for. A vessel may not fish if 

there is outstanding annual quota debt 

from a previous year. For those permit 

holders who own or operate multiple 

vessels with allocation, if, at the end of 

the year, one or more of the vessels has 

an outstanding quota debt, yet the other 

vessels still have allocation, the IBQ 

system will apply any remaining 

unused allocation associated with the 

other vessels to account for the quota 

debt of the other. This system 

functionality has been added since the 

proposed rule because unused 

allocation does not carry over from one 

year to the next, but quota debt does. 

This addition will ease the regulatory 

burden of resolving quota debt, and 

reduces the possibility that a permit 

holder of multiple vessels may 

inadvertently fail to manually resolve an 

existing quota debt with allocation 

associated with one of their other 

vessels at the end of the year and 

otherwise miss the opportunity to 

resolve the debt. 

For example, if a permit holder owns 

two vessels, Vessel A and Vessel B and 

both have IBQ allocations but at the end 

of the year Vessel A has a quota debt of 

.20 mt, and Vessel B has remaining 

unused IBQ allocation of .10 mt, the IBQ 

System would automatically transfer .10 

mt of Vessel B IBQ allocation to Vessel 

A to count toward resolving Vessel A’s 

quota debt. Vessel A would still have a 

quota debt of .10 mt and, when annual 

IBQ allocation occurs at the start of the 

subsequent year, Vessel A’s annual IBQ 

allocation would be reduced by .10 mt 

to account for the previous year’s quota 

debt. 

This final rule clarifies the 

relationship of accrued quota debt and 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

under the IBQ Program. If an Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit holder 

participated in the IBQ Program and has 

a quota debt that remains unresolved at 

the time of such permit’s sale or 

transfer, then that quota debt remains 

associated with the permit. This is 

consistent with the IBQ share remaining 

linked to the eligible permit itself and 

further refines how IBQ shares, resultant 

allocation, and quota debt will be 

managed to ensure accountability under 

the IBQ Program, even if permits are 

sold or transferred. 

To ensure that all IBQ Program 

activity can be accounted for on an 

annual basis, the IBQ System will 

prohibit any and all online transactions, 

such as catch transactions and IBQ 

allocation leases, between December 31 

at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m. 

(Eastern Time). IBQ System functions 

will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the 

following year. No IBQ System 

transactions will be allowed or available 

during this 20 hour time period to 

provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ 

accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the 

upcoming year, etc. If a vessel with the 

required minimal IBQ allocation departs 

on a trip prior to the end of a calendar 

year and returns to port after the start of 

the following year, any bluefin landings 

or dead discards will be counted against 

the new year’s allocation. 

In this final rule, NMFS will maintain 

the authority to ensure that the bluefin 

catch by pelagic longline vessels does 

not exceed the Longline quota. NMFS 

may, under certain circumstances, such 

as high uncertainty regarding the VMS 

reported dead discards, utilize the 

current methodology for generating and 

using estimates of pelagic longline dead 

discards. Prior to this final rule NMFS 

has used previous years’ estimate as 

proxy for anticipated dead discards, and 

subtracted that estimate of dead 

discards ‘‘off the top’’ of the entire 

Longline quota. Although not 

anticipated, NMFS will maintain this 

ability until both methodologies can be 

compared in parallel to verify accuracy. 

The Northeast Distant Area (NED) and 

the IBQ Program 

Under current ICCAT 

recommendations, the NED is a 

distinctly managed geographic area 

managed under a separate quota. 

Because the NED is managed as a 

distinct area with a relatively small 

quota, and managing the NED under the 

IBQ system would add additional 

complexity to the IBQ system, the quota 

associated with the NED (25 mt) is not 

managed under the full IBQ Program 

restrictions. However, there are 

provisions of the IBQ Program that will 

apply to vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear in the NED. For example, 

vessels will be required to have the 

minimum IBQ allocation to operate in 

the NED starting in 2016 and when NED 

bluefin quota has been exhausted, 

permitted vessels must abide by all the 

requirements of the IBQ Program. 

Electronic monitoring systems, installed 

by June 1, 2015, will be required in 

order for vessels to fish with pelagic 

longline gear including in the NED, and 

data from the electronic monitoring 

system may be used to ensure that 

targeting fishing is not occurring. NMFS 

reminds the regulated community that 

the international separate allocation is 

only for bycatch in the NED and of the 

domestic prohibitions against targeting 

bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear. 

NMFS will re-visit this issue if 

necessary if subsequent years’ data 

indicate that additional controls are 

needed. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71519 

Quota Leasing 

This measure allows Longline and 

Purse Seine category vessels to lease 

allocation to or from other vessels in 

these categories (provided they have 

active accounts in the IBQ system), so 

that allocations will become better 

aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that 

catch bluefin tuna may be able to obtain 

quota from those that do not interact 

with bluefin tuna, or that have not used 

their full allocation of bluefin tuna). 

Allocation may be leased annually by 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

holders from other Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit holders or 

from Purse Seine category participants, 

regardless of whether they are eligible 

for their own quota share. Leasing of 

IBQ allocations is allowed among all 

Longline category vessels with valid 

limited access permits, regardless of 

whether they are eligible for their own 

quota share. If a vessel catches bluefin 

tuna using allocation that it has leased 

from another vessel, the fishing history 

associated with the catch of bluefin tuna 

will be associated with the vessel that 

catches the bluefin tuna (the lessee, not 

the lessor vessel). In other words, the 

lessee (vessel catching the fish) gets the 

‘credit’ for the landings and dead 

discards, and not the lessor (the vessel 

that leased the allocation to the catching 

vessel). The future catch of bluefin tuna 

will not affect the quota shares, but will 

affect the calculation of the performance 

metric of each vessel. Sub-leasing of 

quota is allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from 

vessel A to vessel B, then re-leased by 

vessel B to vessel C). For a particular 

calendar year, an individual lease 

transaction will be valid from the time 

of the lease until December 31. 

The initial limit on the amount of 

allocation an individual Longline or 

Purse Seine category participant may 

lease annually will be the combined 

Longline and Purse Seine category 

allocations. This will provide flexibility 

for vessels to purchase quota in a 

manner that can accommodate various 

levels of unintended catch of bluefin 

tuna, and enable the development of an 

unrestricted quota market. 

Annual Individual Bluefin Quota 

Allocation 

Annual allocation of bluefin quota to 

eligible vessels with IBQ shares will 

occur January 1, based on the criteria 

described above (‘‘What Vessels Are 

Eligible to Receive Initial Bluefin Tuna 

Quota Shares?’’ and ‘‘How Much 

Bluefin Tuna Quota Does Each Eligible 

Vessel Get?’’). For vessels that are not 

eligible as of December 31 because they 

have begun—but not completed—the 

process of permit renewal or permit 

transfer, IBQ allocations will be made 

when the eligible permit holder 

completes the permit transaction(s). 

Subsequent to the annual allocation of 

quota, additional IBQ may be allocated 

to the vessels with bluefin quota share 

as a result of a U.S. baseline quota 

increase or transfer of quota from the 

Reserve category to the Longline 

category, pursuant to criteria for quota 

adjustments. Subsequent to the annual 

allocation of quota, quota may be 

deducted from vessels as a result of a 

decrease in the U.S. baseline quota, or 

to account for a quota debt (bluefin 

catch by a vessel that must be accounted 

for under the IBQ system, for which the 

vessel has insufficient quota). 

With respect to the relationship 

between the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

permit and the IBQ share, upon 

implementation of Amendment 7, the 

IBQ share is associated with the Atlantic 

Tunas Longline permit, and is not 

severable. If, in the future, NMFS allows 

permanent sale of quota shares, NMFS 

would also consider whether or not the 

share is severable from the Atlantic 

Tunas Longline permit. Under this final 

rule, any quota debt associated with an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit will be 

associated with (and accompany) the 

permit upon sale/transfer of the permit. 

Quota debts will be also be associated 

with Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 

category participants. 

Elimination of Target Catch 

Requirement 

This final rule eliminates the current 

target catch requirements for pelagic 

longline vessels (including those fishing 

in the NED), which restricts the number 

of incidentally caught bluefin tuna a 

pelagic longline vessel may retain in 

relation to the amount of target species 

retained and sold. In the context of the 

IBQ system being implemented by 

Amendment 7, the current target catch 

requirement is no longer be necessary. 

Formal IBQ Program Evaluation 

NMFS will formally evaluate the 

success and performance of the IBQ 

Program in achieving its objectives, after 

three years of operation and provide the 

HMS Advisory Panel with a publiclyavailable written document with its 

findings. The review will describe and 

analyze the changes that have taken 

place in the fishery since 

implementation of the IBQ Program. 

NMFS will utilize its standardized 

economic performance indicators, 

developed by its Office of Science and 

Technology, as part of its review. For 

example, the standardized economic 

performance indicators include catch 

(landings and dead discards), effort, 

revenues, and allocation leases and 

accumulation. Other indicators include 

the number of and distribution of 

bluefin tuna interactions. The review 

may also include analysis of data 

collection, monitoring, and reporting; 

enforcement; quota performance; quota 

distribution among permit holders; 

quota share and resultant allocation 

transferability; other elements of the 

IBQ Program; or aspects of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP relevant to the 

IBQ Program such as gear restricted 

areas or purse seine measures. 

Cost Recovery 

Section 303A(e) of the MagnusonStevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a(e)) 

requires that, in establishing a LAPP, a 

Council shall develop a methodology 

and the means to identify and assess the 

management, data collection and 

analysis, and enforcement programs that 

are directly related to and in support of 

the LAPP; and provide for a program of 

fees paid by LAPP holders that will 

cover the costs of management, data 

collection and analysis, and 

enforcement activities. Such fees may 

not exceed 3 percent of the ex-vessel 

value of fish harvested under the LAPP. 

While section 303A(e) requires 

development of cost recovery in 

establishing a LAPP, NMFS plans to 

implement cost recovery after the IBQ 

Program evaluation (after 3 years). This 

step-wise approach is consistent with 

the purpose of section 303A(e) and 

appropriate given the nature of the 

LAPP being proposed. The purpose of 

section 303A(e) is to collect fees to 

cover management, data collection and 

analysis, and enforcement activities. 

However, the cost of administering a 

cost recovery program may be high 

relative to the amount of money 

recovered, because some active vessels 

have very high fishing activity whereas 

others have relatively low activity. 

NMFS also notes that the underlying 

objective of the IBQ is to reduce 

incidental catch of bluefin tuna, which 

will impact the amount and ex-vessel 

value of fish harvested. Immediate 

implementation of a cost recovery 

program, without obtaining further 

information about the operation of the 

fishery with IBQs, would be very 

difficult and would increase costs and 

uncertainty for fishing vessels during a 

time period when the fishery would be 

bearing other new costs and sources of 

uncertainty. For the above reasons, 

NMFS is not implementing cost 

recovery until after it conducts the 

program evaluation. After the IBQ 

Program is evaluated after 3 years, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

NMFS will implement a cost recovery 

program through separate rulemaking. 

4. Reporting Measures 

Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) 

Requirements 

This final rule implements VMS 

reporting requirements for vessels 

fishing with pelagic longline gear and 

issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit. It also requires vessels 

fishing with purse seine gear and issued 

an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 

permit to install VMS and report 

through VMS to support the inseason 

monitoring of the pelagic longline and 

purse seine fisheries, as proposed. 

Additional detail is provided in this 

final rule to explain application of the 

requirements to the Purse Seine 

category, in response to public comment 

asking for clarification and because of 

the need for additional administrative 

detail. 

Purse Seine Vessels 

Vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse 

Seine category permit must have an 

approved Enhanced Mobile 

Transmitting Unit (E–MTU) VMS unit 

installed by a qualified marine 

electrician to fish for Atlantic tunas 

with purse seine gear. Vessels must 

follow the procedures for installation 

and activation provided by NMFS and 

submit to NMFS the completed 

checklist and compliance certification 

statement. The VMS unit must submit 

automatic position reports every hour, 

24 hours a day, unless a valid power 

down exemption has been granted by 

NMFS law enforcement. Owners of 

purse seine vessels may request a 

documented power down exemption 

from NMFS law enforcement if the 

vessel will not be fishing for an 

extended period of time. The request 

must describe the reason an exemption 

is being requested; the location of the 

vessel during the time an exemption is 

sought; the exact time period for which 

an exemption is needed; and sufficient 

information to determine that a power 

down exemption is appropriate. Prior to 

departing on a trip vessels that intend 

to fish for Atlantic tunas with purse 

seine gear must declare through E–MTU 

VMS their intent to fish with such gear 

and note their HMS target species), by 

submitting a ‘‘Highly Migratory Species 

Trip Declaration Form’’ (‘hail out’). If a 

vessel operator is aware that 

transmission of automatic position 

reports has been interrupted, or is 

notified by NMFS that such reports are 

not being received, the vessel operatory 

must contact NMFS and follow the 

instructions given. After a fishing trip 

during which interruption of automatic 

position reports has occurred, the 

vessel’s owner or operator must have a 

qualified marine electrician replace or 

repair the VMS unit prior to the vessel’s 

next trip. Finally, as a condition of 

obtaining an HMS limited access 

permit, the vessel owners or operators 

must allow NMFS, the United States 

Coast Guard (USCG), or their designees 

access to the vessel’s position data. 

Vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas with 

purse seine gear must submit, through 

VMS, a ‘‘Highly Migratory Species 

Bluefin Tuna Catch Report’’ for each set. 

Specifically, such vessels must report 

the number of sets within 12 hours of 

the set; and report the length of all 

bluefin discarded dead or retained (by 

standardized size ranges) within 12 

hours of completion of each the set 

(including reporting zero bluefin on a 

set). NMFS will provide vessel owners 

with instructions regarding the detailed 

methods of reporting such information 

using their VMS units. At least three 

hours prior to the end of a trip, the 

vessel operator must provide advanced 

notice of landing by submitted the 

‘‘Highly Migratory Species Pre-Landing 

Notification Form’’ with information on 

the time and location of landing. 

If a vessel operator decides not to fish 

for or retain HMS for two or more trips, 

the operator may choose to ‘‘declare 

out’’ of the fishery, according to 

instructions provided by NMFS, and not 

be subject to the HMS hail in/hail out 

requirements during trips for which 

they are declared out of the HMS 

fishery. 

Vessels fishing with pelagic longline 

gear must report through VMS the 

number of hooks and sets within 12 

hours of completion of each pelagic 

longline haul-backs and, for pelagic 

longline sets with bluefin tuna 

interactions, must report the length of 

all bluefin tuna retained or discarded 

dead (by standardized size ranges) 

within 12 hours of completion of the 

pelagic longline haul-back. 

NMFS will make specific VMS 

reporting instructions available to the 

purse seine and pelagic longline 

fisheries to facilitate this reporting 

requirement. 

Electronic Monitoring 

The final rule adopts electronic 

monitoring requirements for all vessels 

issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline 

permit that fish with pelagic longline 

gear. This final rule requires all such 

vessels that are currently eligible to 

have a NMFS-approved contractor 

install a system and obtain certification 

of such installation. They must then 

properly maintain the video cameras 

and associated data recording and 

monitoring equipment, which will 

record all longline catch and relevant 

data regarding pelagic longline gear 

retrieval and deployment. NMFS will 

use the recorded data to verify the 

accuracy of counts and identification of 

bluefin tuna reported by the vessel 

owner/operator, as well as observers. 

Electronic monitoring will enable the 

collection of video images and fishing 

effort data that may be used in 

conjunction with other sources of 

information to estimate bluefin tuna 

dead discards, and may augment the 

ability of an observer to fulfill their 

duties by providing a record of catch 

during the time periods the observer 

may be unable to observe the catch 

directly. 

In light of public comments 

expressing concern about ensuring the 

functionality of electronic monitoring 

systems and the costs of such systems, 

this final rule relieves certain purchase 

and installation requirements that were 

set out in the proposed rule. Rather than 

requiring currently eligible vessel 

owners to buy and install equipment 

and make decisions about equipment 

specifications and functionality, this 

final rule instead requires the currently 

eligible vessel owners to obtain 

certification from a NMFS-approved 

contractor stating that the contractor has 

properly installed and verified the 

functionality of the electronic 

monitoring system in accordance with 

more detailed equipment and system 

requirements provided in the final rule. 

As set out in the proposed rule, vessel 

owners would have been responsible for 

the costs of the equipment and for 

installation for the electronic 

monitoring systems. Since publication 

of the proposed rule and the FEIS, and 

in response to public comment and to 

ease the regulated community’s burden 

associated with the new monitoring 

requirements, NMFS has identified 

funds to pay for the equipment and its 

installation for those currently eligible 

vessels (eligible for initial quota shares). 

For all vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline permit that fish with pelagic 

longline gear, vessel owners (or their 

representatives) must coordinate with 

the NMFS-approved contractor to install 

and test electronic monitoring 

equipment, and the contractor will then 

provide certification that the equipment 

has been properly installed. Vessel 

owners will be required to make their 

vessel accessible to designated 

personnel on a specific date, or range of 

dates, to allow installation and testing of 

electronic monitoring equipment, and 

may be required to steam to a 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71521 

designated port within their geographic 

region to enable such installation and 

training. This is consistent with the 

proposed rule’s requirement that vessels 

be available for inspection, as it will not 

result in any additional absence from 

fishing time than was analyzed and 

proposed in the proposed rule or 

impose additional financial costs or 

regulatory burden. 

To fish using pelagic longline gear, a 

vessel must have a valid certification 

form from the NMFS-approved 

contractor certifying that it has a fully 

functioning electronic monitoring 

system on board. Because the pelagic 

longline fleet is diverse with respect to 

vessel size, mechanical infrastructure, 

and operation, and the technology 

supporting electronic monitoring is 

changing and improving, NMFS is 

implementing detailed regulations that 

include some technical specifications 

regarding the necessary equipment that 

constitutes an electronic monitoring 

system to respond to public comment 

that more details are needed while still 

providing flexibility to allow vessels to 

install equipment that performs well in 

a cost effective manner. NMFS will 

utilize both third party experts and 

NMFS staff to provide vessel owners 

instructions regarding the specific 

required equipment and operational 

features of the system. As explained in 

more detail below, vessels must, in 

accordance with instructions provided 

by NMFS and/or NMFS-approved 

contractor, coordinate installation and 

maintain the following equipment, as 

components of an electronic monitoring 

system: Two to four video cameras, a 

recording device, video monitor, 

hydraulic pressure transducer, winch 

drum rotation sensor, system control 

box, GPS receiver, and related support 

equipment needed to achieve the 

objectives (e.g., power supply, camera 

mounts, lighting). Slight modifications 

to the equipment listed above may be 

required to support the objectives of 

electronic monitoring, adapt to unique 

vessel characteristics, or achieve cost 

savings or efficiencies. Vessel owners/

operators must coordinate installation 

and subsequently maintain and operate 

the system in accordance with 

instructions provide by NMFS, and 

allow inspection of the equipment by 

NMFS. The electronic monitoring 

system must include software to enable 

a test function so that the vessel 

operator may test the status of the 

system (i.e., whether it is fully 

functional) prior to each trip, and record 

the outcome of the test. A vessel 

operator may not depart on a pelagic 

longline trip unless the pre-trip test 

indicates that the system is fully 

functioning. Upon successful 

installation and testing by the NMFSapproved contractor, the NMFSapproved contractor will provide vessel 

owners with a certificate that the 

equipment installed constitutes a ‘‘fully 

functioning electronic monitoring 

system’’ based on written instructions 

and requirements that NMFS provided 

the contractor. The vessel owner must 

make the certificate available upon 

request by NMFS OLE. The required 

cameras must be installed to provide a 

view of the area where the longline gear 

is retrieved and catch is removed from 

the hook (prior to placing in the hold or 

discarding boatside) and such system 

must be connected to the mechanical 

hauling device so that recording is 

initiated by gear retrieval. The specific 

equipment functionality requirements 

are as follows: 

Video Cameras: Video data are 

produced by digital IP (Internet 

protocol) video cameras at a resolution 

of no less than 720p (1280×720). The 

individual vessel systems must include 

no less than two cameras: At least one 

camera to record close-up images of the 

deck at the haul back station for species 

identification/length estimation, and at 

least one camera to record activity along 

the side of the vessel at the water line 

of the haul back station to document 

animals that are caught and discarded 

but not brought aboard, as well as the 

disposition of that catch (released alive/ 

dead). The frame rates of the footage 

will need to allow for easy of viewing. 

The cameras are not required to record 

audio. 

GPS Receiver: A GPS receiver is 

required to produce output, which 

includes location coordinates, velocity, 

and heading data, and is directly logged 

continuously by the control box at a 

minimum rate of 10 seconds. The GPS 

receiver must be installed and remain in 

a location that receives a strong signal 

continuously. 

Hydraulic & Drum Rotation Sensors: 

A hydraulic sensor is required to 

continuously monitor the hydraulic 

pressure, and a drum rotation sensor 

must continuously monitor drum 

rotations in order to provide the data 

necessary for the EM system to trigger 

the video camera to record. The 

combination of these two sensors 

provide a mechanism to ensure that 

specific periods of time are captured on 

video, such as when gear is being 

retrieved and catch is removed from the 

hooks. 

EM Control Box & Monitor: The 

system must include a ‘control box’ to 

receive and store the raw data provided 

by the sensors and cameras. The control 

box must contain removable hard drives 

and storage system adequate to store 

data for the entire trip (e.g., adequate to 

store the data associated with a trip 

lasting approximately 30 days). A 

wheelhouse monitor must provide a 

graphical user interface for harvesters to 

monitor the state and performance of 

the control box and should include 

information such as: Current date and 

time synced via GPS, GPS coordinates, 

current hydraulic pressure reading, 

presence of a data disk, percentage used 

of the data disk, and video recording 

status. 

Hydraulics: Prior to system 

installation, vessel operators must 

possess and install a fitting for the 

pressure side of the line of the drum 

hydraulic system. The fitting may be 

either ‘‘T’’ or inline, with a female 1⁄4’’ 

threaded National Pipe Thread (NPT) 

port to enable connection to the 

pressure transducer. 

Power: Electronic monitoring systems 

are capable or being powered by both 

alternating current (AC) and direct 

current (DC) power. An EM system that 

is to be powered by a DC circuit must 

have free space on a 12-volt bus bar in 

the wheelhouse and a dedicated DC 

power switch. If the EM systems are to 

be powered by AC circuits, vessels must 

provide an Uninterrupted Power Supply 

(UPS) in the wheelhouse. 

Camera Mounts: During installation of 

the EM system, cameras must be 

mounted so that the camera may be 

positioned to view the waterline 

outboard of the vessel rail. If determined 

during the vessel assessment that there 

is not suitable mounting structure 

onboard, vessels may be required to 

provide a mount that allows a camera to 

be positioned to view the waterline 

outboard of the vessel rail. Before each 

scheduled installation of an EM system, 

NMFS-approved contractors will 

discuss mounting alternatives with the 

vessel’s owner or operator. 

Lighting: Vessels must provide 

sufficient lighting for cameras to clearly 

illuminate individual fish on deck at the 

haul back station and along the vessel 

rail at the waterline, at all times. 

Lighting will be evaluated by NMFSapproved contractors during the vessel 

assessment/EM installation. After 

installation, if NMFS-approved 

contractors review video footage and 

determine that lighting is insufficient, 

the vessel owner must adjust the 

lighting to ensure it is sufficient before 

the EM system can be recertified. 

Upon completion of a fishing trip, the 

vessel operator must mail the removable 

EM system hard drive containing all 

data to NMFS or the NMFS-approved 

contractor, within 48 hours of the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

completion of the trip, according to 

instructions provided by NMFS. Prior to 

departing on a subsequent trip, the 

vessel owner or operator must install a 

replacement EM system hard drive to 

enable data and video recording. The 

vessel owner or operator is responsible 

for contacting NMFS, or NMFSapproved contractors, if they have not 

received a replacement hard drive(s). 

The vessel operator is responsible to 

ensure that all bluefin tuna are handled 

in a manner that enables the electronic 

monitoring system to record such fish, 

and must identify a crew person or 

employee responsible for ensuring that 

all handling, retention, and sorting of 

bluefin tuna occurs in accordance with 

the regulations. NMFS or the NMFSapproved contractor, with the vessel 

owner or operators’’ input, will develop 

and provide a written Vessel Monitoring 

Plan, to document the standardized 

procedures relating to electronic 

monitoring and facilitate 

communication of such procedures to 

the vessel crew. The vessel owner or 

operator is responsible for ensuring that 

the EM system remains powered for the 

duration of each trip; that cameras are 

cleaned routinely to ensure 

unobstructed views, and the EM system 

components are not tampered with. 

NMFS will communicate 

instructional information in writing, via 

permit holder letters, to the vessel 

owners during all phases of the program 

to provide direction and assistance to 

vessel owners, and facilitate the 

provision of technical assistance. 

Electronic Catch Reporting 

This final rule requires Atlantic Tunas 

General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/

Headboat categories to report the length 

of all bluefin tuna retained or dead 

discards through an online catch 

reporting system (either through a Web 

site designated by NMFS or calling a 

phone number) within 24 hours of the 

landings or end of each trip. 

Specifically, vessels must report the 

number of bluefin tuna retained, and the 

number of bluefin tuna discarded dead, 

according to instructions that will be 

provided by NMFS. NMFS also operates 

a similar automated landings reporting 

system (ALRS) for recreational bluefin 

tuna catch in the HMS Angling and 

Charter/Headboat category (when 

fishing recreationally). This discard 

information will enhance NMFS’s 

ability to more fully and accurately 

account for all sources of fishing 

mortality, consistent with ICCAT 

recommendations. 

5. General Category Flexibility for 

Quota Adjustment 

This final rule allows NMFS to 

proactively transfer General category 

quota from one or more of the timeperiods that follow the January timeperiod to the January or other preceding 

sub-quota time periods within a fishing 

year, either through annual 

specifications or through inseason 

action. In other words, under this rule, 

NMFS may transfer subquota from one 

time period to another time period, 

earlier in the same calendar year. As 

described in more detail under 

Response to Comments (Comment 98), 

NMFS may transfer quota from the 

December sub-quota time period to the 

January sub-quota time period to 

address the unique characteristics of the 

January sub-quota period. For example, 

for an upcoming year (i.e., prior to 

January), NMFS may transfer quota from 

the December to the January sub-quota 

period. NMFS may also conduct lower 

priority transfers of sub-quota between 

time periods, for example, subquota 

could be transferred from the October 1 

through November 30 time period to the 

September time period. 

This final rule adds a new objective 

called ‘‘quota adjustment’’ to the current 

list of criteria and relevant factors 

NMFS considers when making inseason 

or annual quota adjustments. 

6. Harpoon Category NMFS Authority 

To Adjust Retention Limits 

To optimize fishing opportunity for 

the Harpoon category participants 

within the available quota, NMFS may 

increase or decrease the daily retention 

limit of large medium bluefin tuna 

(greater than 73′′ CFL and less than 81′′ 

CFL) within a range from two to four 

fish. Any adjustment will be based upon 

the regulatory determination criteria 

under § 635.27(a)(8) (as revised by this 

final rule) that apply to inseason bluefin 

tuna adjustments including: The 

usefulness of information obtained from 

catches in the particular category for 

biological sampling and monitoring of 

the status of the stock; effects of the 

adjustment on bluefin tuna rebuilding 

and overfishing; effects of the 

adjustment on accomplishing the 

objectives of the fishery management 

plan; variations in seasonal distribution, 

abundance, or migration patterns of 

bluefin tuna; effects of catch rates in one 

area precluding vessels in another area 

from having a reasonable opportunity to 

harvest a portion of the category’s quota; 

and review of dealer reports, daily 

landing trends, and the availability of 

the bluefin tuna on the fishing grounds, 

as well as any other relevant factors. 

The default Harpoon category daily 

retention limit of large medium bluefin 

tuna will be two fish per vessel (the 

large medium bluefin tuna daily 

retention limit that applied prior to the 

2011 regulatory change). The retention 

limit of giant bluefin tuna will remain 

unlimited. The objective of this measure 

is to optimize fishing opportunity for 

the Harpoon category participants 

within the available quota. This 

management measure enhances NMFS’s 

ability to more precisely manage the 

landing rate of large medium bluefin 

tuna by the Harpoon category, thereby 

optimizing opportunities while 

preventing landings from exceeding the 

subquota. 

7. Angling Category Trophy Subquota 

Distribution 

This final rule allocates one third of 

the Angling category trophy subquota 

specifically to account for those bluefin 

tuna caught incidentally while pursuing 

other species in Gulf of Mexico. The 

trophy subquota would be divided as 

follows: 33 percent to each of the 

northern area, the southern area outside 

the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf of 

Mexico. Based upon the recent average 

trophy fish weight, this would allow up 

to 8 trophy bluefin tuna to be landed 

annually in each of the three respective 

areas. To distinguish bluefin tuna 

incidentally caught in the Gulf of 

Mexico from those caught in the 

Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico region 

includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west 

and north of the boundary stipulated at 

§ 600.105(c), which is essentially west 

of 83° 00′ West longitude but also 

includes the waters off southwestern 

Florida and north of the Florida Keys. 

The objective of this measure is to 

reduce discards for recreational vessels 

in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, and 

account for incidentally caught bluefin 

tuna by converting a small number of 

potential dead discards in the Gulf of 

Mexico to potential landings. A separate 

subquota allocation for the Gulf of 

Mexico increases the likelihood that 

there will be trophy quota available to 

account for any potential incidental 

catch of bluefin tuna in that area, while 

still providing incentives not to target 

bluefin tuna. 

8. Purse Seine Category Fishing Year 

Start Date 

NMFS considered two alternatives at 

the proposed rule stage. The No Action 

Alternative would have maintained the 

current practice: The purse seine fishery 

starts on the default start date of July 15 

each year unless NMFS takes action to 

delay the season start date to as late as 

August 15. A second alternative, which 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71523 

was preferred in the proposed rule and 

in the FEIS, would change the default 

start date to June 1 (instead of July 15), 

unless NMFS takes action to delay the 

start date to as late as August 15. In the 

final rule, after considering public 

comments after the FEIS was published, 

HMS is choosing a third option that 

removes the default start date altogether. 

Instead, NMFS will establish the purse 

season start date annually, within a 

range from June 1 to August 15, based 

on the already-existing criteria in the 

regulations, which are unchanged in the 

final rule text. Although the third option 

was not directly analyzed as an 

alternative in the FEIS, the range of 

dates for possible opening (June 1– 

August 15) remains within the range 

analyzed in the FEIS (June 1–August 15 

between the two alternatives), and the 

regulated community was aware that 

this range was being considered and 

that NMFS intended to retain maximum 

flexibility under any option to adjust the 

date as necessary to be responsive to the 

public and the fishery under the 

regulatory provisions. By relieving the 

default date, the new approach will 

allow additional public input to the 

start-date-setting process annually, is 

responsive to public comment 

(particularly from the harpoon category 

fishermen), and substantively does not 

result in effects different from those 

already analyzed. The only change from 

the current practice is that the fishery 

can start earlier now (June 1 instead of 

July 15), and the only change from the 

proposed rule is that there will be no 

default date. 

9. Rules Regarding Permit Category 

Changes 

This final rule allows a vessel owner 

to modify the category of an Atlantic 

Tunas or HMS permit issued for up to 

45 days from date of issuance, provided 

the vessel has not landed bluefin tuna 

as verified via landings data. The 

previous restriction (10 calendar days) 

was intended to preclude vessels from 

fishing in more than one category 

during a year and to discourage 

speculative use of fishing permits. 

However, based on feedback NMFS has 

received over a number of years from 

vessel owners affected by the 10 day 

restriction, NMFS has concluded that 

limiting the time period during which a 

vessel may change permit categories to 

10 calendar days is overly restrictive, 

and does not allow the flexibility to 

resolve the problems of a permit issued 

by mistake. The 45 day restriction 

achieves a better balance of allowing 

flexibility for vessel owners, while still 

preventing fishing in more than one 

permit category during a fishing year. 

10. Northern Albacore Tuna Quota 

This measure implements the U.S. 

annual quota of northern albacore tuna 

recommended by ICCAT and establishes 

provisions for the accounting of 

overharvest and underharvest of the 

quota via annual specifications. 

Specifically, the codified U.S. northern 

albacore tuna quota will be adjusted as 

appropriate for prior year catch (up or 

down), including delayed adjustment 

(that would skip a year) or adjustments 

over several years. Consistent with the 

ICCAT recommendation, carry-forward 

of unused quota from one year to the 

next will be limited to 25 percent of the 

initial quota. NMFS will adjust and 

implement the following via regulatory 

framework adjustments: Actions to 

implement ICCAT recommendations, as 

appropriate; allocating and refining 

domestic allocation of the U.S. quota; 

establishing retention limits; 

implementing effort restrictions, etc. 

Although an FMP amendment is not 

needed, framework adjustments still go 

through extensive public and analytical 

review and must be consistent with the 

MSA and other applicable law. 

11. Adjustment of Management 

Measures 

This final rule adds to the list of 

management measures that NMFS may 

modify or establish in accordance with 

the framework procedures of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP as amended, 

and provides examples of Amendment 7 

measures that are within the scope of 

management measures currently listed 

in the regulations. With exceptions as 

noted under ‘‘Changes from Proposed 

Rule,’’ these measures were contained 

within the proposed rule. The 

Amendment 7 measures not previously 

contained in the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP are as follows: The quota 

shares or allocations for bluefin tuna; 

electronic monitoring requirements; and 

administration of the IBQ Program 

(including requirements pertaining to 

leasing of IBQ allocations, regional or 

minimum quota share requirements, 

quota share caps (individual or by 

category), permanent sale of shares, 

NED IBQ rules, etc.). The Amendment 7 

measures that are within the scope of 

measures currently in the regulations 

are Performance metrics (within the 

scope of ‘‘time/area restrictions’’ in 

current regulations) and Angling 

category trophy south/north/Gulf of 

Mexico percentages (within the scope of 

‘‘allocations among user groups’’ in 

current regulations). 

12. Minor Regulatory Changes 

Amendment 7 is implementing minor 

regulatory changes (such as minor 

corrections and clarifications; the 

removal or modification of obsolete 

cross-references; and minor changes to 

definitions and prohibitions) to improve 

the administration and enforcement of 

HMS regulations. Several of these items 

have been identified by constituents 

over the past few years or were raised 

during scoping hearings. The 

corrections, clarifications, changes in 

definitions, and modifications to 

remove obsolete cross-references are 

consistent with the intent of previously 

analyzed and approved management 

measures. Under § 635.5(c)(1), the 

relevant internet address will be 

updated. Under § 635.20(a), the method 

of determining length of Atlantic tunas 

will apply regardless of permit type. 

Regulations at § 635.21(c)(5)(iii)(B), will 

refer to a ‘‘gear restricted area,’’ instead 

of a ‘‘closed’’ area. Under 

§ 635.27(a)(7)(i), the reference to 

‘‘Fishery-independent research’’ is 

changed to ‘‘research.’’ Under 

§ 635.27(a)(1)(iii), the descriptor 

‘‘coastwide’’ when referring to the 

General category fishery, is deleted. 

Under § 635.71(b)(13), the prohibition is 

corrected to clarify that the relevant 

amount of bluefin tuna is the 

‘‘applicable limit’’ instead of ‘‘a’’ bluefin 

tuna. These changes were not analyzed 

because they do not make substantive 

changes to the regulations. 

This final rule notifies the public that 

the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in §§ 635.5, 

635.9, 635.14, 635.15, and 635.69 have 

been approved by OMB and are 

effective. In addition this final rule will 

update the table on NOAA information 

collections approved by OMB that 

appears under 15 CFR part 902. 

Response to Comments 

NMFS received over 188,000 written 

comments from fishermen, states, 

environmental groups, academia and 

scientists, and other interested parties. 

Comments included submissions of 

large numbers of identical or similar 

comments by organizations (or 

facilitated by organizations), as well as 

oral statements made at public hearings. 

All written comments can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov/. The 

comments received resulted in changes, 

as described below, and in the section 

of this final rule called ‘‘Changes from 

Proposed Rule’’. Significant comments 

are summarized below by major topic 

together with NMFS’ responses. There 

are 29 major issues: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1. General Support for Proposed 

Measures (Comment 1), 

2. General Concerns (Comments 2–7), 

3. Codified Reallocation (Comments 

8–13), 

4. Annual Reallocation (Comments 

14–17), 

5. Modification to Reserve Category 

(Comments 18–19), 

6. General Comments About Gear 

Restricted Areas (Comments 20–42), 

7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

(Comments 43–49), 

8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 

(Comments 50–62), 

9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing 

Under General Category Rules 

(Comment 63), 

10. Pelagic Longline Limited 

Conditional Access to Closed Areas 

(Comment 64), 

11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline 

Transiting Closed Areas (Comment 65), 

12. Gear-Based Measures (Comments 

66–67), 

13. General Comments About 

Individual Bluefin Quotas (Comments 

68–75), 

14. IBQ Eligibility (Comments 76–85), 

15. IBQ Leasing (Comments 86–88), 

16. Measures Associated with the IBQ 

Program (Comments 89–90), 

17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline 

Fishery (Comment 91), 

18. VMS Requirements (Comment 92), 

19. Electronic Monitoring 

Requirements (Comment 93), 

20. Automated Catch Reporting 

(Comment 94), 

21. Expand the Scope of the Large 

Pelagics Survey (Comment 95), 

22. Deployment of Observers 

(Comment 96), 

23. General Category Subquota 

Management (Comments 97–98), 

24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit 

(Comment 99), 

25. Angling Category Trophy SubQuota (Comments 100–101), 

26. Purse Seine Start Date (Comments 

102–103), 

27. Permit Category Changes 

(Comment 104), 

28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna 

Quota (Comment 105), and 

29. Other Concerns (Comments 106– 

107). 

1. General Support for Proposed 

Measures 

Comment 1: NMFS received a wide 

range of comments expressing general 

support for the proposed conservation 

and management measures. 

Commenters stated that the proposed 

measures are a step in the correct 

direction for the future management of 

bluefin tuna, many noting support for 

Amendment 7 due to the inclusion of 

‘‘strong’’ management measures, and 

others supporting the measures 

generally but urging NMFS to adopt 

stronger management measures than 

those proposed. Commenters’ support 

was based upon their concerns about 

the current status of the bluefin stock 

and the desire to ensure long-term 

sustainability of bluefin for future 

generations of people. Some 

commenters urged NMFS to implement 

the preferred alternatives to ‘‘Save the 

Bluefin,’’ based on their perception that 

bluefin tuna are at imminent risk of 

going extinct. Commenters expressed 

concerns about the impacts of pelagic 

longline gear on bluefin tuna, noting the 

waste associated with discarding 

bluefin, especially in the Gulf of Mexico 

(GOM), and supported changes to the 

management of the pelagic longline 

fishery to reduce dead discards of 

bluefin tuna, as well as other highly 

migratory species, marine mammals, sea 

turtles, and other species. Commenters 

noted that many coastal communities 

depend upon healthy stocks of fish to 

contribute to their economic well-being 

and to that of individuals supported by 

commercial and recreational fisheries. 

Response: The need for management 

action and the specific objectives of 

Amendment 7 are described in detail in 

Chapter 1 of the FEIS, and the proposed 

rule. This final rule implements a suite 

of management measures that will 

achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in 

a balanced manner. Amendment 7 

enhances long-term sustainability of 

bluefin tuna through reduced dead 

discards; improved monitoring; 

increased flexibility in the quota system 

to both account for dead discards and 

optimize allocation of quota among the 

diverse bluefin fisheries; and increased 

accountability in the pelagic longline 

fishery. 

Based upon the advice of ICCAT’s 

Standing Committee on Research and 

Statistics, continued management with 

catch levels that comport with ICCAT 

recommendations should support 

further stock growth of the Western 

Atlantic stock of bluefin and is 

consistent with the ICCAT rebuilding 

plan given the current state of the 

science regarding the stock status. The 

MSA requires consideration of both the 

biological and economic impacts of 

conservation and management 

measures, and NMFS has determined 

that Amendment 7 measures will 

achieve a balance that will support the 

broader objectives of both stock 

rebuilding and continued viability of 

the commercial and recreational 

fisheries that depend upon bluefin tuna. 

The GOM has an important function 

in the ecology of the Western Atlantic 

stock of bluefin. The responses to 

comments 50 through 62 address 

measures specific to the GOM. NMFS 

acknowledges that pelagic longline gear 

affects other species in addition to 

bluefin tuna and therefore, Amendment 

7 measures may indirectly affect other 

species. As described in the FEIS 

analyses, the cumulative impacts on 

other species are likely to be neutral or 

positive. 

2. General Concerns 

Comment 2: Many commenters, 

particularly those with small businesses 

involved in the pelagic longline fishery 

expressed concern regarding the 

potential for negative economic impacts 

of Amendment 7 on jobs, families, and 

communities, and noted the importance 

of pelagic longline-caught fish in 

supplying high quality seafood to the 

nation. These commenters were 

concerned about the potential for the 

Amendment 7 measures to put people 

out of business, and ‘‘destroy the pelagic 

longline fishery.’’ Commenters stated 

that vessels that are currently only 

marginally economically viable would 

be at particular risk of going out of 

business, but were also concerned about 

any secondary impacts on related 

businesses such seafood dealers, gear 

manufacturers, etc. They urged NMFS to 

use a balanced regulatory approach to 

address the Amendment 7 objectives, 

and stated that Amendment 7 measures 

would increase uncertainty in the 

pelagic longline fishery. 

Response: The seafood supplied to the 

Nation by the pelagic longline fleet is 

valuable as both a source of food, and 

for the generation of income supporting 

local jobs, communities, and the broader 

economy. NMFS designed management 

measures to minimize economic 

impacts by relying on the combined 

effects of multiple management tools 

and incorporating flexibility into the 

system. Amendment 7 measures will 

affect all permit/quota categories and 

reflect the balance of addressing the 

issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock 

and management of the fishery while 

maintaining the viability of the pelagic 

longline and other fisheries dependent 

upon bluefin tuna. For example, 

reductions in dead discards will be 

achieved through the use of multiple 

measures, including gear restricted 

areas, the IBQ system, and IBQ 

allocation measures. This final rule will 

modify the quota system to increase 

management flexibility to allocate quota 

among categories and maximize 

opportunities to catch available quota, 

account for dead discards, and respond 

to changing conditions in the fishery. As 

the pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71525 

the suite of new measures, NMFS will 

have the flexibility to allocate a limited 

amount of additional quota to the 

pelagic longline vessels if necessary to 

prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a 

result of the gear restricted areas, and 

IBQ system, reduce the net amount of 

bluefin catch from the levels recently 

caught. The Amendment 7 management 

measures work together to reduce dead 

discards and otherwise reduce bycatch 

to the extent practicable, increase 

accountability, enhance reporting and 

monitoring, and optimize quota 

allocation, in a predictable but flexible 

manner. The potential economic 

impacts of the measures affecting the 

pelagic longline fleet are analyzed in 

Chapters 5 and 7, of the FEIS, and the 

economic rationale is summarized in 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. Public comments that address 

specific measures are addressed below 

in the responses to more specific 

comments. 

Comment 3: Commenters stated that 

when determining whether the pelagic 

longline fleet should be subject to 

additional restrictions, NMFS should 

consider the current and past regulatory 

environment and other factors as 

context. Commenters stated the pelagic 

longline fishery is already heavily 

regulated to minimize its environmental 

impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g., 

closures, weak hook requirement, 

observer deployment, bait 

requirements), and that progress is being 

made. Furthermore, increases in fuel 

costs strain fishers’ ability to make a 

living, and events such as the 2010 oil 

spill in the GOM continue to be 

relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin 

tuna is managed at the international 

level and believe that the United States 

manages its citizens in a more effective 

and responsible way than other 

countries, and that NMFS should not 

further regulate bluefin tuna and 

increase the management disparity 

between the United States and other 

countries. 

Response: The context in which 

vessels operate, including current 

regulations and other factors was a 

relevant factor NMFS considered in 

determining whether new regulations 

were needed. NMFS took into 

consideration many factors in selecting 

preferred measures which address the 

diverse objectives of Amendment 7 in a 

balanced manner. Chapter 6 of the FEIS 

contains a cumulative impacts analysis 

which is broad in scope and takes into 

consideration past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable factors. In 

addition, Chapter 2 in the FEIS contains 

a description of measures and the 

rationale for the preferred measures. 

The Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis includes a description of the 

steps taken to minimize the economic 

impacts on small entities, and the 

reasons for the preferred measures. 

The United States manages its 

exclusive economic zone in accordance 

with applicable U.S. laws and in 

response to the unique characteristics of 

its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. 

regulations regarding bluefin tuna are 

different from the rules affecting 

citizens of other countries, which 

operate under different laws and 

circumstances. Where U.S. regulations 

are more restrictive than those abroad, 

NMFS believes that the corresponding 

ecological and socio-economic benefits 

that result from such restrictions are 

also likely to be greater than those 

abroad. 

Comment 4: Commenters stated that 

the Amendment 7 DEIS contained too 

much information, was too complex, 

and was difficult to understand. Others 

were concerned that the DEIS was 

developed too quickly, leaving out too 

many details such as those associated 

with implementation of measures. 

Response: The proposed rule clearly 

described the proposed management 

measures, and NMFS facilitated 

communication with the public via the 

internet and its Web site. The amount 

and complexity of information in the 

DEIS and the FEIS reflect primarily the 

scope of the objectives of Amendment 7 

and the number of alternatives 

analyzed. The complexity of the DEIS 

and FEIS also is due to the diversity of 

the bluefin tuna fisheries, and the 

number of applicable laws and 

processes (both national and 

international). The DEIS and FEIS 

contain an Executive Summary which 

provides a condensed version of the 

relevant information including tables of 

important information. NMFS 

conducted public hearings (including a 

language interpreter for one hearing) 

that were designed to inform the public 

of the proposed measures in a readily 

understandable format, as well as 

provide opportunities for the public to 

comment and ask questions. 

Significant time and opportunity for 

public comment have gone into what 

has been a very thorough rulemaking 

process for this Amendment. The formal 

development of Amendment 7 began 

with the publication of the Notice of 

Intent (April 23, 2012; 78 FR 24161), 

which announced NMFS’ intent to hold 

public scoping meetings to determine 

the scope and significance of issues to 

be analyzed in a DEIS and a potential 

amendment to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP. However, the informal 

development began several years 

previously. On June 1, 2009, NMFS 

published an Advanced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR; 74 FR 

26174) requesting specific comments on 

regulatory changes that would 

potentially increase opportunities for 

U.S. bluefin tuna and swordfish 

fisheries to fully harvest the U.S. quotas 

recommended by ICCAT while 

balancing continuing efforts to end BFT 

overfishing by 2010 and rebuild the 

stock by 2019 as set out in the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP, consistent 

with the ICCAT rebuilding plan. The 

ANPR was in response to various public 

suggestions about bluefin tuna 

management during the previous two 

years, precipitated by declines in the 

total volume of bluefin tuna landings, 

which were well below the available 

U.S. quota, and a reduction in the 

overall allowable western Atlantic 

bluefin TAC recommended by ICCAT. 

In the ANPR, NMFS also requested 

public comment regarding the potential 

implementation of catch shares, LAPPs, 

and individual bycatch caps (IBCs) in 

highly migratory species fisheries. In 

response, NMFS received a wide range 

of suggestions for changes to the 

management of the U.S. bluefin tuna 

fisheries. 

While the DEIS and proposed 

regulations contained sufficient detail 

for the public to understand the 

measures and their potential impacts, 

including implementation, the FEIS and 

this final rule provide additional details 

to clarify certain aspects of 

implementation. These are not new 

measures but clarification of measures 

within the scope of the impacts 

analyzed by the DEIS. The regulatory 

process of proposed and final 

rulemaking allows for such flexibility to 

respond to public comments and 

implement regulations that address the 

regulatory objectives. The changes made 

from the proposed rule are summarized 

in the section of this final rule called 

‘‘Changes from Proposed Rule’’. The 

comment period was extended to allow 

maximum public participation in this 

process. 

Comment 5: Some commenters asked 

why the focus of Amendment 7 is the 

pelagic longline fishery, perceived the 

Amendment as an ‘‘unfair attack’’ on 

this fishery, and asked why no 

additional restrictions were proposed 

for the General, Harpoon, or Angling 

categories. Other commenters did not 

want one user group in the fishery to 

bear the regulatory burden, but believed 

that all should sacrifice for the good of 

the fishery as a whole. 

Response: The focus of Amendment 7 

is the list of stated objectives, including 

reducing and accounting for dead 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71526 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

discards, optimizing quota allocations, 

and enhancing reporting and 

monitoring. Although many of the 

measures being implemented will apply 

to vessels fishing with pelagic longline 

gear, all user groups will be subject to 

new regulations as appropriate and 

necessary, to contribute to the 

sustainability of the bluefin fisheries. 

Amendment 7 fundamentally alters the 

pelagic longline bluefin tuna 

management structure in order to 

decrease dead discards and increase 

accountability, yet it also implements 

new restrictions for vessels fishing 

under the other permit categories. 

Although the components of the 

regulated bluefin fisheries are very 

different and therefore have been 

subject to different restrictions in the 

past, NMFS developed the Amendment 

7 management measures based upon a 

common set of objectives. 

Comment 6: NMFS should exempt 

pelagic longline fishery participants that 

have never interacted with bluefin tuna 

from the programs proposed in 

Amendment 7. 

Response: Amendment 7 enhances 

long-term sustainability of bluefin tuna 

through reduced dead discards, 

improved monitoring, increased 

flexibility in the quota system to both 

account for dead discards and optimize 

allocation of quota among the diverse 

bluefin fisheries, and increased 

accountability in the pelagic longline 

fishery. NMFS acknowledges that some 

pelagic longline vessels may not 

encounter bluefin tuna as a function of 

where and how those individuals fish. 

However, the effective implementation 

of the management measures requires 

consistent treatment and participation 

of all of the participating vessels. NMFS 

cannot exclude individual HMS pelagic 

longline fishermen from the provisions 

of Amendment 7 given the mobility of 

the pelagic longline fleet and 

uncertainty about bluefin interactions 

by individual vessels in the future. 

Through this Amendment 7 final rule, 

NMFS is redesigning many operational 

aspects of the entire pelagic longline 

fleet. Exclusion of a small pool of 

individuals would create an inequitable 

management environment across the 

fleet. The measures implemented by this 

final rule do, however, include specific 

provisions that are based on the data 

that indicate that some participants 

have few or no interactions with 

bluefin. For example, under the IBQ 

program, eligible permitted vessels will 

receive a percentage share of the overall 

pelagic longline bluefin quota. The 

amount of quota share, either ‘‘high’’, 

‘‘medium’’, or ‘‘low’’ will depend in 

part upon the vessel’s historical rate of 

bluefin interactions. Vessels with a 

relatively low rate of bluefin 

interactions will qualify for a higher 

share of the total bluefin quota than 

vessels with a higher rate of 

interactions, and have access to the 

Cape Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear 

Restricted Area. 

Comment 7: Several commenters 

stated that the solution to the challenge 

of how to account for all catch (landings 

and dead discards) in the context of a 

limited quota is to increase the amount 

of quota allocated to the United States 

through ICCAT (instead of the measures 

proposed under Amendment 7). 

Response: Although a larger U.S. 

quota would facilitate easier quota 

accounting (i.e., ensure that the total 

bluefin landings and dead discards do 

not exceed the total bluefin quota), a 

larger quota, without concurrent 

changes to the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

FMP is a short-term solution and would 

not achieve the broader objectives of 

Amendment 7 or the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP. For example, a larger quota 

would not reduce the relative amount of 

dead discards of bluefin by the pelagic 

longline fishery, increase accountability 

for the pelagic longline fishery, optimize 

and provide additional flexibility to the 

quota system, or enhance reporting and 

monitoring. Furthermore, the United 

States does not independently set the 

quota at ICCAT and any quota 

established must be based on the best 

available scientific information ICCAT 

members (including U.S. delegates) vote 

to recommend an appropriate bluefin 

quota, based on the recommendation of 

the ICCAT scientists (which include 

U.S. scientists). 

3. Codified Reallocation 

Comment 8: Many commenters did 

not support reallocation of additional 

quota to the Longline category as a 

means to achieve the Amendment 7 

objectives. They stated that shifting 

quota would not reduce interactions 

with bluefin or dead discards and that 

providing additional quota would 

undercut the benefits of a ‘‘catch cap’’ 

(i.e., setting a strict maximum/cap on 

the amount of bluefin that could be 

caught, including dead discards and 

landings), would discourage the use of 

alternative gears, and would reward a 

‘‘destructive fishery’’ by moving quota 

from quota categories that fish with 

more selective gear to the Longline 

category, which fishes with less 

selective gear and has more bycatch. 

Many commenters supported the 

codified reallocation for the reasons 

NMFS stated in the proposed rule, as 

well as other reasons including the 

statement that the Longline category 

may have a smaller ‘carbon footprint’ 

than the other quota categories; the 

other categories are frequently underharvested; the Longline category 

provides the U.S consumer access to 

important food sources; the General 

category exports much of the bluefin 

tuna it catches; and all user groups 

should bear the regulatory burden. 

Response: Amendment 7 implements 

systematic management and operational 

changes to reduce bluefin bycatch and 

maintain the pelagic longline directed 

fishery and the other bluefin tuna 

fisheries. The combined measures of 

this final rule, which include modified 

quota allocations, gear restricted areas, 

and individual bluefin quotas, will 

reduce bluefin catch and provide 

incentives to utilize alternative, more 

selective gear types. To achieve the 

Amendment 7 objectives of reducing 

dead discards while minimizing 

associated reductions in target catch, 

NMFS will allocate bluefin quota to the 

Longline category in amounts that 

exceed its current allocation of 8.1 

percent, but will reduce levels of 

incidental bluefin catch by the Longline 

category. NMFS anticipates that the 

catch of bluefin by pelagic longline gear 

will be reduced by between 17 and 42 

percent, depending upon the amount of 

quota allocated and leased, and fishery 

conditions. Some flexibility in the 

amount of quota allocated to the 

Longline and other quota categories is 

needed to accommodate the highly 

variable bluefin fisheries, as well as to 

mitigate some of the uncertainty and 

negative impacts associated with a brief 

transitional period in the pelagic 

longline fishery as it adjusts to the 

preferred Amendment measures. 

As explained in the FEIS, there are 

several reasons why additional quota 

should be provided to the Longline 

category, as one element of a more 

comprehensive strategy to resolve the 

challenge of accounting for bluefin 

catch and reducing dead discards. The 

pelagic longline fishery interacts with 

bluefin tuna when it targets swordfish, 

yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and other 

species, because the occurrence of those 

species overlap as a result of their 

similar biology and ecology. The 

Longline category is required to account 

for dead discards and landings, yet the 

historical basis for the relative size of 

the Longline category’s quota allocation 

(8.1 percent) was only landings, and did 

not consider the amount of quota that 

could be necessary to account for dead 

discards in addition to those landings 

within the total allowable catch. 

Based on the best available 

information, an allocation of 8.1 percent 

has been inadequate to account for both 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71527 

landings and dead discards since ICCAT 

adopted a requirement to account for 

dead discards within the existing quota. 

In recent years, NMFS has accounted for 

pelagic longline bluefin dead discards 

by relying in part upon under harvest of 

quota by other quota categories. The 

merits of allocating additional quota to 

the Longline category must be 

considered in the context of all of the 

other management measures being 

implemented by Amendment 7. Because 

the Amendment 7 measures 

implemented by this final rule will 

provide quota accountability on an 

individual vessel and category-wide 

basis for the Longline category, the 

amount of quota allocated to the 

category is of critical importance. 

Specifically, when the quota allocated 

to an individual vessel has been caught, 

the use of pelagic longline gear by that 

vessel will be prohibited. If the 

category-wide quota has been caught 

NMFS may prohibit all vessels in the 

fleet from fishing with pelagic longline 

gear. Based on current information 

regarding the range of bluefin tuna 

interactions that can be expected, 

continuing to limit the Longline 

category to a quota of 8.1 percent of the 

available quota would result in a shutdown in the fishery relatively early in 

the year. Notwithstanding the other 

measures being implemented by this 

final rule, which will result in 

reductions in dead discards by vessels 

fishing with pelagic longline gear, a 

quota allocation of 8.1 percent quota 

would result in a severely diminished or 

eliminated fishery, contrary to the 

objective of optimizing fishing 

opportunities. 

Comment 9: Commenters suggested 

that the amount of bluefin quota 

allocated to the Longline category 

should be reduced, or set at zero. 

Response: As discussed in the 

response to Comment 8 there are several 

reasons why the Longline category 

quota should be increased. Moreover, 

reducing the Longline category quota 

would not be consistent with the 

Amendment 7 objectives and would 

result in severe economic impacts that 

can be avoided through the use of other 

management tools. NMFS designed the 

quota allocation measures to minimize 

the economic impacts on the nonlongline categories. The amount of 

quota being deducted from each of the 

categories (for allocation to the Pelagic 

Longline category under the ‘‘Codified 

Reallocation Alternative’’) is 

proportional to the size of each 

category’s quota and is relatively small 

(approximately 7 percent). Secondly, 

the amount of quota that will be 

deducted from the categories is fixed, 

therefore, if the U.S. bluefin quota 

increases as a result of stock growth, the 

amount deducted from the various 

categories will not increase, but the total 

quota allocated to each category would 

increase. Furthermore, the other quota 

allocation measures implemented by 

this final rule (‘‘Annual Reallocation’’ 

and ‘‘Modifications to Reserve 

Category’’) provide mechanisms to 

reallocate quota back to these categories, 

if quota is available. The ‘‘Annual 

Reallocation Alternative’’ guarantees a 

minimum amount of quota to the 

participants in the Purse Seine fishery, 

and enables increases in quota 

allocations over time with increasing 

levels of bluefin catch. Providing an 

amount of bluefin quota to the pelagic 

longline fishery that both reduces dead 

discards, yet also accounts for a 

reasonable amount of incidental catch 

that can be anticipated (based on 

historical catch rates and the effect of 

Amendment 7 gear restricted areas) will 

enable the continued generation of 

revenue associated with the pelagic 

longline fishery’s target catch. 

Comment 10: One commenter stated 

that providing 68 mt of ‘‘additional 

quota’’ to the Longline category is not 

appropriate, and that the amount should 

be larger, because the discard estimation 

methodology that the amount was based 

on is no longer in use. Another 

commenter stated that the amount of 

additional quota should be smaller than 

68 mt because the size of the U.S. quota 

has been reduced since the time the 68 

mt set-aside was established. 

Response: Although the codified 

reallocation measure is intended to 

facilitate accounting for dead discards 

by the Longline category, the specific 

amount (68 mt) is not intended to serve 

as an estimate of current dead discards 

or establish a proportion of discards to 

landings. NMFS prefers 68 mt as the 

amount of quota to be contributed from 

all categories, resulting in augmenting 

the Longline category by 62.5 mt, 

because the amount of additional quota 

achieves an appropriate balance of costs 

and benefits in the fishery and because 

of its historical relevance as a set-aside 

for dead discards, the inclusion of 

which was a critical factor in first 

establishing the formula under which 

all categories received their current 

allocations. No adjustment to those 

allocations was made when ICCAT first 

eliminated the dead discard allowance, 

and such an adjustment clearly is 

warranted given the resulting 

management challenges in accounting 

for both landings and dead discards 

within the available quota. Furthermore, 

providing a fixed amount of additional 

quota to the Longline category 

effectively limits the amount of 

reallocation into the future. In contrast, 

altering the base allocation percentages 

associated with each quota category 

would have had the potential effect of 

increasing the amount reallocation to 

the longline category if the total U.S. 

quota increases. Although increasing the 

amount of quota reallocated to the 

Pelagic Longline category in association 

with increases in total quota would 

facilitate accounting for incidental catch 

of bluefin and achieve one of the 

objectives of this Amendment, it would 

not effectively limit bycatch and reduce 

dead discards, which are also key 

objectives of Amendment 7. 

Comment 11: Commentors suggested 

that NMFS should, instead of the 

‘‘Codified Reallocation’’ of quota from 

all quota categories, reallocate quota 

from only the Purse Seine category; 

impose greater restrictions on the 

pelagic longline fishery to reduce their 

discards; or implement more restrictive 

gear restricted areas in the Gulf of 

Mexico and off Cape Hatteras in order 

to further reduce incidental bluefin tuna 

catch. 

Response: NMFS prefers that all quota 

categories contribute to addressing the 

challenge of accounting for dead 

discards, which, as explained in the 

response to Comment 8 is a problem 

which has multiple root causes, and is 

integrally related to the operation and 

management of the fishery as a whole. 

This Amendment 7 final rule addresses 

the issue of the recurring under-harvest 

associated with the Purse Seine fishery 

through the ‘‘Annual Reallocation’’ 

measure, which provides a predictable 

method to optimize the use of Purse 

Seine quota that might otherwise remain 

unharvested. This final rule implements 

new conservation and management 

measures applicable only to the 

Longline category, which will limit 

bycatch, reduce dead discards, increase 

incentives to avoid bluefin, and increase 

accountability. NMFS disagrees that 

greater restrictions on the Longline 

category—instead of reallocating a 

limited amount of quota— would 

achieve the Amendment 7 objectives in 

a manner that minimizes economic 

impacts to the extent practicable. As 

explained in the response to Comment 

9 above, NMFS designed the quota 

allocation measures to minimize the 

economic impacts on the non-longline 

categories. The alternatives take into 

consideration the relative size of each 

category quota (in the case of the 

‘‘Codified Reallocation Alternative’’), or 

the level of activity of vessels (‘‘Annual 

Reallocation Alternative’’), and are 

designed to consider changing levels of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71528 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

quota or landings, respectively, in ways 

that reduce economic impacts. 

Comment 12: Many commenters 

strongly opposed reallocating quota to 

the Longline category because of 

concerns about the economic impacts 

on a particular geographic region (e.g., 

New England or mid-Atlantic), or quota 

category (e.g., the General category or 

the Angling category). Some 

commenters urged NMFS to respect the 

historical allocation percentages, and 

noted that reallocation would have the 

effect of pitting the different categories 

against each other. Some commenters 

suggested that NMFS consider other 

regulatory and economic circumstances 

facing vessels that may be impacted by 

a reduced quota. 

For example, Congressional 

representatives from Massachusetts, and 

the New England Fishery Management 

Council (Council) stated that the 

proposed reallocation would 

disadvantage the New England Fishery, 

the traditional Massachusetts fleet, and 

shore-side infrastructure, and would 

allow fleets from other regions to use a 

disproportionate amount of quota. They 

were concerned about the commercial 

fleet that is experiencing economic 

damage due to the decline in key stocks 

in the groundfish fishery. The Council 

suggested that NMFS assess the portspecific impacts of reallocation. A 

commenter was concerned that 

recreational vessels in the mid-Atlantic 

region would be disproportionately 

affected by quota reallocation because 

the quota may not last until the time the 

bluefin are off the mid-Atlantic coast. 

Response: A reduction in quota may 

impact the revenue associated with a 

particular quota category or geographic 

region, or result in secondary economic 

impacts on a community. The FEIS 

analysis estimates that reallocation of 

quota to the Longline category could 

reduce revenue for individual vessels 

with a General category permit by $850 

and result in total reduction in 

maximum revenue of $542,000 for all 

General category vessels. Although 

thirty percent of the General category 

permits are associated with the State of 

Massachusetts (1,150 permits as of 

October 2013), the total number of 

active vessels is substantially lower. Of 

the total number of General category 

permits issued throughout the Atlantic 

coast (3,783), the average number of 

General category vessels landing at least 

one bluefin between 2006 and 2012 was 

474 vessels (total). Thus, the number of 

active vessels in Massachusetts can be 

presumed to be substantial fewer than 

1,150. 

When considering the social and 

economic impacts of actions, different 

communities and regions may be 

impacted to different degrees due to 

their unique regulatory and economic 

circumstances. The FEIS contains an 

analysis of the community impacts from 

the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil 

Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents 

social indicators of vulnerability and 

resistance for 25 communities selected 

for having a greater than average 

number of HMS permits associated with 

them. Those communities with 

relatively higher dependence upon 

commercial fishing included Dulac, LA; 

Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; Gloucester, 

MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC; 

Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, NJ; Cape May, 

NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are 

principally at a fishery-wide, or permit 

category level. The bluefin tuna 

fisheries (and other HMS fisheries) are 

widely distributed and highly variable 

due to the diversity of participants 

(location, gear types, commercial, 

recreational), and because bluefin tuna 

are highly migratory over thousands of 

miles, with an annual distribution that 

is highly variable. The specific ports 

and communities that provide the goods 

and services to support the fishery may 

vary as well, as vessels travel over large 

distances to pursue their target species. 

Due to this variability, it is difficult to 

predict potential revenue and secondary 

impacts of preferred management 

measures by port or by state. Vessels 

fishing in any geographic area in the 

Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are likely to 

have only limited access to bluefin tuna, 

unless they travel long distances within 

the bluefin’s migratory range. 

It is important to note that the actual 

economic impacts of reallocation of 

quota depend upon the total amount of 

quota allocated to (and harvested from) 

each of the quota categories, as a result 

of the combined effect of all of the 

measures that affect quota. For example, 

in addition to the amount of quota 

available as a result of the percentage 

allocations, and deductions for the 68 

mt Annual Reallocation, there may be 

quota available for redistribution to 

various quota categories. Specifically, 

pursuant to the preferred ‘‘Annual 

Reallocation’’ measure, as described in 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS, if the Purse Seine 

category has not caught 70 percent of its 

quota during the previous year, quota 

may be moved to the Reserve category 

and subsequently reallocated across 

multiple user groups. Furthermore, in 

recent years, many categories have not 

fully harvested their amount of quota 

available to them. Thus, the actual 

impacts of reallocation may be minor or 

may be mitigated by future reallocation 

when available. 

Reallocation of quota may result in 

frustration or negative attitudes among 

fishery participants of different quota 

categories, due to the changes to an 

historically accepted quota allocation 

system, or perceptions of unfairness. 

However, the modifications to the quota 

system are warranted for the reasons 

described in the response to comments 

8 through 13 and fair due to the fact that 

all quota categories are affected in 

proportion to their quota percentage. 

As explained in the response to 

Comment # 9 above, NMFS designed the 

quota allocation measures to minimize 

the economic impacts on the nonlongline categories. The management 

measures take into consideration the 

relative size of each category quota (in 

the case of the ‘‘Codified Reallocation 

Alternative’’, or the level of activity of 

vessels (‘‘Annual Reallocation 

Alternative’’), and are designed to 

consider changing levels of quota or 

landings, respectively, in ways that 

reduce negative economic impacts. 

Comment 13: Many recreational 

anglers wanted to insulate the Angling 

category from any potential effect of 

quota reallocation to the Longline 

category, citing the economic impacts 

and high value of the recreational 

bluefin fishery to the economy, as well 

as the economic investments of the 

participants and the current regulatory 

burden such vessels face. Vessel owners 

with General category commercial 

permits expressed concern about the 

potential impacts to the General 

category. Commenters requested 

additional quantitative analyses 

comparing the different quota 

categories, including primary and 

secondary impacts. 

Response: As stated above in the 

response to the previous comment, a 

reduction in quota may impact the 

revenue associated with a particular 

quota category or result in secondary 

economic impacts on a community. The 

objective of the allocation measures is 

not to reallocate quota based on 

economic optimization, but to: account 

for bluefin dead discards within the 

Longline category; reduce uncertainty in 

annual quota allocation and accounting; 

optimize fishing opportunity by 

increasing flexibility in the current 

bluefin quota allocation system; and 

ensure that the various quota categories 

are regulated fairly relative to one 

another. 

The reallocation measures of this final 

rule will minimize adverse economic 

impacts to the extent practicable 

because the relative amount of quota 

reallocated is small and proportional to 

the size of the category quota, and the 

overall quota system will be more 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71529 

flexible and predictable and able to 

offset some or all of the negative 

economic impacts. This approach was 

developed consistent with our 

obligation under National Standard 6 

(Conservation and management 

measures shall take into account and 

allow for variations among, and 

contingencies in, fisheries, fishery 

resources, and catches) and National 

Standard 8 (Conservation and 

management measures shall, consistent 

with the conservation requirements of 

this chapter (including the prevention of 

overfishing and rebuilding of overfished 

stocks), take into account the 

importance of fishery resources to 

fishing communities by utilizing 

economic and social data that meet the 

requirements of paragraph (2), in order 

to (A) provide for the sustained 

participation of such communities, and 

(B) to the extent practicable, minimize 

adverse economic impacts on such 

communities.) 

Although the FEIS includes estimates 

of the value of bluefin tuna quota by 

quota category for comparative 

purposes, the codified reallocation 

measure was not based on a specific 

economic analysis, but the achievement 

of the stated objectives. 

An elaborate quantitative analysis that 

compares the economic value of the 

Angling, Longline, and General category 

fisheries was not conducted in the FEIS 

due to the different characteristics of the 

Angling, Longline and General category 

fisheries, the variable amount of data 

associated with these fisheries, and the 

large number of factors and assumptions 

that contribute to estimating the value of 

a fishery. For example, under the IBQ 

system implemented by Amendment 7, 

bluefin tuna quota may be a limiting 

factor for a pelagic longline vessel, and 

therefore the lack of adequate bluefin 

quota, by even a small amount, could 

result in a vessel being prohibited from 

fishing with pelagic longline gear. In 

that circumstance, the value of the 

bluefin quota to the vessel owner may 

be very high, and related to the value of 

the target catch (e.g., swordfish or 

yellowfin tuna). On the other hand, the 

value of a bluefin tuna to a recreational 

angler or to the recreational fishery atlarge may include the value of the 

recreational experience to the angler, as 

well as the associated goods and service 

supporting the fishing trip. The FEIS 

indicates that the Angling category 

would potentially face unquantified 

reductions in economic and social 

activity associated with the 7.36 percent 

reduction in available quota. 

In contrast, for a vessel fishing 

commercially in the General category, a 

high quality bluefin tuna sold to Japan 

may be extremely valuable and other 

catch is far less important. 

4. Annual Reallocation 

Comment 14: Some commenters 

supported the annual reallocation 

measure as proposed, based on the 

underlying concept of tying the Purse 

Seine category annual allocation to the 

level of fishing activity by Purse Seine 

vessels (i.e., ‘‘use or lose’’), and the 

strategy of making unused quota 

available for use by other quota 

categories. 

Response: The Amendment 7 annual 

reallocation measure represents an 

improvement to the quota system by 

implementing a predictable means to 

utilize quota that may otherwise remain 

unused. Because the reallocation of 

quota from the Purse Seine category to 

the Reserve will occur prior to the 

beginning of the calendar year and prior 

to the start of the Purse Seine fishery, 

there will be increased predictability in 

the quota system. In contrast, in the 

past, there was uncertainty that resulted 

from the fact that the amount of 

unharvested quota associated with the 

Purse Seine category which would be 

available for quota accounting was 

unknown until the end of the calendar 

year. Because of that timing problem, 

the ability for other users to catch any 

unharvested quota was markedly 

diminished. 

Comment 15: Commenters suggested 

various modifications to the proposed 

annual reallocation measure. One 

commenter suggested that the concept 

be applied to the individual vessel 

instead of at the scale of the whole 

Purse Seine category in order to prevent 

the situation where an individual vessel 

may be disadvantaged. One commenter 

suggested that only 25 percent of the 

Purse Seine quota should be available 

for reallocation, instead of 75 percent. A 

commenter suggested that more than 

one year of catch should be the basis of 

the allocation, instead of a single year. 

One commenter suggested that the 

annual reallocation alternative be 

combined with an alternative that was 

not proposed, which would have 

allocated 40 percent of the Purse Seine 

category to the Longline category. 

Response: In response to the comment 

that the annual reallocation measure 

should be implemented at the level of 

the individual vessel in order to prevent 

a situation where a vessel fishes its full 

allocation but, due to inactivity by other 

vessels, is only allocated a portion of its 

base allocation for the subsequent year, 

NMFS modified the preferred 

alternative, and is implementing the 

measure at a vessel level (as described 

in detail in the preamble above, and the 

FEIS). Under the measure implemented 

by this final rule, annual reallocation 

will be based on the previous year’s 

individual purse seine participants 

catch rather than category-wide catch. 

This management measure will tie quota 

allocation more closely to individual 

Purse Seine participants catch and 

create incentive for fishery participants 

to remain active in the fishery. Thus, the 

individual allocation could either 

increase or decrease. Without this 

modification to the alternative (from 

that proposed), individual allocations 

would be tied to the catch of the other 

participants in the fishery, which could 

have unfair results if catch were to vary 

greatly among the vessels. For example, 

in a year where overall category 

landings were low, an individual purse 

seine participant could be allocated a 

relatively low amount of quota, even if 

they landed a substantial portion of 

their allocation the previous year. As 

such, the alternative would not tie the 

allocation to individual catch and thus 

would not encourage full use of the 

category quota, which would be 

inconsistent with the intent of this 

alternative. 

Regarding the comment that only 25 

percent of the Purse Seine allocation be 

available for reallocation (instead of 75 

percent), if only a relatively small 

percentage of the quota were available 

for reallocation (and a relatively large 

percentage of the quota guaranteed for 

the Purse Seine allocation), there would 

be the possibility that Purse Seine 

participants remain inactive, yet only a 

relatively small percentage of the quota 

is transferred to the Reserve category. 

Such a scenario, which increases the 

likelihood that the Purse Seine quota as 

a whole may not be utilized by any 

category, would be inefficient and 

would not optimize the quota system. 

Making up to 75 percent of the quota 

available to the Reserve category will 

maximize the amount of quota that may 

be reallocated, and will provide a 

reasonable minimum amount for the 

Purse Seine participants. The measure 

implemented by this final rule 

guarantees vessels 25 percent of their 

base allocation, but makes up to 75 

percent available for reallocation to the 

Reserve category, while not precluding 

Purse Seine participants from increasing 

their catches over time (multiple years). 

Regarding the comment that more 

than one year of catch should be used 

as the basis of the Purse Seine 

allocation, a time scale of two years 

would reduce the relative importance of 

a single year’s catch in determining 

subsequent quota allocations, but may 

also decrease the availability of quota. 

The method of annual reallocation being 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71530 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

implemented (i.e., based on one year) 

will provide a better balance between 

providing a fair allocation to the Purse 

Seine category and providing a 

predictable system for utilizing quota 

among all categories that may otherwise 

be unused, and is consistent with the 

annual time scale applicable to quota 

related management measures (i.e., the 

relevant time scale for most aspects of 

the quota system is annual). 

Regarding the comment that the 

annual reallocation alternative should 

be combined with an annual allocation 

of 40 percent of the Purse Seine category 

to the Longline category, NMFS 

determined that the annual reallocation 

measure better meets the objectives of 

reducing uncertainty in annual quota 

allocation and accounting; optimizing 

fishing opportunity by increasing 

flexibility in the current bluefin quota 

allocation system; and ensuring that the 

various quota categories are regulated 

fairly in relative to one another. Under 

the annual reallocation measure 

implemented by this final rule, the 

amount of quota allocated to Purse 

Seine participants and the Reserve 

category is responsive to the level of 

activity of Purse Seine participants, but 

will not reduce the size of the Purse 

Seine category percentage (18.6 

percent), which is the foundation upon 

which the allocations to Purse Seine 

participants are based. In contrast, 

combining this measure with an annual 

allocation of 40 percent of the Purse 

Seine category to the Longline category 

would substantially reduce the size of 

the Purse Seine allocation regardless of 

the level of activity by Purse Seine 

vessels. Such a reduction is not 

consistent with the objective of the 

measure. The objective of the 

management measure is not to reduce 

the size of the Purse Seine allocation, 

but to make Purse Seine quota available 

for use by other categories in a 

predictable manner (reflecting a Purse 

Seine vessel’s previous year level of 

activity), as well as allow levels of 

fishing activity of Purse Seine vessels to 

increase within the scope of the 

category’s allocation. 

Comment 16: One commenter 

supported annual reallocation, but 

stated that the implementation of the 

annual reallocation measure should be 

linked to a Purse Seine fishery start date 

of June 1, as well as elimination of the 

provision limiting the relative amount 

of 73 to 81 inch bluefin Purse Seine 

vessels may retain. One commenter did 

not support annual reallocation due to 

the different retention rules applicable 

to the Longline and Purse Seine 

categories. One commenter did not 

support annual reallocation because of 

the perception that the Purse Seine 

category has not had the same fishing 

opportunities as the other categories due 

to low availability of giant (greater than 

81 inch) bluefin, and the restriction on 

retention of large medium bluefin. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

Annual Reallocation alternative should 

be evaluated in the context of other 

regulations applicable to the Purse 

Seine category and Longline category. 

Modification of the start date of the 

Purse Seine category to June 1 is one of 

the measures being implemented by this 

Amendment 7 final rule. NMFS 

considered but did not further analyze 

an alternative that would modify or 

relieve the tolerance limit for largemedium fish in the purse seine category. 

Such an alternative was not further 

considered for reasons explained in 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS, including because 

recent data was not available about 

fishery operations that reflected to what 

extent the purse seine fishery 

experienced regulatory dead discards as 

a result of the tolerance limit. In 

furtherance of gathering such data and 

in the interest of examining bycatch in 

the fishery, on August 1, 2014, NMFS 

issued an exempted fishing permit that 

will exempt a Purse Seine vessel from 

the annual incidental purse seine 

retention limit on the harvest of large 

medium Atlantic bluefin tuna, in order 

to investigate and gather such data. 

NMFS could consider changes to the 

Purse Seine category size restrictions in 

a future rulemaking after further datagathering and consideration. The 

Annual Reallocation measure will not 

result in a negative ecological impact 

due to the different size restrictions 

applicable to the Purse Seine category 

and the Longline category as explained 

in Chapter 4 of the FEIS (the potential 

change in the amount of bluefin caught 

of different size categories is relatively 

small compared with the overall stock 

size). 

Comment 17: Commenters did not 

support annual reallocation for a variety 

of reasons. One stated that the Purse 

Seine category should not have a 

fluctuating quota; one was concerned 

that the Longline category will take the 

entire Purse Seine quota in the future, 

and one was concerned that reallocation 

to the Longline category would increase 

discards. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the Purse Seine quota may fluctuate 

under the annual reallocation measure, 

and that a fluctuating quota may have 

some negative implications for the Purse 

Seine fishery, such as challenges to 

long-term business planning, and 

fluctuating levels of revenue from the 

Purse Seine fishery. However, in the 

context of the fishery as a whole, the 

benefits of the annual reallocation 

measure are expected to outweigh the 

negative aspects, and the amount of 

quota fluctuation may be reduced by a 

consistent level of Purse Seine catches. 

Under the annual reallocation measure 

implemented by this final rule, Purse 

Seine participants will have similar 

fishing opportunities as the other 

commercial categories that direct on 

bluefin tuna, but if substantial portions 

of the quota remain unused, there will 

be a fair system to relocate quota in a 

predictable and efficient way. The 

annual reallocation system will also be 

responsive to any future increased 

levels of catch by Purse Seine 

participants. If a Purse Seine participant 

is allocated the minimum amount of 

quota (25 percent of its base quota), with 

increasing catch over time, the 

individual participant could be 

allocated 100 percent of their base quota 

three years after being allocated the 

minimum amount. For example if 

during the first year of fishing the 

participant caught 22 percent of their 

baseline quota, for year two they would 

be allocated 50 percent. During year two 

if the participant caught 46 percent of 

their baseline quota, for year three they 

would be allocated 75 percent of its 

baseline quota. If during year three they 

caught 71 percent of their baseline quota 

for year four they would be allocated 

100 percent of its baseline quota. 

Under the annual reallocation 

measure, quota will be reallocated to the 

Reserve category, and potentially then 

to any or all quota categories. Transfers 

of quota from the Reserve category may 

include transfers to the Longline 

category, but NMFS will consider and 

balance the needs of the fishery as a 

whole. Quota could also be allocated to 

the other fishery categories as 

appropriate, considering the relevant 

factors in that year. Specifically, NMFS 

will base such decisions on the criteria 

described under the ‘‘Modifications to 

the Reserve Category’’ measure, as well 

as other applicable regulations and laws 

(e.g., the MSA National Standards (NS) 

such as the NS 9 requirement to 

minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality 

to the extent practicable). 

5. Modification to Reserve Category 

Comment 18: Several commenters 

supported the modifications to the 

Reserve category regulations, which 

would increase the amount of quota that 

may be put into the Reserve category 

and increase the potential uses of 

Reserve category quota. One commenter 

stated that NMFS should be authorized 

to allocate from the Reserve category at 

any time. A commenter suggested 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71531 

splitting the Reserve category into quota 

derived from under-harvest, and quota 

transferred from the Purse Seine 

category, to increase transparency. One 

commenter suggested redistribution of 

unused Reserve quota to active Longline 

category vessels during the last quarter 

of the year. A commenter stated that 

NMFS should make up to 50 percent of 

the Reserve quota available to the 

Longline category during the first three 

years of the IBQ Program. 

Response: The management measure 

regarding the Reserve category 

implemented by this final rule will 

provide additional management 

flexibility in the quota system and 

enable consideration of various quota 

strategies such as those suggested by the 

commenters. Although NMFS has the 

authority to allocate bluefin quota from 

the Reserve category at any time, the 

regulations implemented by 

Amendment 7 will enable NMFS to add 

underharvest from the previous year 

and any reallocated quota from the 

Purse Seine category to the Reserve 

category base allocation of 2.5 percent. 

Secondly, Amendment 7 adds new 

criteria to broaden and clarify the 

potential uses of the Reserve quota. It is 

not possible to evaluate the merits of the 

commenters’ specific quota suggestions 

without any context. There are many 

potential uses of Reserve quota, 

including transfer to the Longline 

category in order to facilitate the 

transition to IBQs, or transfer to the 

General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, Angling, 

or Trap categories if warranted in order 

to increase fishing opportunity (while 

still preventing catch from exceeding 

the overall U.S. quota, and abiding by 

the other ICCAT restrictions). In order to 

facilitate transparency and full 

understanding of the quota system, 

NMFS will communicate clearly about 

how quota transfers are distributed 

among all quota categories, including 

descriptions of specific amount of quota 

derived from various sources. 

Comment 19: A commenter did not 

support the addition of new criteria to 

the existing criteria regarding in-season 

transfer of quota among categories 

because the criteria are long-standing 

and provide adequate flexibility. 

Commenters did not want to allow the 

Reserve category to be ‘‘padded’’ to 

cover Longline category dead discards, 

and did not want most of the Reserve 

quota to go to the Longline category. 

Response: The addition of the new 

criteria under Amendment 7 will not 

change the overall scope of NMFS 

authority to transfer quota among 

categories, but includes specific criteria 

that have the effect of clarifying 

potential uses of quota. NMFS agrees 

that an excessive amount of quota from 

the Reserve category should not be used 

to account for Longline category dead 

discards and has structured the 

alternatives to give management 

flexibility to move available quota to 

other categories as warranted. As stated 

in the response to Comment 8, under 

the Amendment 7 management 

measures, NMFS will allocate quota to 

the Longline category in amounts that 

exceed its current allocation of 8.1 

percent of the current annual quota, but 

will not allow historic levels of bluefin 

catch by the Longline category catch. In 

evaluating the amount of quota to 

reallocate to any category (including the 

Longline category), NMFS will consider 

the regulatory criteria for quota transfer, 

which include broad biological and 

economic considerations (e.g., ‘‘effects 

of the adjustment on accomplishing the 

objectives of the fishery management 

plan’’). For example, with respect to 

transfers of quota to the Longline 

category, some important considerations 

may include the amount of dead 

discards by pelagic longline gear 

relative to the size of the Longline 

category quota, the overall trend in the 

amount of dead discards and landings 

in the Longline category, the 

effectiveness of gear restricted areas, the 

status of the bluefin stock, trends in 

relevant data reporting, the amount of 

uncertainty regarding dead discard 

information, the level of accountability 

for bluefin dead discards by vessels in 

other quota categories, and the 

economic benefits of quota transfers. For 

transfers to other categories, important 

considerations may include effects of 

catch rates in one area precluding 

vessels in another area from having a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest a 

portion of the category’s quota; the 

projected ability of the vessels fishing 

under the particular category quota to 

harvest the additional amount of BFT 

before the end of the fishing year; the 

estimated amounts by which quotas for 

other gear categories of the fishery might 

be exceeded; effects of the adjustment 

on bluefin rebuilding and overfishing; 

and effects of the adjustment on 

accomplishing the objectives of the 

FMP. 

6. General Comments About Gear 

Restricted Areas 

Comment 20: NMFS should avoid 

closures to the pelagic longline fishery. 

Any closure would disrupt markets. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

GRAs designed to reduce bluefin tuna 

interactions and regulatory discards and 

to thus decrease bycatch have costs 

associated with them, and may have 

disruptive effects on local markets. 

NMFS designed the gear restricted areas 

(i.e., their timing and configuration) 

after considering the amount of reduced 

fishing opportunity as well as the 

amount of reduced bluefin interactions, 

in order to minimize potential 

disruptions in markets. NMFS designed 

the Cape Hatteras GRA to provide access 

opportunities to fishermen that have a 

proven ability to avoid bluefin, and are 

compliant with the observer and 

logbook requirements. As described in 

the Response to Comments # 46 and 47, 

NMFS specifically modified the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area that was 

preferred in the DEIS, to reduce 

disruption to ongoing fishing in an 

adjacent area and therefore reduce 

potential economic impacts of the 

alternative. Evaluation of all alternatives 

considered both economic and 

ecological considerations (i.e., the 

potential reductions in revenue 

associated with estimated reductions in 

bluefin interactions). 

Comment 21: NMFS should not 

implement GRAs. NMFS received 

comments indicating that, due to a 

variety of reasons, commercial 

fishermen may be limited to certain 

fishing locations by the size and 

configuration of their vessels, insurance 

requirements, or safety concerns, and 

that some participants in the fishing 

fleet have nowhere else to fish (except 

in the location of the GRA) and they 

would be ‘‘shut out’’ of the fishery. 

Response: The underlying concept of 

the Cape Hatteras GRA minimizes 

economic impacts by providing 

conditional access to the area, based on 

performance criteria. The majority of the 

pelagic longline fleet will be allowed to 

fish in the area upon implementation of 

this Amendment 7 final rule, and in the 

future if conditions for access continue 

to be met. In estimating ecological and 

socio-economic impacts of the Cape 

Hatteras GRA (called the ‘‘Modified’’ 

Cape Hatteras GRA in the FEIS), NMFS 

determined that 14 vessels (of 135 

vessels) would not have access to this 

GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels 

made over 75 percent of their sets in the 

Cape Hatteras GRA. Based upon the 

location of their historical catch, and to 

ensure that NMFS did not 

underestimate the potential economic 

impacts, the analysis assumes that these 

vessels would not redistribute effort 

outside of the GRA. Although these four 

vessels could redirect from fishing 

grounds off Oregon Inlet, NC to fishing 

grounds between Cape Fear and Cape 

Hatteras, such a change in fishing 

grounds may involve substantial costs 

(fuel, longer trips, possible transfer and 

dockage in a new port, etc.). However, 

NMFS modified the Cape Hatteras GRA 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71532 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

in a way that NMFS believes will 

achieve the reduction in bluefin 

discards, but will also allow fishermen 

to continue to deploy gear in regions 

south and west of the GRA and thereby 

reduce adverse impacts. With respect to 

the potential negative impacts of the 

Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA, 

approximately 61 vessels that fish in the 

Gulf of Mexico would be affected. Given 

the consistent pattern of historical catch 

of large numbers of bluefin tuna in 

certain times and locations by pelagic 

longline gear, NMFS determined that a 

GRA area in both the Gulf of Mexico 

and the Atlantic are necessary in order 

to achieve reductions in bluefin tuna 

dead discards, and that the potential 

economic impacts are unavoidable in 

order to achieve the necessary 

reductions. The potential negative 

socio-economic impacts were 

minimized by using an iterative process 

to design the gear restricted areas. The 

Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline 

GRAs were designed in order to achieve 

a balance between a reduction in bluefin 

dead discards, protection of the Gulf of 

Mexico spawning stock, and continued 

operation of the pelagic longline fleet in 

the Gulf of Mexico. The specific 

boundaries of the area were determined 

by an iterative process that included 

consideration of public comment and 

input, by selecting areas of historical 

pelagic longline interactions with 

bluefin, and comparing both the 

anticipated reduction in bluefin 

interactions, and the estimated 

reduction in revenue, of different 

configurations. In addition, the time 

period was selected due to its 

occurrence during the peak bluefin 

spawning period in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The magnitude of the potential 

economic impacts result from the 

specific location and duration of the 

GRA. The size of the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA is based 

upon the historical location and number 

of bluefin interactions, as well as the 

recent persistent trend in fishing effort 

shifting to the east of this area, and the 

known variability in the fishery in 

general. A smaller geographic area 

would be unlikely to achieve 

meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna 

interactions. The duration of the GRA 

encompasses the months with the 

highest number of interactions during 

the spawning period. An alternate, or 

shorter time period would coincide with 

neither the highest number of bluefin 

interactions, nor the bluefin spawning 

period peak. 

Comment 22: NMFS should evaluate 

the preferred alternatives for the Cape 

Hatteras GRA in light of the difficulties 

in implementing the Pelagic Longline 

Take Reduction Plan (a plan designed to 

reduce the incidental interactions of 

pelagic longline gear with marine 

mammals in order to reduce serious 

injury and mortality of long-finned and 

short-finned pilot whales and Risso’s 

dolphins in the Atlantic). 

Response: Several comments received 

suggested options similar to those 

currently employed under the Pelagic 

Longline Take Reduction Plan 

(described below). One comment noted 

the importance of developing a 

communication protocol similar to what 

is encouraged by the Pelagic Longline 

Take Reduction Plan for marine 

mammals. NMFS also encourages 

captains to communicate the location of 

bluefin to each other to aid fleet-wide 

avoidance practices. However, NMFS 

believes that this approach is best 

employed on a voluntary basis, as is 

done for marine mammals, given 

potential confidentiality concerns. 

Mandatory aspects of the Pelagic 

Longline Take Reduction Plan include a 

requirement to post the marine mammal 

safe handling and release placard in the 

wheelhouse and on the working deck, a 

restriction of mainline length to no more 

than 20 nmi when fishing within the 

Mid-Atlantic Bight, and special observer 

and research participation requirements 

for vessels operating in the Cape 

Hatteras Special Research Area 

(CHSRA). Unlike the requirements for 

operating in the CHSRA, Amendment 7 

does not require fishermen fishing in 

the Cape Hatteras GRA to notify the 

agency between 48 to 96 hours prior to 

making a trip in order to arrange for 

observer coverage or research 

participation, in part because 

notifications of intent to fish are a 

standard requirement through VMS. 

Additionally, Amendment 7 does not 

require fishermen to retain or post any 

new placards, nor does it change the 

requirements regarding mainline length 

restrictions. It is important to note that 

the provisions of Amendment 7 do not 

replace the provisions of CHSRA or the 

Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan; 

pelagic longline fishermen are still 

expected to fully comply with the 

requirements outlined in the Pelagic 

Longline Take Reduction Plan while 

fishing with pelagic longline gear in any 

part of the CHSRA that may overlap 

with the Cape Hatteras GRA. 

Comment 23: A commenter stated that 

NOAA and ICCAT do not have 

sufficient scientific information to be 

able to predict where and when the 

distribution of bluefin may overlap with 

the pelagic longline fleet target species, 

and thus fishermen are also highly 

unlikely to be able to predictably avoid 

BFT while targeting other HMS species 

(swordfish, bigeye and yellowfin) except 

for certain times of year and in limited 

locations. Any rigid management 

framework that cannot adapt 

management to real-time distributions 

and availability of targeted and nontargeted HMS species will be unlikely to 

optimize yield, support economic 

viability, and eliminate discards. 

Response: Bluefin tuna distribution is 

highly variable; however, the scientific 

literature as well as the data in the FEIS 

(Chapters 3 and 4) support the 

conclusion that there is sufficient 

consistency in the patterns of 

distribution to make GRAs an effective 

management tool on a long-term basis. 

If warranted by changes in the 

characteristics of the fishery (e.g, longterm shifts in the distribution of bluefin 

tuna and target species), NMFS can reevaluate whether GRAs continue to be 

an effective management tool that 

appropriately balances the associated 

costs and benefits. 

Comment 24: NMFS received 

suggestions to consider dynamic timearea closures because the distribution of 

bluefin is highly variable. 

Response: In the Predraft of 

Amendment 7, NMFS considered a realtime monitoring system that would 

periodically close ‘‘hot spots’’ of bluefin 

interactions with the pelagic longline 

fleet. However, the Agency chose to not 

further analyze this alternative in the 

DEIS and the FEIS because a reporting 

and monitoring system to support this 

measure does not currently exist. 

Furthermore, the development and 

administration of such a system would 

be highly complex, and would require 

substantial resources to be able to fully 

monitor the entire region across which 

the pelagic longline fleet fishes, publish 

a rule quickly enough to respond to 

changing oceanic conditions, and 

provide adequate notice to the pelagic 

longline fleet. Instead of the dynamic 

measures supported by the commenter, 

which would respond to short-term 

aggregations of bluefin, the measures 

implemented by this final rule rely on 

a different strategy of reducing bluefin 

bycatch, based upon the long-term, 

consistent special and temporal patterns 

of bluefin distribution. 

Comment 25: NMFS received 

comments asserting that the Agency 

lacks sufficient data to make a reliable 

determination regarding true interaction 

rates of any given vessel. Some 

commenters felt that NMFS should 

prohibit fishing in areas of concern until 

more reliable data collection methods 

are in place, whereas others felt that 

NMFS should not prohibit fishing until 

more reliable data collection methods 

are in place. Several commenters cited 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71533 

weaknesses in logbook data and asserted 

that logbook data are not sufficient to 

verify vessel behavior, count 

interactions, or monitor bycatch. 

Response: As indicated in the 

Response to Comment # 82 NMFS 

recognizes that some vessel operators 

may have under-reported in their 

logbooks the amount of bluefin tuna 

they have caught. NMFS conducted an 

analysis that compared logbook data to 

observer data to get an indication of 

how vessel-reported logbook data 

compares with observer data, because 

observer data can serve as a useful 

validation tool. Compared to the 

observer data, the logbook data showed 

both over-reporting and under-reporting 

of bluefin tuna, with the average amount 

of under-reporting of bluefin discards of 

28 percent at the aggregate level for all 

vessels. Individual vessel data varied 

substantially from being more than 90 

percent accurate with observer data for 

that trip to more than 75 percent 

inaccurate compared to observer data 

for that trip. These data indicate a wide 

range in reporting accuracy at a vessel 

level. Specific information on this 

analysis is in the Appendix of the FEIS. 

Notwithstanding potential underreporting by some vessels, logbook data 

are the most complete source of 

available data regarding vessel level 

interactions with bluefin tuna because 

100 percent of pelagic longline vessels 

are required to submit logbook reports 

for every set. 

NMFS also analyzed observer data in 

order to verify the spatial and temporal 

patterns of bluefin interactions that 

were noted in the logbook data (Chapter 

3 of FEIS). Although the observer data 

could not be compared directly to the 

logbook data because it is collected with 

lower frequency and at a different scale, 

the observer data indicated similar 

patterns of bluefin interactions as the 

logbook data. The logbook data 

represents the best available source of 

fine-scale information on bluefin 

interactions at this time. This final rule 

also implements enhanced monitoring 

and reporting requirements that will 

improve information on bluefin 

interactions in the pelagic longline 

fishery (i.e., VMS and electronic 

monitoring). 

Comment 26: NMFS received 

multiple comments regarding access to 

the GRAs based on performance. 

Comments 26–42 relate to specific 

performance criteria. A commenter 

stated that NMFS should include 2012 

data in the IBQ Allocation calculations 

and GRA area access calculations. 

Response: NMFS agrees that 2012 

data should be included in these data 

calculations in order to reflect the 

characteristics of the fishery in the 

recent past. The 2012 data set represents 

the most recent calendar year for which 

complete data was available at the time 

the FIES analysis was begun. Therefore, 

in the FEIS NMFS included sets made 

in 2012 in the pool of data used to 

calculate the bluefin-to-designated 

target species ratios for allocation and 

GRA access analyses. NMFS also 

included 2012 data from the Pelagic 

Observer Program and the Logbook 

program to calculate the Observer and 

Logbook Compliance scores. NMFS also 

adjusted the historical qualification 

period from 2006 to 2011, to 2006 to 

2012, in order to better reflect the 

variability in the fishery and account for 

recent trends. 

Comment 27: Commenters expressed 

concern about access to the GRAs based 

on performance criteria based on 

logbook data, validity of which the 

commenter stated was questionable, 

given the possible incentives to 

misreport bluefin interactions through 

the logbook. 

Response: As explained in Response 

to Comments 25 and 82 NMFS 

acknowledges that there are issues with 

logbook data accuracy; however, it 

offers the most comprehensive data on 

the fishery and provides a means to 

analyze individual vessel behavior. 

HMS logbook data represents a census 

of the fishery. 

Comment 28: One commenter stated 

that there was no regulation that vessels 

must avoid bluefin tuna in the past, and 

vessels should not be singled out now 

for catching more bluefin by chance. 

Response: Directed fishing on bluefin 

tuna with pelagic gear is not permitted. 

Any interactions with pelagic longline 

are incidental to other directed fishing 

and regulations have been designed to 

discourage any such interactions and to 

minimize bycatch to the extent 

practicable. NMFS has managed the 

pelagic longline fishery as an incidental 

category for bluefin for many years and 

has implemented a number of 

regulations to limit the bluefin that can 

be retained and to discourage 

interactions with bluefin (e.g., limiting 

the number of bluefin that can be 

landed based on the weight of target 

species, implementing a time-area 

closure for bluefin in June in the 

northeast, requiring weak hooks in the 

Gulf of Mexico). The pelagic longline 

category as a whole has traditionally 

been allocated 8.1 percent of the total 

U.S. quota to cover incidental catch 

during directed fishing operations for 

other species, but those catches 

(including dead discards) have been 

significantly over that subquota in 

recent years. 

Through analysis of logbook data 

between 2006 and 2012, NMFS noted 

that a small number of vessels were 

responsible for the majority of reported 

bluefin interactions. In this and 

previous rulemakings, members of the 

pelagic longline fleet have repeatedly 

asked for increased individual 

accountability in the fishery. 

Amendment 7 is implementing 

management measures that will address 

this situation, and will hold individuals 

accountable for their bluefin 

interactions. 

Comment 29: NMFS should not 

penalize small vessels because of their 

inability of provide adequate space for 

observers. 

Response: NMFS designed the scoring 

system for the Pelagic Observer Program 

Performance metric being implemented 

by this final rule such that valid reasons 

for not carrying an observer will not be 

penalized. Observer coverage is integral 

to the management of the fishery as it 

contributes important, objective data in 

support of the management of protected 

species and provides important 

information on the pelagic longline 

fishery utilized in the management of 

bluefin and other HMS species. Due to 

the importance of having enough 

observed trips to meet the observer 

coverage targets required by national 

and international obligations, NMFS 

also evaluated vessels on the number of 

trips observed. The agency utilizes 

observer data to develop estimates of 

protected resources interactions and 

estimates of discards of other species 

including bluefin. These data are 

essential for stock assessments and are 

critical in meeting international 

management obligations. Under ATCA 

and as a contracting party of ICCAT, the 

United States is required to take part in 

the collection of biological, catch, and 

effort statistics for research and 

management purposes. 

Comment 30: NMFS received 

comments on the data used to calculate 

scores for performance metrics and IBQ 

allocations. NMFS received comments 

indicating that dolphinfish and wahoo 

from the HMS logbook needed to be 

included in the performance metric 

scoring. Several commenters requested 

the Agency include landings of 

designated target species (primarily 

dolphinfish and wahoo) reported in the 

coastal fisheries logbook in calculations 

used to assess IBQ and performance. 

Other commenters suggested that NMFS 

should use all pelagic longline logbooks 

in determining the Bluefin Avoidance 

Score. 

Response: Dolphinfish and wahoo 

reported in the HMS logbook were used 

to develop scores for performance 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71534 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

metrics. However, landings of these 

species reported in the Coastal Fisheries 

Logbook were not used in the 

performance metrics for several reasons. 

(1) The Coastal Fisheries Logbook 

would not contain landings of the 

primary target species of the HMS 

pelagic longline fishery (swordfish and 

BAYS tunas), and would not provide for 

the reporting of bluefin tuna 

interactions. Therefore, the actual ratio 

of landings of designated target species 

to bluefin interactions cannot be 

accurately calculated for sets reported in 

the Coastal Fisheries Logbook. (2) 

Fishermen in the southeast Atlantic that 

report in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook 

could have an advantage over fishermen 

in the Gulf of Mexico or New England 

that do not have the same type of 

reporting requirements and the same 

mechanism to report retention of 

dolphinfish. (3) The HMS logbook and 

the Coastal Fisheries Logbook require 

different types of data to be reported 

which creates a mismatch in how the 

data can be combined and collectively 

analyzed, which in turn could result in 

inconsistencies between the two data 

sets. (4) Specific geographic data (i.e., 

latitude and longitude for each set) that 

would were reported in the HMS 

logbook and used to identify and 

evaluate the ecological and economic 

effects of gear restricted areas are 

unavailable through the Coastal 

Fisheries Logbook. Rather, fishermen 

report location where the majority of all 

catches of each species were made 

through reference to a 1° latitude × 1° 

longitude grid cell. If NMFS were to 

incorporate data at the finest scale 

available (1° latitude × 1° longitude), 

NMFS would have to disregard the 

overwhelming number of requests for 

management (and visualization/

depiction of data) at a finer scale. (5) 

The Coastal Fisheries Logbook requires 

landings per trip to be reported by 

weight whereas the HMS Logbook 

requires all interactions per set to be 

reported by number. Also, fishermen 

reporting in the Coastal Fisheries 

Logbook may report gutted or whole 

weight. (6) A percentage (20%) of 

fishermen reporting through the Coastal 

Fisheries Logbook are selected to report 

discarded fish through a Supplemental 

Discard and Gear Trip Report form at 

the trip level, whereas all fishermen 

reporting in the HMS Logbook must 

provide this information for every set, 

which also creates a mismatch in how 

data can be combined and collectively 

analyzed. For these reasons NMFS used 

dolphinfish and wahoo catch data from 

the HMS logbooks to develop scores for 

performance metrics, but did not use the 

landings data reported in the Coastal 

Fisheries Logbook. 

Comment 31: NMFS should not base 

performance metrics on the Northeast 

Distant (NED) Area. 

Response: NMFS incorporated all data 

reported through the HMS logbook in 

the calculation of performance metrics, 

regardless of where vessels fished. 

Exclusion of the sets made in the NED 

area could result in certain vessels that 

had a lot of fishing effort in this region 

receiving a competitive advantage or a 

disadvantage in terms of performance 

metric scores. Further, vessels that fish 

in the NED are not exempt from 

observer (if selected) or logbook 

reporting requirements. 

Comment 32: NMFS should consider 

that, by allowing access based on the 

performance of a vessel, the new owner 

of a vessel may be evaluated based on 

prior poor vessel performance under a 

different owner. 

Response: As explained below, NMFS 

determined that the relevant historical 

activity should be that associated with 

the vessel (and not the permit), and 

therefore, the preferred IBQ Program 

would evaluate vessels based on all 

activity attributed to that vessel through 

the qualification time period (2006– 

2012). In general, the use of historical 

data as part of an individual quota share 

(or a performance criteria) can be 

complex due to historical transfers of 

the limited access permit from one 

vessel to another or changes in vessel 

ownership. The quota share formula 

implemented by Amendment 7 is based 

upon historical data associated with a 

permitted vessel. NMFS determined that 

the historical ‘platform’ upon which to 

base the quota share should be the 

vessel history instead of the permit 

history for the following reasons: (1) 

Vessel history reflects current and 

historical participation in the fishery; 

(2) the regulations regarding the transfer 

of Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permits do not address fishing history 

(i.e., do not specify whether when an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

is transferred from one vessel to 

another, whether the fishing history also 

transfers); and (3) the structure of the 

databases in which the logbook data 

resides uses the vessel as a key 

organizing feature, and therefore the 

compilation of data associated with a 

particular vessel is simpler and less 

prone to error (i.e., it is more complex 

to compile data based on an individual 

permit history). However, once the 

initial allocations are established, 

bluefin quota shares will be associated 

with the permit for future vessel 

transactions. For example, if a permitted 

vessel has quota shares, and the owner 

of the permitted vessel decides to sell 

the permit but keep the vessel, the seller 

of the permit will no longer have any 

privileges with respect to the IBQ 

Program (they would only have fishing 

both without a permit). In contrast, the 

buyer of the permit would have the 

eligibility for the IBQ associated with 

that permit (although the permit buyer 

would need to put that permit on a 

vessel in order to receive quota 

allocation). 

Comment 33: One commenter asked 

whether the public will know the 

identity of vessels excluded from the 

GRA. 

Response: NMFS does not intend to 

publicly release the identity of vessels 

without access to the GRA. 

Comment 34: NMFS received several 

suggestions concerning changes to the 

logbook performance metric, logbook 

reporting requirements, and requests for 

faster logbook submission methods. 

Some commenters felt that NMFS 

should not include a logbook 

performance metric. Commenters noted 

that logbook reports are usually late 

because it takes time to collect the 

required economic information, and 

sometimes fishermen are out for 

extended periods of time. Dealers 

sometime take 2 or more weeks to get 

a return done, which results in delays 

in submitting data to the Logbook 

Program. For offshore/distant water 

fishermen, it sometimes takes more than 

a week for the receipt of information 

from dealers, especially if the catch is 

offloaded in Canada. The commenters 

felt that if NMFS wants to retain this 

performance metric, the agency should 

require that dealer tally sheets be 

submitted separately from the logbooks. 

NMFS received suggestions to transition 

the logbook performance metric from 

the date of opening the letter to the date 

of receipt by the Agency to allow for 

contingencies such as a government 

shutdown (or other factors that may 

delay Agency officials from opening 

letters). A commenter felt that NMFS 

should establish a tolerance for the 

mailing of logbook reports from 

different parts of the country to Miami, 

FL, because fishermen in Florida have 

an advantage over fishermen based in 

more distant locations (e.g., Maine) due 

to the length of time it takes to deliver 

mail. NMFS was asked to establish a 

process whereby fishermen can submit 

logbooks by fax or online to minimize 

delays due to the distance a letter has 

to travel. 

Response: Current regulations require 

fishermen to submit logbooks within 7 

days of offloading. Logbook reports 

must include weighout slips showing 

the dealer to whom fish were 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71535 

transferred, the date of transferal, and 

the carcass weight of fish for which 

individual weights are recorded. Timely 

logbook reporting is a critical 

component of quota monitoring, 

particularly for species like HMS that 

have small annual or seasonal quotas. 

Many pelagic longline fishermen are 

able to comply with the requirement to 

submit logbooks within seven days. 

There are members of the fleet, 

however, that take months to a full year 

to submit logbook reports. These late 

reports, either late due to logistics or 

non-compliance, make quota 

management of HMS very difficult, 

especially if quotas are small. 

Amendment 7 will require catch 

reporting via VMS units to ensure 

timely report of bluefin catches. NMFS 

may pursue faster mechanisms to report 

logbooks in the future, such electronic 

logbooks. 

Comment 35: NMFS should have 

solicited feedback on performance 

criteria from the industry. The 

commenter felt that NMFS developed 

the performance criteria in a ‘‘black 

box’’ and did not provide ample 

notification that the agency would be 

evaluating individuals on these metrics. 

Response: Significant time and 

opportunity for public comment have 

gone into what has been a very thorough 

rulemaking process for this 

Amendment. NMFS repeatedly solicited 

public feedback and Advisory Panel 

input on the alternatives in Amendment 

7, including the development of the 

performance criteria. NMFS has 

discussed the management of bluefin 

discards with the public and with the 

Advisory Panel since a 2009 Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. NMFS 

indicated in both the Predraft and the 

DEIS that a small number of individuals 

were responsible for the majority of 

bluefin interactions. NMFS received 

numerous public comments in 

Amendment 5 to the Consolidated HMS 

FMP indicating that the pelagic longline 

fleet desired individual accountability 

measures, instead of holding the entire 

fleet responsible for high interactions of 

a few vessels with dusky sharks. NMFS 

developed the performance criteria as a 

means to evaluate fishermen and hold 

them individually accountable for 

reduction of bluefin discards and 

compliance with the reporting and 

monitoring regulations. These 

performance criteria offer an alternative 

to fleet-wide time/area closures. 

Furthermore, the multiple criteria offer 

individuals who have moderate levels of 

bluefin interactions to still access GRAs 

provided that they comply with the 

reporting and monitoring requirements. 

Reporting and observer requirements 

have been in place for several years, and 

NMFS regularly communicates with 

constituents concerning the rules 

pertaining to these programs. NMFS 

notifies individuals selected for 

reporting annually with letters that 

detail reporting requirements. 

Furthermore, NMFS produces outreach 

materials, compliance guides, and a 

Web site that clearly state reporting 

requirements. With respect to the 

observer program, NMFS also clearly 

notifies individuals of vessel selection 

for observer coverage. The Pelagic 

Observer Program regularly 

communicates with the points of 

contact (captains and vessel owners) 

regarding the organization and 

scheduling of observed trips. 

Commercial fishermen are therefore 

provided ample notification of the 

regulations concerning observer and 

logbook reporting. 

Comment 36: NMFS should not deny 

access to individuals who are good 

bluefin avoiders. The intent of the rule 

is to reduce bluefin discards, not to 

penalize fishermen for being out of 

compliance with observer or reporting 

requirements. NMFS Office of Law 

Enforcement should be solely 

responsible for penalizing fishermen 

that are out of compliance. 

Response: NMFS regulations that 

require fishermen to submit logbooks or 

to carry observers are designed to collect 

information that NMFS uses to manage 

HMS fisheries. When fishermen do not 

comply with such regulations, they 

jeopardize NMFS’ ability to develop 

sound management strategies, conduct 

stock assessments with the best 

scientific information available, 

estimate bycatch interactions and 

bluefin discards, and comply with 

international treaty requirements. As 

such, under the Amendment 7 

regulations, NMFS will consider a 

fisherman’s compliance with current 

logbook and observer requirements 

when evaluating whether or not NMFS 

will grant that fisherman access to the 

Cape Hatteras GRA—an area where 

interactions with bluefin tuna are likely. 

NMFS wants to ensure that fishermen 

allowed access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA will abide by all relevant 

regulations to facilitate monitoring of 

fishing activities in these areas. 

Comment 37: NMFS should consider 

vessels that have no history or are new 

to the fishery as qualified to access the 

closed areas (‘‘innocent until proven 

guilty’’). Vessels should have a ‘‘clean 

slate’’ at the start of each year and 

access to the GRA. If they interact with 

too many BFT, then they should be 

closed out. 

Response: The GRAs are selected as 

locations with relatively high numbers 

of historical bluefin interactions. The 

Bluefin Avoidance Score was designed 

to evaluate a vessel’s ability to avoid 

bluefin tuna, relative to its landings. 

New entrants to the fishery will have 

performance metrics associated with the 

permit that the entrant purchased. All 

vessels will have a new performance 

score at the start of each year, based 

upon the three most recent years of 

available data, and therefore 

performance scores may improve over 

time. 

Comment 38: Some commenters were 

concerned about the incentives that a 

conditional access program may 

provide. 

Response: The concept of providing 

conditional access to a GRA (i.e., the 

Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic 

Longline GRA) is based on the historical 

data, which indicate that a relatively 

small number of vessels are responsible 

for a large portion of the bluefin tuna 

interactions. Because conditional access 

will be based upon the rate of bluefin 

tuna interactions (as well as reporting 

metrics), the program rules provide 

incentives to all pelagic longline vessels 

with respect to bluefin tuna 

interactions. Specifically, vessels with 

historically high bluefin tuna 

interactions that are not allowed access 

will have an incentive to reduce their 

rate of bluefin interactions if they desire 

to fish in the GRA. Conversely, vessels 

with a relatively low rate of bluefin 

interactions that are allowed to fish in 

the GRA will have an incentive to 

continue to avoid bluefin in order to 

maintain a low rate of bluefin 

interactions. In contrast, if all vessels 

were precluded from the Modified Cape 

Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount 

of a vessel’s interactions with bluefin, 

there would be no incentives with 

respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and 

the scale of potential economic impacts 

would be disproportionate to the 

estimated amount of reduction in 

bluefin tuna interactions). No access to 

the Gulf of Mexico GRAs was proposed 

because the interactions with bluefin in 

the Gulf of Mexico are more evenly 

distributed among all of the vessels 

fishing there (and not concentrated 

among a few vessels as in the area off 

Cape Hatteras). 

Comment 39: NMFS should not count 

bluefin interactions from sets made 

while participating in NMFS programs 

(e.g., shark research fishery) towards the 

calculation of bluefin to designated 

target species ratios because fishermen 

fish differently on those trips. 

Response: NMFS did not exclude 

such trips because of the relatively few 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71536 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

vessels that might be affected; 

participation in research programs 

could have affected vessels in either a 

positive or negative manner. In most 

instances, minor differences in the 

amounts of catch of either target species 

or bluefin would not likely affect a 

vessel’s allocation due to the three 

tiered allocation system (i.e., a range of 

catch values is designated to each of the 

three tiers), and the performance metric 

scoring system (based on a range of 

values). Fishermen that believe they 

have been disadvantaged through 

participation in research may appeal 

access and IBQ decisions through the 

two-stage appeal process. 

Comment 40: NMFS should calculate 

performance metrics only on the most 

recent data available. NMFS needs to 

revisit criteria for inclusion—some 

vessels have hardly fished over the last 

few years. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

inclusion of newer data is important. In 

the Predraft and the DEIS, NMFS 

analyzed and developed alternatives 

based on pelagic longline data from 

2006 to 2011. NMFS included an 

additional year of logbook data (2012) in 

the FEIS analyses for each time-area 

alternative. In the FEIS, the 2006–2012 

time period was chosen because the last 

significant bluefin fishery management 

action was the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

FMP, and therefore fishing behavior 

from prior to 2006 would have been 

based on previous management 

measures and may not be representative 

of the current fishery. The 2006 to 2012 

time period is long enough to minimize 

the influence of one-time events such as 

natural or man-made disasters. NMFS 

intentionally designed the GRAs to be 

flexible and allow fishing vessels that 

have been affected by short-term events 

to participate in the pelagic longline 

fishery. 

The Agency will distribute letters 

indicating the final performance metrics 

and what members of the fishery could 

expect by the start of the fishing year. 

Initial performance metrics will be 

calculated on the entire historical time 

period considered for determining IBQ 

allocations. However, in subsequent 

years, the performance metrics will be 

calculated on the previous three years of 

available data. 

Comment 41: NMFS should not base 

access on history. High bluefin 

interactions in one year do not 

necessarily mean that there will be high 

bluefin interactions the following year. 

Response: As noted in the response to 

Comment # 44 NMFS acknowledges that 

past performance may not be a perfect 

indicator of future performance. 

However, one of the objectives of the 

use of Performance Metrics is to provide 

incentives for future fishing behavior 

that will result in reduced rates of 

interactions between pelagic longline 

gear and bluefin. Although there is 

variability in fish distribution and 

activity from one year to the next, there 

are certain vessels that consistently 

report high interactions with bluefin 

tuna through logbooks. As explained in 

Response to Comment # 38 conditional 

access based on past performance 

provides continuing incentives to avoid 

bluefin tuna and to comply with 

relevant reporting and monitoring 

requirements. 

Comment 42: NMFS should evaluate 

vessels on the number of interactions 

with protected resources (e.g., pilot 

whales) as part of the criteria for 

accessing the Cape Hatteras GRA. 

Response: Although Amendment 7 

management measures are consistent 

with the relevant laws and regulations 

regarding protected species, the 

objectives upon which it is based did 

not include any specific objective 

regarding protected species, and did not 

include any specific management 

measures regarding protected species. 

Therefore the commenter’s suggestion to 

incorporate criteria relating to protected 

resources is outside of the scope of the 

Amendment 7. The impacts of the 

Amendment 7 measures on protected 

species are analyzed in this FEIS. 

7. Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

Comment 43: NMFS received a large 

number of comments supporting the 

five-month Cape Hatteras Pelagic 

Longline GRA as proposed (DEIS 

preferred Alternative). NMFS also 

received comments suggesting 

modifications to the scope and duration 

of the area, and commented on whether 

or not conditional access to the area is 

appropriate. 

Response: The Cape Hatteras area has 

consistently been a location where a 

high number of bluefin interactions 

with the pelagic longline fleet have 

occurred, and was initially identified in 

the Predraft to Amendment 7 as a 

geographic area where a GRA may be 

warranted. Responses to the specific 

suggestions regarding the Cape Hatteras 

GRA are below (see responses to 

comments 43–49. As described in 

comments 46 and 47, NMFS modified 

the preferred alternative in the FEIS (the 

‘‘Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic 

Longline GRA’’). 

Comment 44: Some commenters 

supported the proposed GRA because 

access would be granted to some 

vessels, while other commenters stated 

that NMFS should implement GRAs 

without conditional access. Commenters 

noted that the Agency would be 

penalizing fishermen for bluefin 

interactions (specifically, discards) 

when there was not previously a 

regulation that required bluefin 

avoidance. Some commenters felt that 

the implementation of performance 

metrics is too severe a management 

measure, and fishermen that might be 

excluded from fishing in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA noted that the proposed 

measures would have severe economic 

implications for their businesses. Some 

commenters only supported the Cape 

Hatteras GRA if pelagic longline vessels 

are allowed to fish under General 

category rules in the area. 

Response: Analysis of logbook data 

from 2006 through 2012 indicated that 

a relatively low number of vessels were 

responsible for the majority of bluefin 

interactions in the Atlantic. NMFS 

developed the concept of conditional 

access to the GRA in light of this 

pattern, in order to incentivize 

individual fishermen to avoid bluefin 

tuna, and to reduce economic impacts to 

the extent practicable. 

A system of conditional access will 

hold fishermen individually 

accountable for their interactions, as 

opposed to holding the entire fleet 

responsible for high interactions by a 

small number of fishermen. Because 

conditional access will be based upon 

the rate of bluefin tuna interactions (as 

well as reporting metrics), the program 

rules will provide incentives to all 

pelagic longline vessels with respect to 

bluefin tuna interactions. Specifically, 

vessels with historically high bluefin 

tuna interactions that are not allowed 

access will have an incentive to reduce 

their rate of bluefin interactions if they 

desire to fish in the GRA. Conversely, 

vessels with a relatively low rate of 

bluefin interactions that are allowed to 

fish in the GRA will have an incentive 

to continue to avoid bluefin in order to 

maintain a low rate of bluefin 

interactions. In contrast, if all vessels 

were precluded from the Modified Cape 

Hatteras GRA, regardless of the amount 

of a vessel’s interactions with bluefin, 

there would be no incentives with 

respect to the catch of bluefin tuna (and 

the scale of potential economic impacts 

would be disproportionate to the 

estimated amount of reduction in 

bluefin tuna interactions). No access to 

the Gulf of Mexico GRAs was proposed 

or implemented because the interactions 

with bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are 

more evenly distributed among all of the 

vessels fishing there (and not 

concentrated among a few vessels as in 

the area off Cape Hatteras). 

Regarding the comment that it is 

unfair to use past interactions with 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71537 

bluefin as part of the allocation formula 

because in the past it was lawful to 

interact with bluefin tuna: Pelagic 

longline regulations were designed to 

limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna 

(e.g., target catch requirements, weak 

hook requirements). Therefore, it is 

appropriate that the IBQ Program 

implemented by this final rule provide 

some benefit in the form of IBQ 

allocation for vessels that may have 

fished in a manner that reduced 

interactions with, or avoided bluefin 

tuna, consistent with the regulations. 

NMFS acknowledges that past 

performance may not be a perfect 

indicator of future performance. One of 

the objectives of the Cape Hatteras 

Pelagic Longline GRA measure 

implemented by this final rule is to 

provide incentives for future fishing 

behavior that will result in reduced 

rates of interactions between pelagic 

longline gear and bluefin. As explained 

in response to comment # 63 NMFS 

proposed, but is not implementing a 

measure that would have allowed 

pelagic longline vessels to fish under 

the General category rules. 

NMFS acknowledges that some 

vessels could experience economic 

hardship due to not having access to the 

Cape Hatteras GRA. However the data 

indicate that there will also be 

substantial reductions in the number of 

bluefin tuna interactions associated 

with the changes in fishing behavior 

(i.e., 34 percent reduction in bluefin 

discarded, and 6 percent reduction in 

bluefin kept, fishery-wide) as a result of 

this action. The performance metric 

system is designed to incentivize 

fishermen to avoid bluefin tuna and to 

comply with observer and reporting 

requirements. Based on the FEIS 

analysis, 14 vessels of 135 would not 

have access to the Cape Hatteras GRA 

being implemented. NMFS determined 

that, after redistribution of effort, there 

was not a sizable difference in the 

number of bluefin kept and discarded 

between implementation of the Cape 

Hatteras GRA without access for any 

vessels (¥389 fish per year), and 

implementation of the original Cape 

Hatteras GRA with Access Based on 

Performance (¥401 fish per year). The 

total economic losses as a result of 

implementing the proposed Cape 

Hatteras GRA for all vessels, the 

proposed Cape Hatteras GRA with 

Access Based on Performance, and the 

Modified Cape Hatteras GRA with 

Access Based on Performance being 

implemented, after redistribution of 

effort are ¥$893,562; ¥$301,651; and 

¥$210,956, respectively. NMFS 

therefore is not implementing the GRA 

without access because the measure 

would result in a comparable reduction 

in bluefin interactions, but at nearly 

quadruple the cost in estimated 

economic losses for the pelagic longline 

fleet. The additional incentives that the 

performance metrics regarding 

compliance with logbook and observer 

requirements were also determined to 

be important to support the Amendment 

7 objective regarding enhanced 

reporting and monitoring. 

Comment 45: Commenters suggested 

that NMFS should modify the proposed 

Cape Hatteras GRA to include the areas 

north and east, as well as southwest of 

the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, to 

address possible redistribution of 

fishing effort and other areas of 

moderate to high bluefin interactions. A 

commenter requested consideration of a 

specific extension of the proposed GRA 

northward to cover a region with 

moderate bluefin interaction in order to 

prevent increased fishing effort in the 

area as a result of redistribution by 

fishermen whose performance scores are 

not high enough to fish in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA. The commenter stated 

that the area could further act as a buffer 

to protect migrating bluefin tuna that 

aggregate there. NMFS also received a 

comment suggesting a GRA along the 

continental shelf between the Delmarva 

Peninsula and Georges Banks for the 

time periods of June through July, and 

November through December to 

complement the preferred alternatives. 

Response: NMFS analyzed the impact 

of the suggested GRA to the north of the 

proposed Cape Hatteras GRA (assuming 

redistribution of fishing effort). The 

suggested extension to the north would 

result in a reduction of only 3 bluefin 

tuna, after redistribution of effort. 

Reductions in other species would be 

minor. While the suggested GRA would 

be small in both time and space, it is not 

anticipated to contribute much to the 

goal of reducing bluefin discards. For 

these reasons, NMFS considered but did 

not further analyze or otherwise include 

this suggested modification as an 

alternative in the FEIS. 

NMFS also analyzed a GRA along the 

continental shelf between the Delmarva 

Peninsula and Georges Banks for the 

time periods of June through July and 

November through December and 

determined that the reduction in effort 

with redistribution would result in 

notable reduction in bluefin interactions 

(¥48 fish/year kept; ¥310 fish/year 

discarded). However, the reductions in 

target catch would be substantial (bigeye 

tuna kept (¥977 fish/year); yellowfin 

tuna kept (¥1,206 fish/year); and the 

numbers of swordfish kept (¥1,118/

year)). That configuration, combined 

with the Cape Hatteras GRA, would 

close the majority of the continental 

shelf to fishermen that do not meet 

performance objectives. These suggested 

modifications did not achieve as much 

reduction in bluefin interactions 

compared with the reduction in target 

catch. Therefore, NMFS but did not 

include the suggested GRAs as an 

alternatives in the FEIS. 

Comment 46: The North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources and pelagic longline 

fishermen commented that NMFS 

should omit the southeast corner of the 

proposed GRA (preferred alternative in 

the DEIS) due to the prevailing direction 

of currents in this area, and the fact that 

gear set south or southwest of the Cape 

Hatteras GRA would drift into the GRA. 

Response: NMFS analyzed additional 

spatial and temporal configurations of 

the Cape Hatteras GRA and determined 

that little conservation benefit could be 

expected from limiting access to this 

area and that the associated economic 

costs were not warranted. NMFS agrees 

that the prevailing currents would have 

effectively closed productive fishing 

grounds southwest of the GRA in federal 

waters off the coast of central and 

southern North Carolina. As a result of 

these analyses, and considerations, 

NMFS modified the measure from the 

configuration which was proposed to a 

gear restricted area during the same 

months (December through April), but 

with a slightly different configuration. 

Comment 47: NMFS should consider 

the potential negative economic impact 

on fishermen in the area who do not 

have access to other fishing grounds. 

Response: The design of the Cape 

Hatteras GRA being implemented by 

this final rule was the result of an 

iterative process. NMFS analyzed 

multiple time periods and geographic 

areas in order to take into consideration 

both the potential reduction in the 

number of bluefin interactions and the 

potential reductions in target catch. The 

analysis considered relevant fisheries 

data, and also oceanographic trends. In 

the DEIS, due to current patterns in the 

Cape Hatteras area, the zone affected by 

the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was 

analyzed beyond itsexplicit boundaries. 

Analysis of a buffer region was needed 

because vessels to the south and west of 

the GRA would be prevented from 

fishing in these areas because their gear 

would drift into the GRA (having the 

effect of creating a larger affected 

geographic area that the boundary of the 

GRA). The DEIS analysis of impacts not 

only considered the reduced fishing 

effort within the GRA, but also the 

reduced fishing effort in a buffer region 

to the south and west of the area. NMFS 

included sets made in this buffer region 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71538 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

into the redistribution analyses. Based 

on public comment and additional 

analyses, NMFS decided to implement 

the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA, which 

will minimize the adverse impacts on 

fishing opportunities while still 

achieving comparable reductions of 

bluefin discards and almost identical 

conservation and management benefits 

as the original proposal. 

Comment 48: NMFS should 

implement a GRA and have various 

requirements including mandatory 

observer coverage, electronic 

monitoring, or the use of weak hooks in 

order to fish the area. Several 

commenters suggested that NMFS 

implement the GRA and only allow 

access with 100 percent observer 

coverage. 

Response: Observer coverage is an 

important tool in monitoring the pelagic 

longline fishery. Vessels with access to 

the Cape Hatteras GRA will be subject 

to the same level of observer coverage as 

the rest of the pelagic longline fleet. 

Electronic monitoring is an important 

aspect of the new IBQ Program, which 

includes the GRAs. Under Amendment 

7 regulations, any vessel fishing with 

pelagic longline gear will be required to 

have an operational electronic 

monitoring system onboard. NMFS did 

not consider an alternative that would 

implement new weak hook 

requirements for the Atlantic, because 

we do not presently have data 

indicating that such measures would be 

effective in meeting the objectives of 

Amendment 7, given size differentials 

between fish in the Gulf of Mexico and 

the Atlantic and the current state of 

research on the subject. 

Comment 49: NMFS should establish 

communication protocols designed to 

help fishermen minimize interactions 

for the regions of concern instead of 

implementing GRAs. One commenter 

suggested the establishment of 

communication protocols, similar to 

those designed for the Pelagic Longline 

Take Reduction Plan, be required within 

the boundaries of the Cape Hatteras 

GRA. 

Response: Communication protocols 

can be valuable and could assist pelagic 

longline vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. 

Captains are already required to follow 

a communication protocol for pilot 

whales in this area. NMFS believes such 

a system would work best for bluefin 

avoidance if it were voluntary, and had 

the full support of those involved. 

However, in the interest of avoiding 

bluefin and minimizing the risk of 

shutting down the pelagic longline 

fishery, NMFS strongly encourages 

vessel captains to communicate the 

location of bluefin tuna with each other. 

8. Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 

Comment 50: A large number of 

commenters expressed general support 

for a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico, while 

others stated that NMFS should not 

implement a GOM GRA, due to the 

severe economic impact it would have 

on the fishery. 

Response: Implementation of a GRA 

in the Gulf of Mexico supports the 

achievement of the Amendment 7 

objectives. A GRA will, in conjunction 

with the other management measures 

implemented by this final rule, result in 

the reduction of dead discards of bluefin 

tuna by the pelagic longline fishery. 

Although implementation of a GRA will 

have a negative economic impact on the 

pelagic longline fishery, the preferred 

alternative will have less of an impact 

than some of the other alternatives 

considered and analyzed. As described 

in more detail in the responses to 

comments below, NMFS analyzed a 

range of alternatives, and took into 

account the importance of fishery 

resources to fishing communities by 

analyzing economic and social data. 

Because GRAs may result in the 

reduction and/or redistribution of 

fishing effort by pelagic longline gear, 

the preferred alternative represents a 

balance between anticipated reductions 

in dead discards of bluefin, and 

potential negative economic impacts on 

the pelagic longline fishery. 

Furthermore, the preferred alternative 

will support the broader objectives of 

both stock rebuilding as well as the 

continued viability of the commercial 

and recreational fisheries that depend 

upon bluefin tuna. 

Comment 51: Some commenters 

supported the Amendment 7 alternative 

that would prohibit the use of pelagic 

longline gear throughout the Exclusive 

Economic Zone (EEZ), year-round, in 

order to protect spawning bluefin, and 

aggregations of bluefin. Some 

commenters noted the potential for a 

gulf-wide closure to reduce injuries and 

deaths of protected species such as sea 

turtles. 

Response: NMFS analyzed the 

biological and socio-economic impacts 

of this Alternative, and although 

prohibition of pelagic longline gear 

would eliminate interactions between 

pelagic longline gear and bluefin in the 

Gulf of Mexico, such a prohibition 

would not minimize the reductions in 

target catch (e.g., yellowfin tuna, 

swordfish) in the pelagic longline 

fishery or the and negative economic 

impacts on the fishery, both goals 

consistent with Amendment objectives. 

The prohibition of pelagic longline gear 

in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ (year round) 

would be expected to only result in a 14 

percent decrease in the numbers of 

bluefin tuna discarded, yet would 

reduce revenue from pelagic longline 

gear by approximately $7.63 million per 

year, and affect up to 75 vessels. 

NMFS also analyzed the possible 

effects of the GRA alternatives on 

multiple species, including sea turtles. 

The FEIS contains the results of the 

analyses that evaluated the GRA 

alternatives using redistribution 

analyses to ensure that the GRAs would 

not substantially increase interactions 

with sea turtles if fishermen were to 

redistribute their effort into open waters 

of the Atlantic Ocean. These analyses 

showed that there would be no net 

change in the average number of annual 

interactions with leatherback or 

loggerhead sea turtles for the Modified 

Cape Hatteras GRA, and a reduction of 

1 interaction for these turtles for the 

Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA. 

NMFS expects Amendment 7 measures 

implemented will have a neutral or 

minor beneficial impact on protected 

species as a result of potential impacts 

on fishing effort, especially fishing effort 

associated with pelagic longline gear. 

The fisheries managed under the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its 

amendments have undergone formal 

and/or informal Section 7 consultation 

and collectively address the ongoing 

Atlantic HMS fisheries. On August 15, 

2013, NMFS determined that the 

proposed measures in Amendment 7 to 

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP would 

not require reinitiation of formal 

consultation. The environmental effects 

of the preferred alternatives in this FEIS 

are substantially the same as those 

analyzed in the DEIS, although some 

different alternatives are now preferred 

and two of the alternatives have been 

slightly modified. No additional or 

substantively different effects on listed 

species are expected as a result of these 

changes. For detailed information on 

reinitiation of formal Section 7 

consultation on HMS fisheries, see the 

Classification section. 

Comment 52: Some commenters 

supported the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA, 

which would prohibit the use of pelagic 

longline gear from March through May, 

while others supported expanding the 

duration of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA 

to include all the months during which 

bluefin tuna may be present in the Gulf 

of Mexico, or suggested specific ranges 

of months (e.g., December through June, 

March through May, March through 

August). A large number of commenters 

felt that a GRA that encompassed the 

entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ would better 

account for variability in bluefin 

distribution and areas of spawning 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71539 

activity and changing fishing patterns 

within the fleet. Many commenters 

believed that a larger GRA should be 

implemented instead of any changes to 

quota allocations, or felt that the 

implementation of such a GRA would 

eliminate the need for IBQs. 

Response: In selecting the preferred 

alternative, NMFS analyzed the time 

and areas in which the highest number 

of bluefin interactions have occurred, in 

order to achieve meaningful reductions 

in bluefin catch by pelagic longline gear, 

but also to minimize the reductions in 

target catch. A Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA 

encompassing the entire Gulf of Mexico 

EEZ for the suggested range of months 

was not justified. First, there exists an 

historical pattern of relatively high 

number of interactions occurring in 

particular locations and months. 

Additionally, a GRA encompassing the 

whole of the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would 

have included locations where there 

have been relatively few interactions. 

Similarly, inclusion of locations with 

relatively few historical interactions in 

the GRA would still preclude fishing 

with pelagic longline gear in such 

locations, increasing the likelihood of 

additional lost revenue, with relatively 

little reduction in bluefin interactions. 

Inclusion of months during which 

there have been relatively few 

interactions would preclude fishing 

opportunity, with relatively little 

reduction in bluefin interactions. In 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS, Table 3.29 

presents a breakdown of all bluefin tuna 

interactions reported in the HMS 

Logbook, by month, in the Gulf of 

Mexico EEZ. Although bluefin tuna 

were noted year round in the Gulf of 

Mexico, the data indicated distinct 

spatial and temporal patterns. For 

example, between 2006 and 2012, there 

were 13, 3, 13, 16, and 13 total bluefin 

tuna interactions reported in July, 

August, September, October, and 

November, respectively. In comparison, 

the months that some comments 

suggested for a GRA (March through 

May) had 266, 498, and 496 total bluefin 

interactions in March, April, and May, 

respectively. NMFS does not believe 

that a GRA is warranted at this time 

during the late summer or early fall 

based on the reported numbers of 

bluefin tuna that occurred in this area. 

There is variability in bluefin 

distribution, and fishing patterns may 

change over time. Due to this variability, 

any specific GRA that does not cover the 

whole EEZ year-round may be less 

effective, or more effective, at reducing 

dead discards than the historical data 

would indicate. Notwithstanding this 

variability, a specific GRA designed 

using historic information, and 

encompassing only a portion of the Gulf 

of Mexico for specific months is likely 

to reduce dead discards over a multiyear time scale. In other words over 

time there are consistent patterns in 

bluefin distribution that may not be 

exhibited to the same extent each year. 

Therefore, a GRA is not likely to achieve 

the same level of effectiveness each 

year, but over time is expected to 

achieve reductions in dead discards 

similar to that indicated by NMFS’ 

analysis. 

In analyzing the Gulf of Mexico 

closure alternatives in the FEIS, NMFS 

also considered the need to gather 

scientific data from the Gulf of Mexico 

longline fishery data for the 

development of effective conservation 

and management measures. A larger 

GRA for the Gulf of Mexico EEZ would 

severely reduce the collection of 

important data from the pelagic longline 

fishery and would increase uncertainty 

in the western Atlantic bluefin stock 

assessment. Gulf of Mexico pelagic 

longline data are critical to the 

development of catch per unit effort 

(CPUE) information, which is used as 

the index of abundance for spawning 

bluefin tuna, an important element of 

the stock assessment for western 

Atlantic bluefin tuna. Such uncertainty 

would make it more difficult to assess 

the status of stocks, to set the 

appropriate optimum yield and define 

overfishing levels, and to ensure that 

optimum yield is attained and 

overfishing levels are not exceeded. 

NMFS conducted a ‘‘power analysis’’ 

to determine the number of pelagic 

longline sets that would be required to 

maintain the current level of precision 

for the CPUE and found that 

approximately 60 percent of the recent 

number of pelagic longline sets in the 

Gulf of Mexico would be required. 

Although NMFS could transition from 

using this fishery dependent data to 

another data source (i.e., fishery 

independent data), it would require 

several years before a new fishery 

independent data source could be used 

for stock assessment purposes and an 

abrupt cessation of the current CPUE 

data would mean a break in the time 

series and increase uncertainty in stock 

assessment results. NMFS will continue 

to explore alternative methods for the 

collection of independent data. In 

contrast to a GRA applicable to the full 

EEZ, a GRA in the Gulf of Mexico with 

a smaller area and short duration will 

still be effective in reducing bycatch to 

the extent practicable and protecting 

spawning-sized bluefin while 

permitting allowable fishing and the 

collection of data needed for index of 

abundance. The size and duration of the 

GOM GRA being implemented by this 

final rule, will not preclude the 

collection of the necessary data in 

support of the stock assessments, and 

will reduce bycatch during the 

spawning season, as well as augment 

the IBQ Program in ensuring that catch 

does not exceed the quota. 

With respect to the relationship 

between the size of a GRA and other 

Amendment 7 alternatives (i.e., IBQs 

and quota allocation), the use of 

multiple management tools will reduce 

negative economic impacts on the 

pelagic longline fishery, as well as 

achieve the diverse Amendment 7 

objectives in a balanced manner. 

Comment 53: Several commenters 

expressed support for the Small Gulf of 

Mexico GRA in the DEIS, which was 

proposed, but is not being implemented. 

A number of comments indicated the 

Small Gulf of Mexico GRA was the 

minimum acceptable size for a GRA in 

the Gulf of Mexico, while other 

commenters did not support the 

proposed Small Gulf of Mexico GRA, 

feeling that NMFS ought to do more to 

protect bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico. A 

large number of commenters requested 

that the agency re-evaluate the GRA and 

identify other alternatives. One 

commenter felt the DEIS lacked 

compelling justification for choosing an 

alternative that does not protect all 

spawners and increases fishing pressure 

in critical areas of the Gulf of Mexico. 

Other commenters felt that the 

boundaries encompassed by the Small 

Gulf of Mexico GRA did not reflect the 

best scientific knowledge available. 

Specific suggestions included 

modification of the duration (change, 

shorten, lengthen, or include specific 

months) to cover peak spawning periods 

or provide a buffer due to variability in 

the timing and area of bluefin spawning 

activity and longline fishing patterns 

from year to year. Some commenters 

believed the months of the GRA should 

cover the full bluefin spawning period. 

Other commenters suggested that the 

GRA be extended to the east or north to 

encompassed additional known 

spawning areas, or extended south to 

cover areas where large numbers of 

interactions have occurred. 

Response: As stated in the response to 

comments 50, 51, and 52, NMFS 

analyzed a range of GRA alternatives 

that encompass a range of biological and 

socio-economic impacts, and would 

achieve various amounts of reductions 

in bluefin interactions and result in 

different reductions in revenue. As 

explained above in the response to 

comments 51 and 52, a complete Gulf of 

Mexico EEZ closure for a full year or 

portion of the year is not warranted 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71540 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

because a smaller GRA is sufficient to 

achieve the Amendment 7 objectives 

and to minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality to the extent practicable. 

Based on public comment, NMFS 

analyzed the impacts of additional areas 

and times in the Gulf of Mexico, not 

analyzed in the DEIS, and included 

2012 data. As a result of these 

additional analysis, and careful 

consideration of both the biological and 

socio-economic impacts, NMFS is 

implementing the Spring Modified Gulf 

of Mexico Pelagic Longline GRAs. 

The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico 

Pelagic Longline GRAs include most of 

the geographic area of the GRA that was 

originally proposed, but are larger, 

extending further to the east, and are 

slightly reduced in size on the western 

and northern borders. Additionally, the 

Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic 

Longline GRAs include a second area 

that is adjacent to the southern border 

of the Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s 

northwestern ‘block.’ 

The Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico 

Pelagic Longline GRAs encompass 

additional areas of historic bluefin 

interaction in the eastern-central Gulf of 

Mexico, and address a recent shift in 

pelagic longline fishing activity 

eastward. Between 2009 and 2012, there 

was a 10 to 20 percent shift from the 

Mid-Gulf Louisiana region to the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico region. The area defined 

by the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico 

Pelagic Longline GRAs includes a larger 

portion of the spawning areas 

documented in the peer-reviewed 

literature at this time, but does not 

include all of the known bluefin 

spawning areas in the GOM for reasons 

previously explained. The Spring 

Modified Gulf of Mexico Pelagic 

Longline GRAs will occur during the 

months of April and May, the same time 

period as proposed for the original 

Small Gulf of Mexico GRA. 

NMFS previously regulated large 

portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico 

through implementation of the DeSoto 

Canyon closed area, Madison-Swanson 

and Steamboat Lumps Sites, and the 

Edges closure. The pelagic longline fleet 

fishes the continental shelf along the 

west coast of Florida between the 

southern DeSoto Canyon box and the 

Florida Keys. However, bluefin 

interactions in this area are relatively 

few compared to the areas evaluated in 

the FEIS. 

Comment 54: One commenter noted 

that the size of the fishable area in the 

Gulf of Mexico is already small, given 

the constraints on the locations where 

they can fish, including existing pelagic 

longline closed areas, as well as the 

areas that must be avoided for other 

reasons (e.g., activity range of 

seismographic vessels, which can 

operate for up to six months, and oils 

rigs). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico 

Pelagic Longline GRAs being 

implemented by this final rule will 

further reduce the amount of fishable 

areas in the Gulf of Mexico available for 

the use of pelagic longline gear, and that 

vessels choosing to fish in the Gulf of 

Mexico with pelagic longline gear will 

need to work around other industrial 

users of Gulf of Mexico resources. 

NMFS selected the boundaries of the 

Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs 

with careful consideration of the 

associated benefits and costs. NMFS 

optimized the size of the GRAs being 

implemented to achieve a meaningful 

reduction in dead discards, and still 

leave fishing grounds open for the 

pelagic longline fleet. The Cumulative 

Impacts Analysis in the FEIS (Chapter 6) 

considers the impacts of the preferred 

alternatives in the broader context of 

other historical and current activities. 

Comment 55: NMFS should consider 

the impact on the yellowfin tuna and 

swordfish fisheries, which are active in 

the Gulf of Mexico and in the areas 

covered by the GRAs. Specifically, the 

commenter questioned whether the Gulf 

of Mexico pelagic longline fleet would 

be able to remain active. 

Response: NMFS carefully considered 

the impact of the Spring Modified Gulf 

of Mexico GRAs on yellowfin and 

swordfish fisheries, both of which are 

robust and healthy fisheries in the Gulf 

of Mexico. The Spring Modified Gulf of 

Mexico GRAs achieve a balance 

between conservation objectives and 

providing continuing opportunity for 

the swordfish and yellowfin tuna 

fisheries. The primary conservation 

objective of the GRAs is to reduce 

bluefin interactions, and reduce bycatch 

and bycatch mortality to the extent 

practicable. NMFS compared among the 

alternatives the amount of ‘savings’ of 

bluefin tuna and the reduction in target 

catch as part of its analysis of the GRAs. 

Under the Spring Modified Gulf of 

Mexico GRA being implemented, the 

annual reductions in revenue associated 

with the reduced catches of swordfish 

and yellowfin tuna are estimated at 

$41,504 and $207,110, respectively. The 

annual reduction in total revenue is 

estimated at $1,793,922. An example of 

how the data was compared and 

alternatives evaluated follows: 

Comparing the Spring Modified Gulf of 

Mexico GRA with the alternative that 

would restrict the full EEZ for the 

months of March through May, the 

reduction in the weight of bluefin catch 

would be a little more than twice as 

much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt 

versus 19.2 mt under the Spring 

Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA), but the 

reduction in total revenue associated 

with the EEZ GRA would be more than 

six times larger than the reduction in 

total revenue associated with the Spring 

Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA 

($1,793,922 versus $281,614 under the 

Preferred). In other words, compared to 

the Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico 

GRA, the amount of additional costs 

that would be associated with the EEZ 

GRA would be disproportionately 

greater than the additional conservation 

benefits associated with the EEZ GRA. 

The Amendment 7 measures are not 

designed to target a particular amount of 

reduction in dead discards, but rather to 

reduce dead discards in a meaningful 

way, provide strong incentives to avoid 

and reduce bycatch, and take into 

account the potential impacts on the 

pelagic longline fishery. The combined 

effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA and the 

Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic 

Longline GRA will reduce the number 

of bluefin discarded by 40 percent, and 

the number of bluefin kept by 10 

percent (fishery-wide). 

Comment 56: One commenter asked 

why NMFS did not propose conditional 

access to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs, 

based on performance metrics, in 

contrast to the Cape Hatteras GRA, for 

which access was proposed. The 

commenter suggested that performance 

metrics should be applied to all GRAs. 

Response: NMFS did not propose and 

is not implementing conditional access 

to the Gulf of Mexico GRAs (based on 

performance metrics) in part because 

they would not be as effective in 

reducing discards of bluefin tuna in the 

GOM as they would be in the Atlantic. 

The fact that a relatively small number 

of vessels are responsible for the 

majority of bluefin interactions in the 

Atlantic makes access to the Modified 

Cape Hatteras GRA based on 

performance metrics effective, in order 

to reduce dead discards, provide 

incentives for modifying fishing 

behavior, and acknowledge past 

performance. In contrast, the pattern of 

interactions with bluefin tuna in the 

GOM is different from that in the 

Atlantic, with the interactions more 

evenly distributed among all vessels 

(i.e., more vessels responsible for the 

interactions). NMFS evaluated the 

Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRA 

using performance metrics, and 

applying them, only three vessels out of 

the 61 that fished in the Spring 

Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would 

not have had access to the GRAs. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71541 

Therefore, the savings from 

implementing the performance metrics 

would be very small, and the resulting 

ecological impacts would have been 

similar to not implementing a GRA at 

all. 

Comment 57: Some commenters felt 

that NMFS should delineate a GRA 

using the same boundaries as the 

bluefin Habitat Area of Particular 

Concern (HAPC). 

Response: NMFS determined that the 

reductions in bluefin tuna interactions 

resulting from a Gulf of Mexico GRA 

that encompasses the boundaries of the 

bluefin HAPC would be very similar to 

the savings incurred from a GRA drawn 

encompassing the boundaries of the 

Gulf of Mexico EEZ. NMFS therefore 

did not further evaluate a GRA that was 

designed to encompass the boundaries 

of the HAPC or develop an alternative 

around this proposed boundary. 

Comment 58: A commenter indicated 

that he could support a Gulf of Mexico 

GRA alternative if the pelagic longline 

fleet is provided flexibility through 

some of the alternatives proposed such 

as access to current closed areas, and 

ability to fish under General Category 

rules. 

Response: As described under the 

Response to Comments #63, and #64, 

access to certain closed areas, and the 

ability to fish under General Category 

rules in certain closed area were 

proposed but are not being finalized in 

this final rule. The measures 

implemented by Amendment 7 provide 

flexibility and balance the Amendment 

7 objectives to reduce dead discards, yet 

also provide fishing opportunity. 

Comment 59: The Gulf of Mexico 

Fishery Management Council 

commented that NMFS should consider 

potential impacts on vessels using 

bottom longline gear. They were 

concerned about the synergistic effects 

of the pelagic longline and bottom 

longline regulations on vessels. 

Response: The Modified Spring Gulf 

of Mexico GRAs are designed for the 

pelagic longline fishery only. Vessels 

that exclusively use bottom longline 

gear would not be affected by the GRAs. 

Vessels that use both bottom longline 

gear and pelagic longline gear during 

the year would be impacted, and would 

likely modify their fishing behavior or 

business plan. Bottom longline gear is 

currently subject to regulations 

including time and area restrictions, and 

is not likely to capture bluefin tuna due 

its deployment near the bottom of the 

ocean. 

Comment 60: NMFS should 

compensate vessels for the time period 

the Gulf of Mexico GRAs are in place. 

Response: NMFS’ authority to assist 

fishers in this way requires a 

determination of a commercial fishery 

failure due to a fishery resource disaster 

under section 312(a) of the MSA or 

section 308(b) of the Interjurisdictional 

Fisheries Act, followed by an 

appropriation from Congress. Neither of 

these have occurred. 

Comment 61: NMFS should not 

distinguish between bluefin tuna in the 

Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic as they are 

from the same breeding stock. 

Response: For the purposes of 

Amendment 7, NMFS differentiates 

between bluefin tuna in the Gulf of 

Mexico and bluefin tuna in the Atlantic 

for the implementation of certain 

management measures for a number of 

reasons. As noted above, the 

distribution of interactions across 

vessels is different between the Gulf of 

Mexico and the Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico 

bluefin tuna that interact with pelagic 

longline gear are often heavier and older 

than tuna that interact with pelagic 

longline gear in the Atlantic, and are 

found in spawning condition during 

certain months of the year. The pattern 

of discarding in the Gulf of Mexico is 

also very different from the discard 

pattern documented in the Atlantic (i.e., 

larger fish discarded in the Gulf of 

Mexico). NMFS does not make such a 

distinction between Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic bluefin in the assessment of the 

bluefin stock. Although Gulf of Mexico 

bluefin often migrate up the east coast 

to feeding grounds in the northwest 

Atlantic Ocean, data suggest that some 

proportion of fish in the Atlantic are 

individuals from the eastern Atlantic 

and Mediterranean stock, whereas 

bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico are 

predominantly from the western 

Atlantic stock. 

Comment 62: NMFS should examine 

observer data in addition to logbook 

data to estimate bluefin tuna savings; 

the estimate of savings in 2010 and 2011 

is low because fishing effort was low in 

those years. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

estimates of savings might be low in 

2010 and 2011 as a result of depressed 

effort due to the effects of the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill. However, estimated 

savings are presented as an average from 

a 7-year period. Interannual variability 

is therefore incorporated into the 

estimation of ecological impacts of 

different GRA alternatives. NMFS 

developed GRA alternatives from HMS 

Logbook data because every fisherman 

must submit logbooks detailing activity 

and interactions with all fish kept, 

discarded alive, and discarded dead. 

While extremely useful in estimating 

dead discards, the observer program is 

not a complete census survey of the 

fishery, and the extent of observer 

coverage is not necessarily useful in 

assessing ecological or economic effects 

of GRAs. Furthermore, there is a 

percentage of vessels that have not been 

observed and NMFS determined that 

some of these vessels contributed 

sizable numbers of bluefin interactions 

in the Cape Hatteras GRA. NMFS, 

therefore, decided to base the estimation 

of impacts on HMS logbook data. 

9. Pelagic Longline Vessels Fishing 

Under General Category Rules 

Comment 63: Some commenters 

supported the proposed measure to 

allow vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear that are not authorized 

conditional access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA, to fish under General category 

rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this 

type of fishing opportunity as mitigation 

for the lost opportunity of fishing with 

pelagic longline gear in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA, from December through 

April. Some commenters did not 

support the proposed opportunity for 

such vessels to fish under the General 

category rules for various reasons. Some 

asserted that the activity would be a 

‘‘dangerous precedent,’’ because limited 

access vessels would be allowed to fish 

under the rules applicable to an open 

access category, but General category 

vessels would not be allowed to fish as 

a pelagic longline vessel. Others were 

concerned about the expansion of a 

targeted bluefin fishery in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA, an area that already has 

large numbers of interactions with 

bluefin. A commenter found it ironic 

that vessels not allowed to fish with 

pelagic longline gear in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA (proposed in order to 

reduce bluefin interactions with pelagic 

longline gear) due to their low 

performance criteria score would be 

provided an opportunity to target 

bluefin tuna. Some noted concern about 

the potential impacts on the rate of 

harvest of the General category quota, 

which is limited, and the indirect 

impacts on General category vessels. 

Others noted that the replacement of 

pelagic longline gear with handgear 

(targeting bluefin) is not economically 

viable due to the size of the pelagic 

longline vessels and the associated trip 

expenses. A commenter stated that the 

proposed measure would facilitate 

trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline 

category to General category vessels. A 

commenter suggested that all pelagic 

longline vessels should be able to fish 

under the General category rules, and 

not only those affected by the GRA. 

Response: Based upon public 

comment and further consideration, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71542 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

NMFS is not implementing the 

management measure that would have 

allowed vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear that are not authorized 

conditional access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA to fish under General category 

rules. While this measure would have 

provided additional fishing 

opportunities to pelagic longline vessels 

without access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA, the differences in fishing costs 

and productivity between pelagic 

longline gear and handgear are great 

enough that handgear fishing for bluefin 

tuna would not be economically viable 

for a pelagic longline vessel. Given the 

unlikely -economic benefits as well as 

public perceptions of unfairness, the 

potential benefits of allowing vessels to 

fish under the General category rules do 

not outweigh the potential costs and 

risks associated with this activity. 

10. Pelagic Longline Limited 

Conditional Access to Closed Areas 

Comment 64: NMFS received a large 

number of comments that did not 

support the proposed limited 

conditional access to closed areas for 

vessels using pelagic longline gear, for 

a variety of reasons. Commenters, 

including the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, were 

foremost concerned about potential 

negative biological impacts on 

swordfish, billfish, and other species, as 

well as the indirect negative socioeconomic impacts on the recreational 

fishing community if there were 

negative biological impacts. 

Specifically, commenters cited the 

benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East 

Florida Coast closed areas contributing 

to the rebuilding of the swordfish stock, 

and the stabilization of the blue and 

white marlin stocks. Commenters stated 

that the biological analysis of the 

alternative was inadequate, and one 

commenter was concerned about the 

impacts on dusky sharks. Some 

commenters supported access, noting 

the importance of such access as a 

means to provide flexibility to pelagic 

longline vessels in the context of the 

IBQ Program restrictions, while others 

suggested modifications to the 

alternative such as allowing the use of 

electronic monitoring instead of human 

observers. 

Response: Based upon public 

comment and further consideration of 

potential administrative costs, NMFS is 

not implementing this management 

measure. The potential benefits of 

allowing pelagic longline vessels 

limited conditional access to the closed 

areas would not outweigh the potential 

costs and risks associated with this 

activity. The objectives of the proposed 

measure were to maintain the relevant 

conservation aspects of the closure, 

balance the objectives of the closures, 

provide commercial data from within 

the closures, and provide additional 

fishing opportunities for permitted 

longline vessels (mitigating the potential 

negative economic impacts of 

Amendment 7). The East Florida Coast, 

Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon 

Closed Area were implemented as part 

of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on 

three objectives: (1) Maximize the 

reduction in incidental catch of billfish 

and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed 

weight; (2) minimize the reduction in 

the target catch of larger swordfish and 

other marketable species; and (3) ensure 

that the incidental catch of other species 

(e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and 

turtles) either remains unchanged or is 

reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS 

recognized that all three objectives 

might not be met to the maximum 

extent and that conflicting outcomes 

would require some balancing of the 

objectives. There are data that supports 

the assertion that the closed areas have 

contributed to the achievement of their 

objectives, in concert with other 

management measures. NMFS provides 

an annual review of the potential 

effectiveness of the current suite of 

management measures, including closed 

areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual 

SAFE report for HMS. Although this 

review does not isolate and quantify the 

effectiveness of closed areas as a 

separate management tool, the estimated 

reductions in discards of swordfish, 

blue marlin, white marlin, sailfish, and 

spearfish, as a result of all management 

measures, have remained consistently 

high (¥50 to ¥70 percent), suggesting 

that the current suite of international 

and domestic management measures 

have played a significant role in 

allowing the United States to reduce its 

bycatch interactions. Given the likely 

benefits of the closed areas, the 

difficulty in determining the precise 

magnitude of the benefits of the closed 

areas in the context of other 

management measures, as well as the 

difficulty predicting the potential 

impacts that access to closed areas 

would have, NMFS believes that there is 

uncertainty whether in fact the first 

objective of the alternative (maintain 

relevant conservation aspects of the 

closure) would be met. The access to 

closed areas alternative did not include 

defined bycatch limits, but would have 

relied upon the assumption that low 

levels of fishing effort is sufficient to 

prevent excessive bycatch. Furthermore, 

there would be administrative costs 

associated with the access program. 

Therefore, the benefits associated with 

providing additional fishing 

opportunities (by providing access) 

would not outweigh the costs in terms 

of the risk of undermining the 

conservation benefits of the closed 

areas. With respect to providing 

commercial data from within the 

closures, as stated previously, NMFS 

may obtain data from within the 

closures through the use of exempted 

fishing permits. 

11. Pelagic and Bottom Longline 

Transiting Closed Areas 

Comment 65: The North Carolina 

Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources supported the preferred 

alternative (Alternative E8) to allow 

transiting of closed areas by vessels 

possessing bottom or pelagic longline 

gear. 

Response: Allowing HMS vessels that 

possess bottom or pelagic longline gear 

on board to transit closed areas 

provided they remove and stow the 

gangions, hooks (unbaited), and buoys 

from the mainline and drum would 

reduce potential economic costs 

associated with indirect routes of travel 

(more time at sea and more fuel, etc.) as 

well as reduce potential safety-at-sea 

issues. 

12. Gear-Based Measures 

Comment 66: Authorizing buoy gear 

to be used by Swordfish Incidental 

permit holders to catch swordfish 

(Alternative B2b) and authorizing the 

harvest of bigeye, albacore, yellowfin 

and skipjack tunas (‘BAYS’) with buoy 

gear by Swordfish Directed and 

Incidental permit holders (Alternative 

B2c) would reduce dead discards in a 

direct manner and should be supported. 

Response: Buoy gear used in and near 

the Florida Straits has been shown to be 

efficient at catching swordfish with a 

relatively low bycatch rate. However, 

due to a lack of data, it is unknown 

what the catch and bycatch of buoy gear 

would be when used to target swordfish 

at night in other areas of the Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Caribbean, and 

high seas or to target BAYS tunas in 

these areas during daylight hours. This 

lack of information makes assessing an 

expansion in the use of buoy gear for 

swordfish or tunas difficult, especially 

considering the potential to interact 

with adult bluefin tuna in the Gulf of 

Mexico, other HMS such as billfishes, or 

protected species in areas such as off the 

Outer Banks of North Carolina (as an 

example). NMFS is not implementing 

alternatives B2b or B2c because of the 

lack of available information needed to 

assess the ecological impacts of 

expanded buoy gear use when used to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71543 

target swordfish or BAYS tunas. NMFS 

will continue to assess additional 

information as it becomes available and 

may re-evaluate buoy gear fishery 

regulations in the future. 

Comment 67: Pelagic longline 

fishermen should use more selective 

fishing gears such as greenstick gear and 

buoy gear and part of the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill restoration funds 

should be used to help pelagic longline 

fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico make 

this transition. No financial hardship for 

fishing gear transition conducted as part 

of oil spill restoration efforts should fall 

upon affected fishers. 

Response: This final rule does not 

implement a management measure that 

would require vessels to transition from 

pelagic longline to greenstick gear or 

buoy gear. However, under specific 

fishing permits, greenstick gear is 

currently authorized to fish for Atlantic 

tunas and buoy gear is authorized to fish 

for swordfish. Fishermen may utilize 

any legal fishing gear as authorized 

under the valid permits that are on their 

vessel when used in accordance with 

applicable regulations. Fishermen may 

change fishing gears in accordance with 

applicable regulations. ‘‘Prohibition of 

the Use of Pelagic Longline Gear in the 

HMS Fishery’’ is an alternative in the 

FEIS characterized as ‘‘Considered but 

Not Analyzed Further’’, because it 

would not provide a balanced approach 

to achieving the Amendment 7 

objectives or be consistent with the 

provisions of the MSA. Amendment 7 

management measures provide 

incentives for vessels to transition from 

pelagic longline gear to greenstick or 

buoy gear, but do not mandate such a 

transition. 

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

authorizes certain federal agencies, 

states, and Native American tribes, 

collectively known as the Natural 

Resource Trustees (trustees), to evaluate 

the impacts of oil spills on natural 

resources and recreation, and to plan 

restoration projects to fully offset those 

impacts. In the case of the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill, NOAA is one of the 

nine trustees responsible for jointly 

conducting this process, which is 

known as a Natural Resource Damage 

Assessment (NRDA). Throughout the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill NRDA 

process, the trustees have conducted 

multiple public comment periods and 

dozens of public meetings throughout 

the Gulf Coast states intended to gather 

input on the public’s preferred 

approaches to natural resource 

restoration. The most recent public 

comment period related to the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill restoration 

planning concluded on February 19, 

2014. Throughout the NRDA process, 

the trustees have invited comments on 

broad types of restoration projects, as 

well as specific projects. In addition to 

accepting verbal comments at public 

meetings, the trustees have accepted 

comments and ideas by U.S. Mail, email 

to nrda.projects@noaa.gov, and via the 

Internet via 

www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov. As 

part of their ongoing commitment to 

maximum transparency, the NRDA 

trustees have posted input gathered 

during these public comment periods 

online at http://

www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/

restoration/give-us-your-ideas/viewsubmitted-projects/. The NRDA trustees 

also continue to accept project ideas 

from the public by mail and via http://

www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/

restoration/give-us-your-ideas/suggesta-restoration-project/. During the NRDA 

process, the trustees have received 

suggestions that restoration project 

funds help pelagic longline fishermen 

transition to greenstick and buoy gear. 

13. General Comments About 

Individual Bluefin Quotas 

Comment 68: Commenters supported 

implementation of the IBQ system in 

order to hold vessels accountable and 

provide incentives to reduce discards. 

Commenters noted that NMFS should 

provide some flexibility in the IBQ 

system, particularly in the short-term, to 

ensure that vessels, and especially small 

vessels, are able to adapt to the new 

restrictions and the overall program is 

successful. Commenters urged NMFS to 

continue to support the pelagic longline 

swordfish fishery, which is important 

for multiple reasons. 

Response: Implementation of the IBQ 

system will increase the responsibility 

and accountability of individual vessels, 

and the pelagic longline fishery as a 

whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As 

explained in detail in the responses to 

more specific comments below, the IBQ 

system implemented by this final rule is 

designed to provide a reasonable and 

effective means of reducing dead 

discards, increasing accountability, and 

maintaining a viable pelagic longline 

fishery. The management measures are 

intended to provide flexibility at the 

level of the individual vessel, and in the 

quota system as a whole, so that the 

fishery can operate under the challenges 

of a substantially new regulatory 

structure. Furthermore, the fishery must 

be able to adapt on a continuing basis 

to the variability of highly migratory 

species, and changing ecological 

conditions. 

Individual pelagic longline vessels 

have the flexibility to change their 

fishing practices through modification 

of fishing behavior (including time, 

location and methods of fishing, and the 

use of non-longline gear); increasing 

communication within the fishery to 

facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing 

of individual bluefin quota. Under 

Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide 

additional flexibility by allocating 

additional quota to the Longline 

category, as described in the response to 

Comments 18 and 19. 

Comment 69: Some commenters 

stated that NMFS should consider some 

of the broad questions such as what will 

happen when the bluefin stock grows, 

which may lead to more dead discards; 

what about unintended consequences of 

the IBQ system such as creating a 

directed fishery; and what will happen 

to a vessel if they have an atypically 

large BFT catch event (also known as a 

‘‘disaster set’’)? 

Response: As the bluefin stock size 

continues to grow, the total number of 

interactions between the pelagic 

longline fleet and bluefin tuna may 

increase. However, the relative amount 

of dead discards by pelagic longline 

vessels (e.g., percentage of total catch) 

may be a better way to evaluate a trend 

in the amount of dead discards rather 

than the absolute number. A second 

important metric of success of the IBQ 

Program will be whether the catch of 

bluefin by the Longline category 

exceeds the Longline category quota. 

Amendment 7 management measures 

are expected to reduce the percentage of 

bluefin catch that is comprised of 

discards (which from 2006 to 2012, 

ranged from 61 to 75 percent of the 

Longline bluefin catch), and prevent the 

catch of bluefin by pelagic longline 

vessels from exceeding the Longline 

category quota. 

The IBQ Program will not create a 

directed fishery for bluefin by the 

pelagic longline fleet. Although pelagic 

longline vessels will be allocated 

bluefin quota and be able to derive 

revenue from the sale of legal-sized 

bluefin tuna, the quota share of bluefin 

tuna for each vessel is a relatively small 

percentage of the Longline category 

quota. Based on the size of recent 

Longline category quotas, individual 

vessels will be allocated the equivalent 

of between 2 and 13 bluefin tuna per 

year (depending upon the specific quota 

share percentage and whether the 

bluefin is a Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic 

bluefin). Due to the relatively small 

bluefin quota allocation per vessel, the 

requirement to utilize quota to account 

for both dead discards and landings, the 

requirement to have a minimum amount 

of quota to depart on a fishing trip using 

pelagic longline gear, and the cost 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

associated with leasing additional 

quota, there will be strong economic 

disincentives to target bluefin. 

If a vessel catches an atypically large 

number of bluefin tuna (i.e., a ‘‘disaster 

set’’), Amendment 7 measures will 

allow the vessel to retain and sell all 

legal-sized bluefin, but prohibit the 

vessel from departing on a subsequent 

trip using pelagic longline gear until all 

the bluefin has been accounted for by 

leasing additional quota from another 

permitted vessel owner with quota 

allocation. This restriction will create a 

strong economic incentive to avoid 

bluefin tuna in order to not exceed 

individual bluefin quota. Furthermore, 

if the vessel in such circumstances 

holds quota share and at the end of the 

year would otherwise be eligible to 

receive quota share for the subsequent 

fishing year, the quota debt would be 

settled by deducting quota from the 

subsequent year’s quota allocation. The 

quota debt would persist from one year 

to the next until settled. 

Under Amendment 7 measures, 

NMFS may also consider transferring 

quota from the Reserve category to the 

Longline category, to make quota 

available for the fishery as a whole. 

With the exception of quota in support 

of research (e.g., an Exempted Fishing 

Permit), NMFS may allocate additional 

quota to the Longline category as a 

whole via a disbursement of quota to 

eligible vessels via the IBQ Program for 

the purpose of accounting for bluefin 

catch. Under Amendment 7, NMFS’ 

review of the IBQ Program after 3 years 

of operation will include anevaluation 

of the question of whether the IBQ 

system adequately addresses large catch 

events. 

Comment 70: Some commenters had 

concerns about the legality of the IBQ 

Program and argued that NMFS should 

consider the legality of ‘‘diminishing a 

vessel’s opportunity to catch its quota.’’ 

Commenters stated that NMFS should 

not give a public resource to individuals 

for their financial benefit, and that the 

pelagic longline fishery should not 

profit from bluefin, but proceeds should 

be used for other programs and research. 

Response: Allocation of fishery 

resources to individual entities under a 

catch share program is legal under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The IBQ 

Program includes an allocated privilege 

of catching a specified portion of the 

total annual bluefin quota in the form of 

quota shares. IBQ shares are not 

property, but are a privilege to an 

amount of fish in a given year that can 

be renewed or revoked. Although 

pelagic longline vessel owners/operators 

may derive revenue from the sale of 

bluefin, bluefin is not expected to 

become a large proportion of their total 

revenue due to the low amount of 

bluefin quota and the other elements of 

the IBQ Program. Measures throughout 

the Amendment were specifically 

implemented to ensure that the pelagic 

longline BFT catch remains an 

incidental fishery, not a directed 

fishery. Although the management 

measures do not require a portion of the 

revenue from the sale of bluefin by 

Longline category vessels to fund 

research, NMFS may utilize bluefin 

quota from the Reserve category in 

support of relevant research. 

Comment 71: A commenter stated 

that, in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS 

should limit catch using gear 

restrictions and the use of alternative 

gears instead of IBQs. Some commenters 

noted that NMFS should separate Gulf 

of Mexico quota from Atlantic quota. 

Response: A discussion of alternative 

gears is provided in the response to 

Comments 66 and 67. Alternative gears 

alone are unlikely to provide the same 

benefits of the IBQ Program, which will 

limit total catch and provide 

accountability at the level of individual 

vessels. The IBQ management measures 

include a provision that designates 

quota share as either Gulf of Mexico or 

Atlantic, and prohibits the use of 

Atlantic quota in the Gulf of Mexico to 

prevent potential increases in the 

relative amount of bluefin caught in the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

Comment 72: Several commenters had 

concerns or made suggestions regarding 

some of the specific aspects of the 

design of the IBQ Program that are not 

among the principal design elements. 

These comments were as follows: NMFS 

should implement strict enforcement 

and fines associated with the IBQ 

system; the annual distribution of quota 

should take place in time for the January 

1 start of the fishing year; NMFS should 

not allow quota to carryforward from 

year to year; NMFS should not allow 

vessels to land and sell bluefin without 

sufficient quota; money from the sale of 

bluefin should be put in escrow until 

quota is purchased to account for all 

catch, and; NMFS should not 

implement the IBQ system because it is 

too complex. 

Response: Enforcement is an 

important aspect of ensuring the 

effectiveness of any regulatory program. 

New management tools such as the 

preferred electronic monitoring will 

augment NMFS’ ability to effectively 

enforce the regulations. 

On an annual basis, IBQ allocation 

will be distributed to eligible permit 

holders in time for vessels to begin 

fishing on January 1. Adjustments to the 

IBQ allocations may occur, but are not 

limited to changes in ICCAT 

recommendations, inseason actions, or 

NMFS’ annual adjustment authority. 

Under this final rule, if an eligible 

permit holder has been awarded IBQ 

allocation and does not fully utilize that 

IBQ allocation (i.e., account for bluefin 

caught, or leases the IBQ allocation to 

another eligible participant) during the 

year, and has a balance of quota at the 

end of the year, the quota would not 

carry forward into the subsequent year 

as IBQ in association with a particular 

permit. However, based on the unused 

IBQ allocation associated with 

individual vessels, NMFS would 

calculate the total amount of unused 

IBQ allocation for the Longline category 

as a whole, and carry that quota forward 

(or a portion of that quota) as allowed 

under ICCAT into the subsequent 

fishing year. U.S. bluefin quota that is 

allowed to be carried forward from one 

year to the next will be placed in the 

Reserve category and may be reallocated 

to any/all domestic quota categories. 

Under Amendment 7, pelagic longline 

vessel operators will be able to land and 

sell any legal-sized retained bluefin, in 

order to maintain full accountability, 

retain flexibility to accommodate 

variable bluefin catches, and to provide 

incentives to retain rather than discard 

fish. Although a vessel operator may 

land and sell bluefin in excess of their 

quota, they may not depart on a 

subsequent trip using pelagic longline 

gear until the fish have been fully 

accounted for with quota allocation. The 

revenue derived from the sale of the 

bluefin will facilitate the ability of a 

vessel owner to lease additional quota. 

If, at the end of the year, they have not 

paid the ‘quota debt’ with additional 

quota (obtained through leasing), the 

balance of quota owed will be ‘paid’ for 

from the subsequent year’s allocation or 

the vessel will be prohibited from 

fishing with pelagic longline gear. The 

vessel owner is fully accountable. 

In contrast, a system in which a vessel 

operator must place the revenue from 

the sale of a bluefin in escrow until they 

account for the fish with quota (as 

suggested by a commenter) is a more 

complex system that would provide a 

stronger incentive to discard bluefin, 

impose additional administrative 

burdens, and would not provide the 

flexibility a vessel operator may need. If 

while still at sea the vessel operator 

catches more bluefin than they have 

quota,, there would be more incentive to 

discard the fish because the vessel 

owner would face the uncertainty of 

whether they would be able to lease 

quota (and at what price) and the 

operator would be uncertain whether or 

not any revenue could be derived from 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71545 

the sale of the bluefin. If the revenue 

were to be placed in escrow, the vessel 

operator may have insufficient revenue 

to lease additional quota allocation, and 

therefore the system itself would be an 

impediment to the operation of a leasing 

market. Additionally, there would be 

questions associated with an escrow 

requirement such as: If the vessel 

operator is unable to lease additional 

quota, and forfeited the revenue, would 

the vessel still be responsible for 

accounting for the bluefin, (i.e., would 

the ‘quota debt’ remain with the vessel 

into the following year), even though 

the vessel owner never obtained any 

revenue from the fish? 

Although the IBQ Program will result 

in a more complex management system 

than currently exists, NMFS has 

minimized complexity in the design of 

the preferred management measures 

(including the IBQ Program), and has 

noted examples in the Response to 

Comments. While this is first catch 

share program for Atlantic HMS 

fisheries, the elements and approach of 

the Amendment 7 IBQ Program are 

similar to that of the many successful 

catch share programs currently in 

operation in the United States. NMFS 

will educate the public regarding the 

program, and provide the public with 

ongoing access to the information to 

facilitate the smooth operation of the 

preferred IBQ Program and enhance 

transparency. 

Comment 73: Commenters noted that 

NMFS did not provide adequate details 

in the proposed rule regarding the 

relationship of the Northeast Distant 

Area (NED) to the IBQ Program and 

suggested that the current bluefin 

possession limit be maintained in the 

NED, but when the limit is reached, the 

vessel should fish under their IBQ. 

Response: Under current ICCAT 

recommendations, the NED is a 

distinctly managed geographic area 

managed under a separate quota than 

the rest of the fishery. Therefore, the 

quota associated with the NED (25 mt) 

will not be part of the Amendment 7 

quota allocation measures, or managed 

under the IBQ Program. However, there 

are provisions of the IBQ Program that 

will apply to vessels fishing with 

pelagic longline gear in the NED. For 

example, vessels will be required to 

have the minimum IBQ allocation to 

operate in the NED starting in 2016 and, 

when NED bluefin quota has been 

exhausted, permitted vessels must abide 

by all the requirements of the IBQ 

Program. Electronic monitoring systems, 

installed by June 1, 2015, will be 

required to fish with pelagic longline 

gear including in the NED, and data 

from the electronic monitoring system 

may be used to ensure that targeting 

fishing is not occurring. NMFs reminds 

the regulated community that the 

international separate allocation is only 

for bycatch in the NED, and there are 

domestic prohibitions against targeting 

bluefin tuna using pelagic longline gear. 

NMFS will re-visit this issue if 

necessary if subsequent years’ data 

indicate that additional controls are 

needed. 

Comment 74: Several commenters 

made suggestions that the IBQ Program 

be split apart from the other major 

elements of Amendment 7 and 

implemented sequentially through 

separate regulatory actions 

(amendments). One commenter 

requested that the first amendment 

focus on the Longline category 

management measures (individual 

bluefin quotas and gear restricted areas), 

and that any quota reallocation among 

quota categories or enhanced reporting 

for non-Longline categories only be 

considered after additional information 

is obtained from the pelagic longline 

fishery operating under the IBQ system. 

The North Carolina Department of 

Natural Resources suggested that the 

GRAs and allocation measures should 

be implemented first, followed by the 

IBQs, and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council suggested that the 

IBQs should follow in a separate action 

(with additional analyses and 

alternatives). 

Response: This final rule implements 

a wide range of regulatory measures 

through a single action, because 

comprehensive modifications to many 

aspects of the bluefin tuna fisheries are 

needed, and the management measures 

are highly inter-related. Amendment 7 

utilizes a holistic approach to address 

the complex problems effectively, and 

minimizes potential negative economic 

impacts. For example, to first focus on 

management of the Longline category in 

isolation and delay consideration of 

other measures such as reallocation and 

enhanced reporting for non-Longline 

category vessels would ignore the 

current differences in reporting 

requirements among quota categories, 

continue a high level of uncertainty in 

the quota system, and would fail to 

minimize adverse economic impacts for 

the Longline category. 

Accountability for bluefin catch by 

the Longline category is a high priority, 

and the IBQ Program provides such 

accountability. It ensures that the 

fishery operates within the allowable 

quota established by ICCAT consistent 

with the rebuilding program, and 

minimizes bycatch to the extent 

practicable, in a manner that will have 

less adverse economic impacts than the 

other alternatives analyzed (Regional or 

Group Quota Controls). NMFS 

considered and analyzed multiple 

alternatives for all elements of the IBQ 

Program in the DEIS and FEIS, and will 

fully evaluate the IBQ Program after 

three years of operation. 

Comment 75: The Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources 

(Louisiana DNR) commented that 

Amendment 7 will have large negative 

socio-economic impacts on the Gulf of 

Mexico pelagic longline fishery. 

Louisiana DNR asserts the greatest 

negative impact will occur in Louisiana, 

with minimal benefits to the bluefin 

stock, and attributed the economic 

impacts mostly to the IBQ Program, 

which it feels is inconsistent with the 

Louisiana Coastal Resources Program. 

Louisiana DNR noted that the potential 

benefits to the stock of bluefin tuna are 

minimal compared to the potentially 

large socio-economic impact to the 

targeted fisheries, and NMFS’ 

consistency determination lacks 

sufficient data and information. 

Response: NMFS has concluded that 

Amendment 7 is fully consistent with 

the enforceable policies of the 

management program, though the State 

of Louisiana objects. The FEIS analysis 

demonstrates that NMFS utilized many 

of the factors cited by Louisiana DNR as 

lacking in NMFS’ evaluation. NMFS 

also explored the availability of 

alternative methods of achieving the 

Amendment 7 objectives, and 

considered the economic impacts, as 

well as the long term benefits of the 

measures. The alternative methods to 

reduce dead discards of no action or 

group or regional quotas would have 

more adverse impacts and be less 

effective in achieving Amendment 7 

objectives to reduce dead discards and 

maximize fishing opportunity. The 

design of the IBQ management measures 

and other aspects of Amendment 7 

minimize the significant adverse 

economic impacts, disruption of social 

patterns, and adverse cumulative 

impacts, to the extent practicable, 

relative to other methods analyzed 

while also meeting Amendment 7 

objectives. For detailed information on 

NMFS’ response, see the Classification 

section. 

14. IBQ Eligibility 

Comment 76: Commenters suggested 

modifications to the proposed method 

of defining which vessels are eligible to 

receive quota share (i.e., ‘‘active’’ 

vessels, defined as those vessels that 

made at least one set using pelagic 

longline gear between 2006 and 2011, 

based on logbook data). Some stated that 

the criteria is too restrictive, and that 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71546 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the criteria should instead be any vessel 

with a valid permit, while others 

believed the criteria is too lenient and 

results in an excessive number of 

vessels eligible to receive quota share. 

Some commenters suggested specific 

alternative criteria such as 50 sets 

within the previous 3 years. 

Response: The definition of a set of 

vessels that are eligible to receive 

bluefin quota share is a very important 

aspect of the design of the IBQ Program 

because the definition sets the boundary 

of which entities are eligible for the 

privilege of being granted quota shares, 

and the number of eligible entities has 

a large influence on the amount of quota 

share each entity will receive. Regarding 

the comment that the criteria should be 

any vessel with a valid permit, the 

bluefin quota allocation method 

implemented by Amendment 7 is 

intended to limit the catch of, and 

provide accountability and incentives 

for pelagic longline vessels that are 

fishing and interacting with, bluefin 

tuna, and therefore only vessels that are 

likely to go fishing should be eligible for 

quota share. Additionally, if vessels that 

have a Longline category permit that do 

not typically fish were eligible to 

receive quota share, they could utilize 

the quota solely for economic gain by 

leasing the quota or influencing the 

leasing market. Further, the set of 

eligible vessels would be substantially 

larger (and each eligible vessel would 

receive substantially smaller proportion 

of the Longline category quota), and 

result in such small IBQ allocations that 

the IBQ Program would not function 

well. Relatively small quota shares make 

it likely that most vessels will have 

insufficient IBQ allocation and be 

dependent upon leased quota to account 

for bluefin caught. 

Regarding the comment that the 

definition of ‘‘active,’’ which did not 

include 2012 data, was too restrictive, 

the initial allocation implemented by 

this final rule reflects a definition of 

active that based upon the years 2006 

through 2012, instead of through 2011. 

Regarding the comment that the 

proposed definition of ‘‘active’’ is too 

lenient, the objectives of the preferred 

IBQ Program do not support further 

restricting the scope of eligible vessel to 

an arbitrary number of sets, and 

excluding vessels with a low level of 

fishing activity. Even vessels with low 

levels of fishing activity may need 

bluefin quota shares to account for 

bluefin catch. Instead, the objectives of 

the IBQ Program will be achieved using 

more flexible management tools, 

including incentives for vessels for 

avoid bluefin tuna and to fish with 

alternative gears. 

Because the intent of the program is 

to specify a pool of eligible vessels that 

excludes inactive vessels, the IBQ 

Program utilizes the secondary criteria 

that the vessel must have had a valid 

permit as of August 21, 2013. Therefore, 

a vessel is required to meet the 

definition of ‘‘active,’’ and also to have 

been issued a valid Longline category 

permit as of August 21, 2013 (the date 

of publication of the Amendment 7 

proposed rule). This second criterion 

addresses the situation in which a 

vessel met the criteria of having made 

at least one pelagic longline set during 

the years from 2006 through 2012, but, 

subsequent to the time of the qualifying 

set(s), became inactive, as evidenced by 

a lapsed (non-renewed) Longline 

category permit (which must be 

renewed on an annual basis), or as 

evidenced by a vessel that has been 

removed from association with a 

particular vessel. 

Comment 77: Commenters were 

concerned about the ability of new 

entrants to become active in the fishery, 

and some suggested that NMFS use an 

annual system to define eligible vessels, 

such as a minimum number of sets 

during the previous year. A commenter 

noted that businesses which supply new 

equipment to outfit pelagic longline 

vessels would be negatively impacted if 

new entrants are not able to enter the 

fishery. 

Response: The ability for people who 

are currently not involved in the pelagic 

longline fishery to become participants 

in the fishery (new entrants) is an 

important consideration, which is a 

required consideration under Section 

303A(c)(5)(C) of the MSA. The 

Amendment 7 IBQ Program will add a 

single additional prerequisite for 

participation in the pelagic longline 

fishery to the previously existing two 

prerequisites and associated monitoring 

and compliance requirements (e.g., 

VMS). Prior to this Amendment, the two 

principal elements for participation in 

the fishery were a vessel and limited 

access permit. The IBQ Program 

implements a requirement for a vessel to 

have the minimum amount of bluefin 

quota allocation in order to fish with 

pelagic longline gear, as well as 

electronic monitoring requirements 

associated with the IBQ Program. 

The Amendment 7 IBQ Program 

provides adequate opportunities for new 

entrants to the fishery, because there are 

multiple means by which a new entrant 

may satisfy the quota requirement. A 

person interested in participating in the 

fishery may purchase a permitted vessel 

with IBQ shares, and therefore be 

allocated quota annually (due to the IBQ 

share associated with the permit), or a 

person may purchase a permitted vessel 

without IBQ shares, but lease quota 

allocation from another permitted 

vessel. Under the IBQ Program, as in the 

past, participation in the pelagic 

longline fishery by new entrants will 

require substantial capital investment 

and potential new entrants will face 

costs which are similar to historical 

participants. However, the structure of 

the IBQ Program does not create any 

unreasonable barriers to new entry. 

NMFS considered the merits of setting 

aside a specified amount of quota for 

new entrants, but found several negative 

aspects of such a provision. For 

example, providing quota to new 

entrants would essentially create a 

second quota allocation system, which 

would complicate the overall preferred 

IBQ Program by creating a separate class 

of vessels with different allocations. A 

quota set aside for new entrants would 

result in less quota available for other 

participants in the fishery, and rather 

than the market controlling the quota, 

there would be many policy decision to 

be made (e.g., would the amount of set 

aside vary according to the number of 

new entrants, or be a fixed amount 

annually? Would the quota be divided 

equally among new entrants, be 

allocated in the minimum share 

amounts, or allocated based on fishing 

history). NMFS believes in simplifying 

the IBQ Program upon implementation 

where possible, in order to minimize 

regulatory burden and complexity. A 

system of rules regarding quota set aside 

would add additional complications to 

the IBQ Program. Therefore, NMFS 

determined that given the lack of 

information with which to base such 

restrictions, and the uncertainty 

whether there would be a pressing need 

for such restrictions, that additional 

restrictions or a quota set aside are not 

warranted. During the three year review 

of the IBQ Program NMFS will consider 

information from the fishery after 

implementation of the IBQ Program, and 

evaluate whether the IBQ Program 

provides adequate opportunities to new 

entrants. See FEIS at pages 70–71 for 

additional analyses. 

As suggested by commenters, NMFS 

considered the concept of making an 

annual determination of which vessels 

are eligible to receive quota allocations 

based on a set of criteria (such as a 

certain number of longline sets during 

the previous year). NMFS found that 

there are negative aspects of such an 

annual system. If the vessels allocated 

quota shares vary on an annual basis, 

the IBQ Program would be more 

complex and difficult to administer; 

there would be greater uncertainty 

annually in the fishery; there would be 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71547 

incentives to fish on an annual basis 

(due to criteria to fish in order to receive 

quota); and any value associated with a 

permit that would be derived from the 

associated IBQ share may be minimized 

if the IBQ share is only valid for a year. 

Although such a system could limit the 

number of years a vessel without quota 

share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease 

quota, the negative aspects of this 

approach would be substantial. For 

example, in order to have an IBQ system 

that includes strong accountability, any 

quota ‘debt’ accrued must persist from 

one fishing year to the next. It would be 

difficult to implement persistent 

accountability if the vessels eligible for 

quota change on an annual basis. 

Comment 78: A commenter suggested 

that NMFS should address latent 

permits by eliminating the ability to 

reactivate such permits. 

Response: Neither Amendment 7 

overall, nor the IBQ Program objectives 

include the reduction of latent effort. 

The likelihood of a meaningful increase 

in fishing effort is low because the 

number of vessels fishing has been fairly 

constant, and as stated in the response 

to comment number 77, although there 

are avenues for new entrants to the 

fishery, participation in the pelagic 

longline fishery by new entrants would 

require substantial capital investment. 

Although the number of Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permits has averaged 

approximately 239 vessels (2006— 

2012), under Amendment 7 as finalized, 

only 135 vessels are eligible for initial 

bluefin quota shares. Furthermore, the 

risk associated with an increase in 

fishing effort (for either bluefin or the 

target stock of swordfish) is low, given 

the fact that Amendment 7 implements 

strict bluefin catch limits, one of the 

principal target stocks (swordfish) is 

rebuilt and another target stock 

(yellowfin tuna) is not overfished and 

overfishing is not occurring, and there 

has been unharvested swordfish quota 

on a regular basis. 

Comment 79: A commenter suggested 

that NMFS use criteria such as 

dependence upon commercial fishing 

for determining which vessels are 

eligible to receive quota shares. 

Response: NMFS generally considered 

dependence upon commercial fishing in 

establishing its approach for initial 

allocations. The amount of target 

species caught is a factor in the 

allocation formula. However, NMFS 

cannot at this time quantify fishery 

dependence in a uniform manner due to 

many issues relating to data availability 

and confidentiality. NMFS believes that 

the final rule, which takes into 

consideration best available information 

on current and historical harvests, 

participation, and other factors as well 

as public comment, ensures fair and 

equitable initial allocations. 

Comment 80: Commenters stated that 

NMFS should associate IBQ with a 

permit and not a vessel. 

Response: As explained in the FEIS, 

the use of historical data to evaluate 

whether a vessel meets certain criteria 

as part of the implementation of a 

limited access or catch share program 

(or a performance criteria) can be 

complex due to historical transfers of a 

limited access permit from one vessel to 

another, or changes in vessel owners. 

Over time, a single permit may be 

issued to multiple vessels, or a single 

vessel may have multiple owners. The 

IBQ Program as finalized uses the 

historical ‘platform’ upon which to base 

the quota share as the vessel history 

instead of the permit history for the 

following reasons: (1) Vessel history 

reflects current and historical 

participation in the fishery; (2) the 

regulations regarding the transfer of 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permits do not address fishing history 

(i.e., do not specify, when an Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit is 

transferred from one vessel to another, 

whether the fishing history also 

transfers; and (3) the structure of the 

databases in which the logbook data 

reside uses the vessel as a key 

organizing feature, and therefore the 

compilation of data associated with a 

particular vessel is simpler and less 

prone to error (it is more complex to 

compile data based on an individual 

permit history). 

Although, as noted above, the basis 

for the quota shares is the fishing 

history associated with a vessel, the IBQ 

Program associates the share with a 

permit. In other words, for the purpose 

of vessel, permit, and quota 

transactions, quota shares under the IBQ 

Program will be associated with the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit, even though the initial 

eligibility for the quota share was 

determined on the basis of a particular 

vessel history. 

Comment 81: Many pelagic longline 

vessel owners expressed strong 

concerns that the amount of bluefin 

quota allocated to individual vessels 

would be inadequate to continue to fish, 

and that despite efforts to avoid bluefin, 

vessels would sooner or later encounter 

bluefin. The proposed allocations would 

make continuing fishing operations 

extremely difficult, because they would 

be forced to stop fishing, and therefore 

revenue would be cut off, but expenses 

would continue. Vessel owners stated 

that they would not be able to remain 

in business under such circumstances, 

and some estimated that a large vessel 

would need about 20 bluefin to account 

for the number of bluefin they catch, 

rather than the 2 to 13 fish they believe 

would be allocated under the IBQ 

system. Some highlighted the difference 

between the proposed IBQ allocations 

and the number of bluefin tuna that may 

be retained by a vessel with a General 

category commercial permit (up to 5 

bluefin a trip), as justification for having 

larger individual quota allocations. 

Response: Under the Amendment 7 

IBQ Program, some vessels may not 

have enough quota share to continue to 

account for the same amount of bluefin 

they caught in the past. The FEIS 

analysis indicates that at a quota level 

of 137 mt, approximately 25 percent of 

vessels would need to lease additional 

bluefin quota in order to land their 

historical average amount of target 

species (if they do not change their 

behavior to reduce their historical rate 

of bluefin interactions). If no leasing of 

IBQ allocation were to occur, there 

could be a reduction in target species 

landings with an associated reduction in 

revenue of approximately $7,574,590 

total, or $56,108 per vessel (135 vessels). 

The precise impacts of the IBQ 

Program are difficult to predict due to 

the variability of bluefin distribution as 

well as the potential range of fishing 

behaviors (and business strategies) of 

vessels in response to the new 

regulations. In order to reduce the 

likelihood of interactions, vessel 

operators may have to pursue new 

strategies including communication 

with other pelagic longline operators 

regarding the known locations of 

bluefin, modifications to fishing time, 

location, and technique, as well as use 

of alternative gears. In conjunction with 

these strategies, leasing additional quota 

may be necessary. The IBQ eligibility 

criteria include the requirement that the 

relevant vessel have a permit as of 

August 21, 2013, which limits the 

number of eligible vessels, and therefore 

slightly increases the amount of quota 

share per vessel. Due to the difficulty of 

predicting the precise impacts of the 

IBQ Program, NMFS may, as the fishery 

adjusts to the new system, need to 

consider providing additional quota to 

the Longline category as a whole in 

order to increase the amount of quota 

available to eligible vessels via the IBQ 

Program, thereby balancing the need to 

have an operational fishery with the 

need to reduce bluefin bycatch in the 

fishery. The Amendment 7 IBQ Program 

includes a three-year formal review of 

the IBQ system, at which time NMFS 

will consider whether any structural 

changes to the program are necessary. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71548 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The pelagic longline fishery is an 

incidental bluefin fishery unlike the 

directed General category handgear 

fishery, and retention limits and other 

management measures are different. 

This final rule implements a regulatory 

system that would mitigate the effects of 

the different restrictions among the 

different permit categories. 

Comment 82: Some commenters did 

not want the bluefin quota share 

formula to include a criterion that relies 

upon logbook data on bluefin catch, due 

to the concern that such data may be 

inaccurate. The quota share formula that 

was proposed includes a metric that 

results in a higher score (and 

contributing in the formula to a higher 

allocation) for vessels that had fewer 

interactions with bluefin (relative to the 

‘‘designated species,’’ i.e., target catch). 

The commenters’ specific concern was 

that if some vessels under-reported the 

amount of bluefin they caught in their 

logbook, such vessels may receive a 

higher score (and larger allocation) than 

vessels that had accurately reported 

higher numbers of bluefin catch. In 

other words, accurate reporters would 

be penalized relative to inaccurate 

reporters. Commenters noted that it is 

unfair to emphasize past bluefin catch 

in the quota allocation formula because 

in the past interactions with bluefin 

tuna were legal. Another commenter 

noted that past performance may not be 

a predictor of future performance. 

Response: NMFS recognizes that some 

vessel operators may have underreported the amount of bluefin tuna 

caught in their logbooks. NMFS 

conducted an analysis that compared 

logbook data to observer data to get an 

indication of how vessel reported 

logbook data compares with observer 

data, because observer data can serve as 

a useful validation tool. Compared to 

the observer data, the logbook data 

showed both over-reporting and underreporting of bluefin tuna, with the 

average amount of under-reporting of 

bluefin discards of 28 percent at the 

aggregate level for all vessels. Individual 

vessel data varied substantially from 

being more than 90 percent accurate 

with observer data for that trip to more 

than 75 percent inaccurate compared to 

observer data for that trip. These data 

indicate a wide range in reporting 

accuracy at a vessel level. For additional 

information, see the Appendix in the 

FEIS (section 11.5). 

Notwithstanding potential underreporting by some vessels, logbook data 

are the most complete source of 

available data regarding vessel level 

interactions with bluefin tuna because 

100 percent of pelagic longline vessels 

are required to submit logbook reports 

for every set. It is important to note that 

the relative number of bluefin 

interactions is only one component of 

the IBQ allocation formula, which also 

considers the amount of target catch, 

resulting in a higher score (and 

contributing to more allocation) for 

vessels with larger amounts of target 

catch (‘‘designated species catch’’). 

Amendment 7 includes a requirement 

for pelagic longline vessels to have 

operational electronic monitoring 

systems, which will enhance the 

accuracy of vessel-reported information. 

Regarding the comment that it is 

unfair to use past interactions with 

bluefin as part of the allocation formula 

because in the past it was lawful to 

interact with bluefin tuna, pelagic 

longline regulations were designed to 

limit or reduce retention of bluefin tuna 

(e.g., target catch requirements, weak 

hook requirements). Therefore, it is 

appropriate that the IBQ Program accrue 

some benefit in the form of IBQ 

allocation for vessels who may have 

fished in a manner that reduced 

interactions with, or avoided bluefin 

tuna, consistent with the regulations. 

NMFS acknowledges that past 

performance may not be an indicator of 

future performance. One of the 

objectives of the bluefin IBQ Program is 

to provide incentives for future fishing 

behavior that will result in reduced 

rates of interactions between pelagic 

longline gear and bluefin. The principal 

incentive of the IBQ Program results 

from the fact that vessels are required to 

account for all bluefin tuna dead 

discards and landings (with IBQ 

allocation), and the prohibition of the 

use of pelagic longline gear if a vessel 

does not have any (or sufficient) IBQ 

allocation. The future fishing behaviors 

may include avoiding or minimizing 

setting pelagic longline gear in areas or 

during time periods where there are 

known interactions with bluefin tuna; 

increasing communication with other 

vessels fishing with pelagic longline 

gear; incorporating the use of alternative 

gears into a vessel’s fishing strategy and 

business plan; ‘test sets’ to determine 

whether bluefin are present in an area; 

and pelagic longline gear modifications. 

In determining how to allocate bluefin 

quota, NMFS considered historical 

catches of both target species and 

bluefin tuna to consider both past 

performance and potential future needs. 

Comment 83: Some commenters 

urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of 

bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for 

multiple reasons. Equal shares would 

avoid the use of historical logbook data; 

would reduce potential negative feelings 

among permit holders with different 

amounts of allocation; and would 

provide higher quota allocations for 

some vessels than under the proposed 

method. Additionally, a commenter 

noted that it may not be necessary to 

consider the amount of target catch in 

the quota share formula (and provide 

more quota to vessels catching more 

target catch) because larger fishing 

operations are better equipped 

financially to adapt to new regulations. 

Another commenter supported basing 

the allocation on target species landings 

and fishing effort, because higher effort 

is likely to result in more bluefin catch. 

Response: NMFS carefully considered 

allocating quota shares on an equal 

basis, but decided to implement the 

method as proposed, which 

incorporates two metrics of equal 

weight: Designated species landings and 

the ratio of bluefin to designated species 

landings. While an equal share formula 

has some positive attributes, the overall 

merits of the method being 

implemented are greater. It is important 

to take into consideration the diversity 

of the pelagic longline fleet, maximize 

the potential for the success of the IBQ 

Program, and provide incentives for 

vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. 

NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline 

logbook data on target catch and bluefin 

interactions, and for most vessels, there 

is positive correlation between the 

amount of target catch, and the number 

of bluefin tuna interactions. In other 

words, for most vessels, the more 

swordfish, yellowfin tuna, or other 

target species a vessel catches, the more 

bluefin tuna it interacts with. However, 

a few vessels (those responsible for the 

largest number of interactions) interact 

with large numbers of bluefin, out of 

proportion with the amount of their 

target catch. Considering this historic 

pattern, basing one of the allocation 

formula elements on the amount of 

designated species landings would 

increase the likelihood that vessels 

would be allocated quota in relation to 

the amount of quota they may need to 

account for their catch of bluefin. 

The second of the two elements (the 

ratio of bluefin interactions to 

designated species landings) is useful 

because it takes into consideration the 

fact that relatively few vessels (i.e., 

about fifteen percent of the vessels) are 

responsible for about 80 percent of the 

interactions with bluefin tuna. Because 

this element of the allocation formula 

results in a lower allocation for vessels 

with a higher rate of historic 

interactions, it provides a strong 

incentive for such vessels to make 

changes in their fishing practices to 

reduce their number of bluefin 

interactions. Vessels with historically 

high catches of target species and a low 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71549 

rate of interactions with bluefin receive 

a larger quota share than vessels with 

either higher rates of bluefin 

interactions or lower amounts of target 

species. 

Comment 84: Some commenters were 

concerned that either hurricanes, the 

2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, or 

specific regulations (such as a closed 

area) may have lowered the amount of 

catch a vessel had (during the 2006 

through 2012 time period on which the 

IBQ share is based), and the resultant 

influence on the vessel’s bluefin quota 

share. 

Response: There are many factors that 

may determine the amount of a 

particular vessel’s catch, including 

regulatory and environmental factors 

and factors unique to the vessel. As 

noted in the response to comment # 40 

the Amendment 7 quota share formula 

is based upon a seven-year time period 

(2006 through 2012), which is long 

enough to reduce the influence of onetime events or short term environmental 

or regulatory conditions. Additionally, 

the quota share formula implemented by 

this final rule includes an additional 

year of data (2012), a longer duration 

than originally proposed. 

Comment 85: Commenters suggested 

other methods for allocating quota 

shares such as auctioning the quota, and 

basing quota shares in relation to the 

number of hooks, or the number of 

longline sets in the previous year. 

Response: NMFS considered an 

auction system, but decided that it 

would not result in distribution of 

limited access privilege shares in a way 

that met IBQ program objectives. Among 

other things, NMS wants to facilitate 

continued participation in the fishery by 

vessels that have made past investments 

in the fishery. An auction may not 

reflect recent or historical participation 

in the fishery and could increase 

uncertainty in fishery participation. 

15. IBQ Leasing 

Comment 86: Some commenters 

supported the provision that would 

allow pelagic longline vessels to lease 

quota allocation to and from one 

another, but prohibit permanent sale of 

quota shares. A commenter said that 

NMFS should only allow leasing to 

active vessels with intent to fish, and a 

commenter suggested that NMFS should 

ensure that a fully functioning quota 

trading infrastructure is in place before 

implementing the IBQ system. 

Response: Quota leasing is an 

essential component of the IBQ Program 

because the amount of quota share a 

vessel has many not be aligned with the 

amount of quota they need, based on 

bluefin catch. Quota leasing provides 

the flexibility vessels may need to 

account for bluefin if they have 

insufficient quota, or obtain additional 

revenue if they are able to avoid bluefin 

and have quota they do not need. Only 

vessels that meet the eligibility criteria 

will be allocated quota shares; however, 

any vessel with a valid Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit may lease 

quota. Allowing quota to be leased to 

any permitted vessel enables vessels 

that are not allocated quota to become 

active in the fishery (i.e., new entrants), 

but would not provide a lasting 

opportunity because leased quota would 

expire at the end of a year (and may not 

be carried over to the following year by 

an individual vessel). No sale of quota 

shares (in contrast to leasing of quota 

allocation) is allowed upon the 

implementation of Amendment 7. These 

quota restrictions provide a balanced 

approach to the types of transactions 

allowed, in order to provide flexibility 

to account for bluefin caught and enable 

participation of new entrants, but limit 

the potential for permanent shifts in 

ownership of quota shares and 

speculative activity by entities not 

active in the fishery. NMFS will 

conduct a full review of the IBQ 

Program after three years of operation, 

and may at that time consider allowing 

the permanent sale of quota shares or 

other modifications to the leasing 

program as warranted. 

NMFS acknowledges that a 

functioning infrastructure is required to 

support a quota leasing system, and is 

implementing the system necessary to 

enable the leasing of IBQ shares and 

accounting of bluefin quota shares and 

allocations. 

Comment 87: Commenters expressed 

concern about whether vessel owners 

would be willing to lease quota to other 

vessels, given the low amounts of quota 

allocated to vessels, and concern that 

the cost of leasing would be affordable, 

especially for owners of small vessels. 

Other commenters did not support 

leasing because access to additional 

quota could enable vessels to target 

bluefin. 

Response: The analysis of the 

preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS 

indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25 

percent of vessels would need to lease 

additional quota in order to land their 

historical average amount of designated 

species (if they do not change their 

behavior to reduce their historical rate 

of bluefin interactions). Therefore, a 

majority of vessels may have quota in 

excess of what is needed to account for 

their bluefin catch, and may have 

incentive to lease quota to other vessels. 

Notwithstanding the analysis, there is 

uncertainty regarding both the amount 

and price of quota that may be leased. 

A well-functioning leasing market, 

which enables quota to be leased by 

those who need it will be a key factor 

in whether the preferred IBQ Program 

functions as intended. 

Comment 88: Some commenters did 

not support allowing pelagic longline 

vessels to lease quota from Purse Seine 

vessels. A commenter was concerned 

that the leasing program may 

disadvantage the Purse Seine vessels, 

and a commenter was concerned that 

Purse Seine businesses could 

consolidate or control quota. A 

commenter suggested that NMFS should 

set aside quota and lease it to pelagic 

longline vessels rather than allowing 

Purse Seine vessels to lease, and a 

commenter thought that the Purse Seine 

category should be allowed to lease to 

all other permit categories. 

Response: Leasing quota must be 

confined to permit categories that are 

limited access due to the different 

characteristics of limited access and 

open access fisheries, and the 

complexities of a leasing program. 

Therefore, Amendment 7 limits quota 

leasing to the Longline and Purse Seine 

permit categories. The provision for 

Longline category vessels to lease quota 

from Purse Seine category participants 

provides an additional opportunity for 

pelagic longline vessels to lease quota 

that may not otherwise be present, and 

will increase the chances that there will 

be a well-functioning leasing market. As 

previously stated, a well-functioning 

leasing market, which enables quota to 

be leased by those who need it at an 

affordable price, will be a key factor in 

whether the preferred IBQ Program 

functions as intended. 

With regard to the concern over Purse 

Seine control of quota, as noted in the 

Response to Comment 87, NMFS 

anticipates that only 25 percent of 

vessels would need to lease additional 

quota, and this final rule allows such 

leasing from either the Longline or 

Purse Seine category. Further, the 

Annual Reallocation measure 

implemented by this final rule will have 

the effect of reducing the amount of 

quota that is available to the Purse Seine 

category if such participants do not 

catch the majority of their quota during 

the previous year. The net effect of the 

Annual Reallocation measure on the 

IBQ leasing program should be to 

reduce the amount of quota available for 

leasing to the Longline category, or 

leaving less quota available to the Purse 

Seine category with which to 

consolidate or otherwise influence the 

leasing market (by holding rather than 

leasing quota). However, the IBQ leasing 

measure will not disadvantage Purse 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71550 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Seine participants due to its interaction 

with the Annual Reallocation measure. 

The amount of quota allocated to the 

Purse Seine category participants will 

depend upon the level of bluefin 

landings and dead discards during the 

previous year, but will not take into 

consideration whether or not unused 

Purse Seine quota (that is not used to 

account for catch) is leased. 

Regarding the comment that NMFS 

should be directly involved in the quota 

leasing market, NMFS did not analyze 

an alternative that would give a central 

role in the leasing market to NMFS. 

Although NMFS could indirectly 

influence the quota leasing market 

through quota adjustments, direct 

involvement in the quota leasing system 

would create many administrative 

concerns and is not preferred at this 

time. For example, if NMFS were a 

broker of IBQ leases, the leasing market 

would be more complicated, might 

function more slowly, and would add 

additional burden and costs to NMFS’ 

support and oversight of the IBQ 

system. 

16. Measures Associated With the IBQ 

Program 

Comment 89: Commenters supported 

elimination of the target catch 

requirements and mandatory retention 

of legal-sized bluefin that are dead at 

haul-back. Some commenters suggested 

that NMFS require retention of all dead 

bluefin regardless of size in order to 

address the problem of undersized 

juvenile bluefin discards. 

Response: Under Amendment 7 

measures the target catch requirement (a 

strict bluefin retention limit based on 

the amount of target catch retained) will 

no longer be needed to restrict bluefin 

retention because catch will be limited 

by the IBQ Program restrictions. Dead 

discards are an important consideration 

with respect to the evaluation of 

minimum size restrictions, but are not 

the only consideration. The current 

bluefin size restriction for pelagic 

longline vessels reflects ICCAT 

recommendations, as well as 

consideration of other factors, including 

dead discards. In general, size 

restrictions have been instituted to 

protect the overall health and breeding 

viability of the species, as well as to 

distribute fishing opportunities among 

both recreational and commercial 

fishermen, year-round. 

Retention of all bluefin, regardless of 

size, would conflict with ICCAT 

recommendations in effect. The current 

ICCAT recommendation prohibits the 

harvest of Western bluefin measuring 

less than 115 cm (the equivalent of 27 

inches). It also limits the amount of BFT 

measuring 27 to less than 47 inches, to 

10 percent of the total U.S. quota. 

Reduction in minimum size to 47 or 

59 inches for commercial categories was 

an alternative that was considered, but 

not further analyzed in the FEIS. As 

new information from the fishery 

becomes available in the future, or if 

new scientific information or ICCAT 

recommendations warrant, NMFS may 

consider modifications to the bluefin 

size restrictions in the future. 

Comment 90: A commenter stated that 

NMFS should not require retention of 

bluefin in the Gulf of Mexico because 

the bluefin are too big to bring on board. 

Response: Most vessels that fish with 

pelagic longline gear target large pelagic 

species and are capable of boarding very 

large fish. Approximately 82 percent of 

the vessels participating in the pelagic 

longline fishery are greater than 40 feet 

in length overall and either can already 

handle large fish, or should be able to 

modify their equipment to be able to 

handle large fish. 

17. Closure of the Pelagic Longline 

Fishery 

Comment 91: Comments on NMFS’ 

authority to close the pelagic longline 

fishery ranged from those who support 

closing the fishery in conjunction with 

a Longline category quota allocation of 

8.1 percent, to those who said that the 

fishery should be closed only if there is 

unusually high catch of bluefin (and not 

when the quota is reached). 

Commenters noted the potential impacts 

of closures early in the year on the 

pelagic longline fishery, supporting 

business, consumers of the fish 

products, and future ICCAT 

recommendations. 

Response: A closure of the pelagic 

longline fishery may have adverse direct 

and secondary economic impacts, the 

severity of which would depend upon 

how early in the year the closure 

occurred. Under the IBQ Program 

implemented by this final rule, in which 

individual vessels may not fish with 

pelagic longline gear unless they have 

quota, it is not likely that NMFS will be 

required to close the fishery as a whole. 

However, individual vessels will be 

prohibited from fishing if they have not 

accounted for their catch or do not have 

the required minimum amount of quota 

allocation to depart on a pelagic 

longline trip. 

If, based on the best available data, 

NMFS estimates that the total amount of 

dead discards and landings are 

projected to reach, have reached, or 

exceed the Longline category quota, 

NMFS may prohibit fishing with pelagic 

longline gear. Similarly, if there is high 

uncertainty regarding the estimated or 

documented levels of bluefin catch, 

NMFS may close the fishery to prevent 

overharvest of the Longline category 

quota, or prevent further discarding of 

bluefin. 

As described in many of the responses 

to comments, NMFS designed 

Amendment 7 management measures 

not only to reduce dead discards and 

ensure accountability, but also to 

provide flexibility for pelagic longline 

vessels fishing under the IBQ Program 

restrictions, and flexibility in the quota 

system as a whole, to balance the needs 

of the pelagic longline fishery with the 

needs of the other quota categories. 

18. VMS Requirements 

Comment 92: NMFS received 

comments on proposed VMS 

requirements for the Purse Seine and 

Longline categories (preferred 

Alternative D1b), expressing both 

support and opposition. Several 

commenters were concerned about the 

functionality of certain VMS models, 

particularly those used in the midAtlantic. 

Response: NMFS recently published a 

proposed rule regarding type-approval 

of VMS units to ensure vendors and 

associated mobile communications 

providers are meeting fishing industry 

needs (79 FR 53386; September 9, 2014). 

Specifically, the rule proposed NMFS 

procedures for EMTU/MTU and MCS 

type approval, type-approval renewal, 

and revocation; revision of latency 

standards; and methods to ensure 

compliance with type approval 

standards. By codifying requirements 

and processes, NMFS will be better able 

to ensure vendor compliance with the 

VMS type-approval requirements. 

19. Electronic Monitoring Requirements 

Comment 93: NMFS received 

comments that supported electronic 

monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear 

sensors), while other comments either 

expressed concern or opposed it. 

Comments supporting electronic 

monitoring indicated that it is not cost 

prohibitive, that it would allow NMFS 

to ground-truth other data, and that it 

supports accountability and 

enforcement. Those opposed to 

electronic monitoring said that it is cost 

prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and 

is redundant with existing information. 

Some comments expressed concern 

about the functionality of a system, 

considering the issues experienced with 

some VMS functionality, and the ability 

to identify the difference between 

bigeye and bluefin tuna using video 

cameras. Implementation using a pilot 

scale was suggested, which would allow 

time to set up a functioning 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71551 

infrastructure. Expansion of electronic 

monitoring to other categories with dead 

discards was also suggested. 

Response: Amendment 7 establishes 

requirements to monitor dead discards 

for all commercial user categories to 

better achieve the ICCAT requirement to 

account for sources of bluefin tuna 

fishing mortality and to better monitor 

the fishery for bluefin accounting 

purposes domestically. This final rule 

implements a requirement for Purse 

Seine category vessels to report dead 

discards via VMS, and for hand gear 

fisheries (General, Harpoon, and 

Charter/headboat categories) to report 

using an automated catch reporting 

system via the internet or phone. As 

described above, for all vessels issued 

an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that 

fish with pelagic longline gear, vessel 

owners (or their representatives) must 

coordinate with the NMFS-approved 

contractor to install and test electronic 

monitoring equipment, and the 

contractor will then provide 

certification that the equipment has 

been properly installed. Longline 

category vessels are required maintain 

an electronic monitoring system 

(including video recording and data 

sensors) that will record all catch and 

relevant data regarding pelagic longline 

gear deployment and retrieval. The 

purpose of video monitoring for the 

Longline category is to provide a cost 

effective and reliable source of 

information to verify the accuracy of 

bluefin tuna interactions reported via 

VMS and logbooks. In many instances, 

the FEIS analysis found discrepancies 

between logbook data and observer data 

(considered to be highly accurate) 

reported for the same trip. The 

Amendment 7 electronic monitoring 

requirement supports accurate catch 

data and bluefin tuna IBQ management 

measures, by providing a means to 

verify the accuracy of the counts and 

identification of bluefin reported by the 

vessel operator. In light of public 

comments expressing concern about 

ensuring the functionality of electronic 

monitoring systems and the costs of 

such systems, this final rule relieves 

certain purchase and installation 

requirements that were set out in the 

proposed rule. Rather than requiring 

vessel owners to buy and install 

equipment and make decisions about 

equipment specifications and 

functionality, this final rule instead 

requires the vessel owners to obtain 

certification from a NMFS-approved 

contractor stating that the contractor has 

properly installed and verified the 

functionality of the electronic 

monitoring system in accordance with 

more detailed equipment and system 

requirements provided in the final rule. 

As set out in the proposed rule, vessel 

owners would have been responsible for 

the costs of the equipment and for 

installation for the electronic 

monitoring systems, which are 

estimated to be approximately $19,175 

for purchase and installation per vessel 

as well as variable costs of 

approximately $225 per trip for data 

retrieval, fishing activity interpretation, 

and catch data interpretation. These 

costs are lower than the cost of 

increased observer coverage. The 

Southeast Fisheries Science Center 

estimates that observer deployment 

costs approximately $1,075 per sea day, 

which equates to approximately $9,675 

per average nine-day pelagic longline 

trip. 

Video monitoring is currently used in 

several fisheries, and NMFS has funded 

over 30 pilot projects to further research 

the use and effectiveness of electronic 

monitoring, including research on the 

accuracy of finfish identification. These 

studies provide evidence that properly 

deployed and maintained video 

monitoring camera systems can provide 

effective data for accurately identifying 

large pelagic species. NMFS 

acknowledges that identification of 

closely related species such as bluefin 

and bigeye tuna can be challenging, 

particularly with smaller fish. The size 

of tunas that are caught on pelagic 

longline vessels tend to be larger due to 

the size of the hooks used in 

commercial fisheries. To ensure 

accurate identification of all species, the 

NMFS-approved contractor will place 

cameras to ensure a clear view of the 

gear hauling location. NMFS white 

papers on electronic monitoring are 

available at the following Web address: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/

Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_

WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS will take into 

account the time required for owners to 

outfit their vessels with newly required 

equipment when establishing the 

timetable for requirement vessels to 

have fully operational electronic 

monitoring systems. 

20. Automated Catch Reporting 

Comment 94: Several commenters 

supported electronic catch reporting for 

the General, Harpoon, and Charter/

headboat categories, and one commenter 

suggested that electronic catch reporting 

be required for all categories. Two 

commenters questioned the 

effectiveness of this reporting 

methodology. One suggested that a 

catch card system be used, and another 

requested additional technical 

information on the reporting 

methodology including the data to be 

collected and techniques for 

verification. 

Response: Amendment 7 implements 

mandatory dead discard reporting for 

General, Harpoon, and Charter/

Headboat category vessels. The 

reporting system will be an extension of 

the web-based landings reporting 

system, which must currently be used 

by fishermen in the Angling category to 

submit mandatory bluefin tuna landings 

reports. Although catch card systems 

have been shown to provide a more 

accurate accounting for landings in 

some geographic areas (i.e., Maryland 

and North Carolina), they are more 

costly to employ and are difficult to 

implement in regions with a large 

number of private docks. Further, catch 

cards may not be as effective in 

accounting for discarded fish that are 

not landed. The data fields NMFS will 

collect through a required form include 

information such as, the trip start and 

end date, trip departure and end time, 

port and state of departure and landing, 

fishing technique, bait type, hook type, 

approximate time hooked, approximate 

fight time, species, fish size, vessel 

name, registration number, permit 

holder’s name, Atlantic HMS permit 

number, type of trip, and tournament 

name (if applicable). 

21. Expand the Scope of the Large 

Pelagics Survey 

Comment 95: One commenter 

opposed taking no action on the Large 

Pelagics Survey (preferred Alternative 

D6a), stating that a change is needed 

from the status quo. 

Response: NMFS analyzed expanding 

the Large Pelagics Survey temporally to 

include the months of May, November, 

and December, and geographically to 

include the states south of Virginia, as 

a means to collect more data about the 

recreational bluefin tuna fishery, and 

further refine recreational bluefin tuna 

landings estimates. Although the 

expansion of the survey would likely 

provide some landings estimates in time 

periods and geographic regions that are 

currently not covered by the survey, the 

likelihood of the survey intercepting 

activity in what is considered to be a 

‘‘rare event’’ fishery at the edges of its 

geographic and temporal range is low, 

and the resultant catch estimates would 

likely be imprecise. NMFS estimated the 

economic cost of these data is 

approximately $165,000 per year. Thus, 

the benefits of the data may not 

outweigh the cost. The NMFS Office of 

Science and Technology may consider 

future studies to enhance recreational 

bluefin tuna landings estimates under 

the Marine Recreational Information 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71552 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Program (https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

recreational-fisheries/index). 

22. Deployment of Observers 

Comment 96: Several commenters 

supported the expansion of observer 

coverage for the Longline category, 

suggesting increases in coverage up to 

100%. Another commenter suggested 

implementing industry-funded observer 

coverage. A commenter thought that 

NMFS should use observer data to 

monitor Longline category catch limits. 

Another commenter was concerned that 

observers might not be available to 

cover pelagic longline vessel trips into 

closed areas. 

Response: This Amendment 7 final 

rule makes no changes to current 

observer coverage requirements for 

commercial Atlantic tunas vessels. 

Catch data collected by observers is 

considered to be highly accurate and 

current levels of observer coverage are 

adequate to produce statistically sound 

estimates of bluefin catches, but the 

high cost of observer coverage can be 

prohibitive (see response to comment 

93). Thus, NMFS is not implementing a 

requirement for industry to fund 

observers or requiring an increase in 

observer coverage at this time or 

exploring further the possibility of 

industry-funded observers. Under 

Amendment 7 measures, NMFS is 

requiring Longline category vessels to 

use electronic monitoring systems (i.e., 

video cameras and gear sensors) that 

will provide data to corroborate logbook 

reports and serve as a source of high 

quality data for use in monitoring 

Longline category catch. Amendment 7 

does not include a measure that will 

allow access to previously closed areas, 

or require observer coverage for access 

to the Cape Hatteras GRA at this time. 

23. General Category Subquota 

Management 

Comment 97: NMFS received a 

variety of comments on the proposed 

measure to allow transfer of General 

category quota from one or more the 

time periods that follow the January 

time-period to the January or other 

preceding sub-quota time periods. The 

comments included that NMFS should 

allow more flexibility in the General 

category; NMFS should provide more 

quota to the January subquota period; 

NMFS should provide half the subquota 

to the first half of the year and half the 

subquota to the second half of the year; 

NMFS should give a share of the 

subquota to North Carolina to fish from 

January to June, as the current 5.5 

percent of quota in January to June is 

caught in less than 14 days. The North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources commented that 

NMFS should shift subquota for 

December to the January subquota 

period. 

Response: Under the quota 

regulations, the General category quota 

is divided into subquotas for each time 

period versus specific geographic areas. 

Under the measures implemented by 

this final rule, NMFS can transfer quota 

from one subquota period to another, 

earlier in the calendar year. For 

example, subquota could be transferred 

from the December subquota to the 

January subquota for that same calendar 

year. Although NMFS could transfer 

quota from one subquota period to any 

other subquota period, based on public 

comment NMFS will prioritize transfer 

from the winter fishery that occurs in 

December to the winter fishery that 

occurs in January within a fishing year 

(e.g., prioritize transfer of quota from 

December in Year A to January of Year 

A). 

Comment 98: NMFS received a 

comment that NMFS should consider 

the fact that transfers will have the 

effect of moving quota from the 

traditional Northeast fishery to the midAtlantic and South; Alternative E1c will 

negatively impact Northeast fishermen. 

One commenter stated that NMFS 

should take no action on General 

category subquotas (Alternative E1a). 

Another commenter stated that NMFS 

should establish 12 equal monthly 

subquotas (Alternative E1b). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

concerns that quota distribution may 

impact historical geographic 

distribution and considered these 

factors in selecting which alternative to 

finalize. Note that current regulations do 

not preclude General category and HMS 

Charter/Headboat category vessels from 

traveling from one area to another. In 

fact, many vessels travel from the 

northeast and mid-Atlantic states to 

participate in the winter fishery that 

occurs largely off North Carolina. NMFS 

will continue to consider the regulatory 

determination criteria regarding 

inseason quota transfers in an attempt to 

balance reasonable opportunity to 

harvest quota with other considerations, 

including variations in bluefin 

distribution and availability, among 

others. The measure implemented by 

Amendment 7 will provide additional 

fishing opportunities within the General 

category quota while acknowledging the 

traditional fishery. Prioritizing transfer 

from one winter fishery subquota to 

another will minimize negative impacts 

of transferring quota that is traditionally 

used by Northeast fishermen in the 

summer and fall months. Division of the 

quota equally by month was not 

preferred because the potential negative 

social and economic impacts outweigh 

the positive impacts. The negative 

aspects of this alternative include the 

potential for gear conflicts and derby 

fishing, as well as the potential for the 

historical geographic distribution of the 

fishery to be dramatically altered. 

Although this alternative would provide 

some stability to the fishery by 

establishing a known amount of quota 

that would be available at the first of 

each month, if catch rates are high in 

the early portion of the month, these 

quotas could be harvested rapidly and 

may lead to derby style fisheries on the 

first of each month. Additionally, if 

catch rates are high and subquotas are 

reached quickly, NMFS may need to 

institute multiple closures notices 

throughout the year. 

24. Harpoon Category Retention Limit 

Comment 99: NMFS received a 

comment supporting increased 

flexibility for the Harpoon category. 

Response: In 2011, NMFS increased 

the incidental retention limit of large 

medium bluefin after considering 

requests from Harpoon category 

participants to eliminate certain 

regulations perceived as unnecessarily 

restrictive (76 FR 74003, November 30, 

2011). Since then, NMFS has received 

requests from Harpoon category 

participants to instead manage the large 

medium size class retention limit over 

a range, similar to how NMFS manages 

the daily General category retention 

limit, for increased flexibility in setting 

the limit based on consideration of 

applicable factors (i.e., the regulatory 

determination criteria applicable to 

retention limit adjustments). Under the 

Amendment 7 measure implemented by 

this final rule, NMFS will have the 

ability to increase or decrease the daily 

retention limit of large medium bluefin 

within a range of two to four fish, based 

on the former and current daily 

retention limits. This measure enhances 

NMFS’ ability to more precisely manage 

the landing rate of large medium bluefin 

by the Harpoon category, thereby 

optimizing opportunities while 

preventing landings from exceeding the 

subquota. 

25. Angling Category Trophy Sub-Quota 

Comment 100: NMFS received 

comments on allocating a portion of the 

trophy south subquota to the Gulf of 

Mexico (preferred Alternative E3b), 

including that NMFS should not reduce 

the trophy south subquota; the 

reduction would negatively affect 

charter captains in the mid-Atlantic and 

South Atlantic areas; and that the 

change in allocation would increase 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71553 

landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Other commenters stated that 

NMFS should change the division of 

subquota, but not split the subquota 

equally between the southern area and 

the Gulf of Mexico; and that NMFS 

should allocate 10% or 17% of the 

trophy south subquota to the Gulf of 

Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council commented that 

NMFS should take no action on this 

issue (Alternative E3a) and that 

Alternative E3b would lead to an 

unreasonably small recreational bluefin 

trophy quota for the northern region. 

Response: Under the Amendment 7 

measure implemented by this final rule, 

the trophy subquota will be divided to 

provide 33% each to the northern area, 

the southern area outside the Gulf of 

Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. The 

objective of this measure is to provide 

a reasonable fishing opportunity for 

recreational vessels in the Atlantic and 

Gulf of Mexico, reduce discards, and 

account for incidentally caught bluefin. 

A separate subquota allocation for the 

Gulf of Mexico will improve the equity 

of the trophy-sized fish allocation by 

increasing the likelihood that there will 

be trophy quota available to account for 

incidental catch of bluefin in that area 

(while still providing incentives not to 

target bluefin). An equal 33% division 

among the three areas provides the most 

equitable trophy subquota allocation. 

This measure will not affect the amount 

of Trophy subquota available to the 

northern area. 

Comment 101: One commenter stated 

that NMFS should eliminate the trophy 

category because it is not possible to 

monitor the catch. 

Response: Currently, NMFS monitors 

trophy bluefin along with all other sizes 

of recreationally-caught bluefin through 

the Large Pelagics Survey, the 

Automated Catch Reporting System, and 

state catch card programs (for landings 

in Maryland and North Carolina). NMFS 

considers the combined methods of 

monitoring trophy bluefin catch to be 

adequate such that closure of the trophy 

bluefin fishery is not warranted at this 

time. 

26. Purse Seine Category Start Date 

Comment 102: NMFS received 

comments on changing the start date of 

the Purse Seine category to June 1 

(preferred Alternative E4b), including 

that NMFS should change the Purse 

Seine category start date to June 1 as 

fish have tended to be available on the 

fishing grounds earlier than July 15 in 

recent years; NMFS should give the 

Purse Seine category the same start date 

as other commercial categories; and 

NMFS should give the Purse Seine 

category a start date of June 15 if there 

is a need to compromise with other 

categories. Subsequent to the date the 

FEIS was published NMFS received 

many comments expressing concerns 

regarding the proposed June 1 start date. 

Specifically, commenters feared that the 

June 1 start date would flood the June 

and early July market for bluefin, 

depress the price, and cause a severe 

social and economic impact to small 

boat handgear fishermen. Other 

concerns were the increased potential 

for gear conflicts, and a concern that 

fish behavior would change and the fish 

may be dispersed by relatively early 

Purse Seine fishing activity . 

Response: We had proposed changing 

the default start date of the Purse Seine 

category fishery from July 15 to June 1, 

with the ability to delay the season start 

date from June 1 to no later than August 

15, to help optimize fishing opportunity 

for Purse Seine category vessels, given 

the other measures affecting the Purse 

Seine category implemented by this 

Amendment 7 final rule. Based on 

public comments, however, in the final 

rule NMFS is removing the default start 

date of the Purse Seine fishery, and 

instead will establish by action (via 

Federal Register notice) the start date of 

the fishery, during a range from June 1 

through July 15. 

Comment 103: One commenter stated 

that NMFS should not change the start 

date because the average value of 

bluefin is lower in June. 

Response: NMFS has received 

comments over recent years from 

commercial bluefin fishery participants 

and dealers that fish quality tends to be 

lower earlier in the year, with lower 

associated price per pound. However, 

providing purse seine operators the 

ability to start fishing on June 1 

provides additional flexibility for 

deciding when to make sets. These 

decisions are based largely on the 

availability of bluefin and the size 

composition of schools. To the extent 

that this flexibility could allow the 

harvest of the Purse Seine category 

quota while minimizing dead discards, 

the management measure meets the 

Amendment 7 objectives. 

27. Permit Category Changes 

Comment 104: One commenter did 

not support modifying the rules 

regarding permit category changes 

(preferred Alternative E5b), stating that 

the 10-day restriction is sufficient and 

changing the restriction would give 

people the chance to abuse the rules and 

fish in multiple categories. 

Response: Based on feedback NMFS 

has received over a number of years 

from vessel owners affected by the 10- 

day restriction, NMFS believes that 

limiting the time period during which a 

vessel may change permit categories to 

10 calendar days is overly restrictive, 

and may not allow the flexibility to 

resolve the problems of a permit issued 

by mistake. This measure, which will 

allow permit category changes within 45 

days of permit issuance, provided the 

vessel has not fished (as verified via 

landings data), will achieve a better 

balance of allowing flexibility for vessel 

owners, while still preventing fishing in 

more than one permit category during a 

fishing year. 

28. North Atlantic Albacore Tuna 

Quota 

Comment 105: NMFS received a 

comment on implementing a U.S. North 

Atlantic albacore tuna quota (preferred 

Alternative E6b), stating that NMFS 

should be cautious with carrying 

forward multiple years of underharvest 

given the status of the northern albacore 

stock. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

concern about carrying forward large 

amounts of unused quota (often referred 

to as ‘‘stockpiling’’). The ICCAT 

Contracting Parties have discussed that 

issue in recent years, particularly 

regarding the potentially large adjusted 

quotas for the major harvesters of 

northern albacore (specifically the 

European Union, with 77 percent of the 

northern albacore quota). The current 

ICCAT northern albacore 

recommendation (Recommendation 13– 

05; Supplemental Recommendation by 

ICCAT Concerning the North Atlantic 

Albacore Rebuilding Program) allows 

for 25% of a country’s quota to be 

carried forward, if unused, and to be 

used within the two years following the 

subject year of catch. Because the U.S. 

quota represents less than 2 percent of 

the northern albacore TAC, and the 

most the adjusted quota could be under 

the current recommendation is 658.75 

mt (125% of the 527-mt quota), there is 

little risk of stock harm. Regarding stock 

status, based on the 2013 northern 

albacore stock assessment and the 

domestic thresholds for minimum stock 

size (i.e., the MSST) and maximum 

fishing mortality (i.e., the MFMT), the 

stock is not overfished (i.e., rebuilding), 

with overfishing not occurring. Carryforward of unused quota would be 

limited to 25 percent of the initial quota, 

consistent with the current ICCAT 

recommendation. 

29. Other Concerns 

Comment 106: Commenters expressed 

concerns and made suggestions about a 

variety of topics related to the 

management of bluefin tuna or 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71554 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

associated HMS fisheries, but not 

specific to one of the proposed 

management measures or alternatives 

analyzed. The underlying science was a 

concern, and commenters suggested that 

NMFS should reevaluate the methods 

and timing of stock assessments; should 

revise the method of dead discard 

estimates; should increase overall 

research; and should increase 

communication between scientists and 

managers. Other commenters 

questioned why some permit categories 

are open access and some are limited 

access; suggested that NMFS open the 

Florida East Closure or the DeSoto 

Canyon Closure; should modify the 

weak hook regulations; suggested that 

NMFS ban longlines; NMFS only cares 

about the commercial interests; the 

management of bluefin is unfair because 

the U.S. regulations are more restrictive 

than in other countries; and, observers 

should be required in all commercial 

categories. Commenters stated that 

greenstick gear and rod and reel cannot 

replace pelagic longline in regard to the 

amount of fish landed by the gears; 

expressed concern that pelagic longline 

vessels in the Gulf of Mexico are 

generally too large to effectively fish 

with greenstick gear; concern was 

expressed that tuna landed with 

greenstick gear are low in quality, bring 

a lower price than longline-caught tuna; 

and that greenstick-caught tuna are not 

as acceptable in domestic or 

international markets. Commenters 

stated that other fishing practices 

should be used to reduce discards of 

fish including the use of shorter 

longlines, thinner monofilament on 

mainlines or gangions, increased 

floatation on mainlines, using mackerel 

for bait, and/or reducing soak time. A 

commentor stated that dehooking 

devices should be used to promote postrelease survival of organisms. 

Response: Although the comments are 

directly or indirectly related to the 

management of bluefin tuna, 

Amendment 7 considered (i.e., analyzed 

and proposed) a discrete range of 

management measures. In adopting any 

final measures, NMFS is restricted in 

scope to management measures closely 

related to those proposed, and within 

the range of impacts analyzed in the 

DEIS. Therefore, many of the 

management measures or ideas 

suggested by the public, regardless of 

potential merits, were not included in 

the FEIS (for analysis and 

consideration), but would have to be 

considered in the context of a future 

management action. In addition to the 

formal regulatory process of proposed 

and final rulemaking, NMFS considers 

issues, discusses management ideas, 

and obtains public input in the context 

of the HMS Advisory Panel, which 

typically convenes twice a year at 

meetings that are open to the public. 

Possession and use of dehooking 

devices are currently required onboard 

pelagic longline vessels. 

Comment 107: Commenters requested 

that NMFS modify the Purse Seine 

landings tolerance regulations that 

restrict the amount of large medium 

bluefin tuna relative to the amount of 

giant bluefin that can be landed. 

Specifically, they recommended that the 

tolerance be increased or eliminated in 

order to reduce dead discards. The 

current tolerance is no more than 15 

percent of the total amount of giant 

bluefin (81 inches or greater) per year, 

by weight. However, as the total number 

of future trips, and catch, is unknown, 

the vessel owner/operators have been 

self-imposing this regulation on a trip 

level basis to ensure compliance at the 

end of the year. 

Response: Although there has been 

past interest in altering this limit, the 

issue was raised in the comments on the 

2006 Consolidated HMS FMP—this 

alternative was not considered further 

in the DEIS because there was very little 

data available to determine whether 

such as change might be warranted and 

the impacts of such a change given 

recent low catch/landings from the 

Purse Seine category. Data are now 

available on dead discards by size 

relative to retained catch for the Purse 

Seine category from the 2013 fishing 

year. NMFS believes that additional 

analysis about the potential benefits of 

altering the limit, both by reducing dead 

discards and improving the Purse Seine 

category’s opportunity to harvest its 

quota, is warranted and beneficial to the 

stock and the fishery. Additional data 

are needed to conduct such analyses 

and to make fishery management 

decisions. NMFS may take future action 

in a subsequent rulemaking, if 

warranted, but such changes are not 

supportable at this time in this 

Amendment. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule (78 

FR 52032; August 21, 2013) 

This section explains the changes in 

the regulatory text from the proposed 

rule to the final rule. Some changes 

were made in response to public 

comment, others clarify text for the final 

rule, and others provide more detail or 

specifications about the administration 

of the measures as proposed. The 

changes from the proposed rule text in 

the final rule are as follows: 

IBQ Shares and Allocation 

Administration of the IBQ Program 

Program Requirements and Scope 

(635.15): The IBQ allocation shares in 

the proposed rule were based on 

eligibility criteria and a quota share 

formula based on the time period from 

2006 through 2011. The final rule 

includes an additional year of data 

(2012) that became available after 

publication of the proposed rule. NMFS 

stated in the DEIS that analyses would 

be updated where 2012 data became 

available for the FEIS, and public 

comment on the DEIS also reflected the 

need to update these analyses. The 

range of seven years provides a 

reasonable representation of historical 

fishing activity, including recent years. 

Seven years is long enough to prevent 

short-term circumstances from 

disproportionately impacting a vessel, 

but recent enough to reflect current 

fishery participation. By including 2012 

data, nine more vessels meet the criteria 

to be deemed ‘‘active’’ for the purposes 

of IBQ eligibility. 

The final rule also clarifies that there 

are two aspects to how the pool of 

eligible vessels is determined: A vessel 

must meet the definition of ‘‘active,’’ 

and also must have been issued a valid 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

as of August 21, 2013 (the date of the 

proposed rule). ‘‘Active’’ vessels are 

those vessels that made at least one set 

using pelagic longline gear from 2006 

through 2012 based on pelagic longline 

logbook data. At the DEIS stage, this 

criterion was based on logbook data for 

2006–2011. Logbook data for 2012 data 

became available after publication of the 

DEIS, however. NMFS stated in the 

DEIS that analyses would be updated 

where 2012 data became available for 

the FEIS, and public comment on the 

DEIS also reflected the need to update 

these analyses. Thus, the final action 

uses 2006 to 2012 data. In addition to 

being ‘‘active,’’ vessels must have a 

valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit. NMFS clarifies here that, for 

purposes of IBQ share eligibility, a 

‘‘valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit’’ is one held as of the date the 

proposed rule was published, which 

was August 21, 2013. 

In response to public comment that 

NMFS should provide additional 

administrative details about the appeals 

process, the final rule includes an initial 

administrative step regarding the 

appeals of initial quota shares, and 

specifies the documentation that may be 

used to appeal. In the proposed rule 

appeals were to be made directly to the 

NMFS National Appeal Office. The final 

rule includes a provision that vessel 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71555 

owners may first submit a written 

request for review of initial IBQ shares 

to the HMS Management Division 

within 90 days of publication of this 

final rule. The written request to adjust 

their initial quota share, must indicate 

the reason for the requested change and 

provide supporting documentation (see 

below). HMS Management Division staff 

will evaluate all requests and 

accompanying documentation, then 

notify the requestor by letter signed by 

the HMS Division Chief, of NMFS’ 

decision to approve or deny the request 

for adjustment. If the request is 

approved, NMFS will issue the 

appropriate adjustment to the initial 

quota share and resultant allocation by 

letter, identifying any alteration to the 

quota share percentage and associated 

allocation. If the HMS Management 

Division denies the request, the permit 

holder may appeal that decision within 

90 days of receipt of the notice of denial 

by submitting a written petition of 

appeal to the NMFS National Appeals 

Office in accordance with regulations at 

15 CFR part 906. This final rule 

specifies what will be considered 

‘‘documented legal landings’’ in support 

of an appeal of a quota share 

determination because public comment 

indicated that additional guidance on 

this issue was necessary. Specifically, 

for the purposes of appeals, NMFS 

considers ‘‘documented legal landings,’’ 

to be official NMFS logbook records or 

weighout slips for landings between 

January 1, 2006, through December 31, 

2012, that were submitted to NMFS 

prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the 

cutoff date for eligible landings), and 

verifiable sales slips, receipts from 

registered dealers, state landings 

records, and permit records. Landings 

data are required to be submitted within 

7 days of landing under the applicable 

regulations. Recognizing that somewhatlate reporting could have occurred for a 

variety of reasons, however, NMFS is 

clarifying that it will consider 

‘‘documented’’ landings for appeals 

purposes to be those reported within 60 

days to include those that were slightly 

late. 

This final rule includes a provision 

that when NMFS determines that all 

requests for IBQ share adjustments and 

appeals have been resolved, NMFS may 

adjust all IBQ share percentages to 

accommodate permitted holders that 

have been deemed eligible or provided 

an increased IBQ quota share through 

the appeals process. NMFS will notify 

IBQ participants in writing with any 

resulting changes in their IBQ quota 

shares stemming from approved 

appeals. 

This rule provides additional details 

about and clarifies requirements 

regarding the IBQ System used to track 

IBQ shares and resultant allocation, 

usage and balances of IBQ allocation, 

and conduct leasing of IBQ allocation. 

The proposed rule stated that NMFS 

would implement an Internet based 

system to track leases of IBQ allocation, 

but did not specifically note that the 

IBQ system would also be used to track 

IBQ shares, or provide details regarding 

the associated requirements for IBQ 

Program participants to create an 

account. Therefore, the following 

administrative details are being added: 

Eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit holders must have an 

IBQ System accounts in order to be 

issued IBQ shares and resultant 

allocation or lease IBQ. NMFS will set 

up these accounts for initial IBQ System 

accounts for eligible IBQ participants. 

Similarly, a permitted dealer purchasing 

bluefin tuna caught from a vessel fishing 

with pelagic longline gear must also 

have an IBQ System account and access 

the system online to provide landings 

data at the end of pelagic longline trips 

where bluefin were purchased or 

received (i.e., data on the amount of 

bluefin landings and dead discards). 

NMFS will also set up accounts for 

those dealers who have historically 

purchased bluefin from pelagic longline 

vessels. 

This final rule provides additional 

details for two aspects of IBQ 

accounting as follows: If an Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit holder 

participating in the IBQ Program has a 

quota debt that remains unresolved at 

the time of such permits sale or transfer, 

then that quota debt remains associated 

with that permit. This is consistent with 

the IBQ share remaining linked to the 

eligible permit itself and further refines 

how IBQ shares, resultant allocation, 

and quota debt will be managed to 

ensure accountability under the IBQ 

Program, even if permits are sold or 

transferred. Secondly, for those permit 

holders who own or operate multiple 

vessels with IBQ allocation, if, at the 

end of the year, one or more of the 

vessels has an outstanding quota debt, 

yet the other vessels still have IBQ 

allocation, the IBQ system will apply 

any remaining unused regional IBQ 

allocation associated with the other 

vessels to account for the quota debt of 

the other. This functionality has been 

added since the proposed rule because 

unused IBQ allocation does not carry 

over from one year to the next, but quota 

debt does. This functionality facilitates 

the resolution of quota debt, and 

reduces the possibility that a permit 

holder of multiple vessels may 

inadvertently fail to manually resolve an 

existing quota debt with IBQ allocation 

associated with one of their other 

vessels at the end of the year. 

To ensure that all IBQ Program 

activity can be accounted for on an 

annual basis, the IBQ System will 

prohibit any and all online transactions, 

such as catch transactions and IBQ 

allocation leases, between December 31 

at 6 p.m. and January 1 at 2 p.m. 

(Eastern Time). IBQ System functions 

will resume after January 1 at 2 p.m. the 

following year. No IBQ System 

transactions will be allowed or available 

during this 20 hour time period to 

provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ 

accounts, adjust IBQ allocation for the 

upcoming year, etc. If a vessel with the 

required minimal IBQ allocation departs 

on a trip prior to the end of a calendar 

year and returns to port after the start of 

the following year, any bluefin landings 

or dead discards will be counted against 

the new year’s allocation. 

This final rule provides additional 

administrative detail and guidance 

about aspects of the annual process IBQ 

allocation. Annual IBQ allocations to 

eligible permit holders will occur 

January 1. For those permit holders 

awarded IBQ shares but are not eligible 

to receive the resultant IBQ allocation as 

of December 31 because they have 

begun—but not completed—the process 

of permit renewal or permit transfer, 

IBQ allocations will be made when the 

transaction regarding permit renewal 

and/or transfer has been completed. 

Subsequent to the annual IBQ 

allocation, additional IBQ allocation 

may be made available to eligible permit 

holders as a result of a U.S. quota 

increase or potential in-season quota 

transfer from the Reserve category, 

pursuant to determination criteria 

associated with quota adjustments. 

Subsequent to the annual IBQ 

allocation, IBQ allocation may be 

reduced as a result of a decrease in the 

U.S. bluefin quota, or to account for 

accrued quota debt. 

Gulf of Mexico Gear Restricted Area 

This final rule modifies the definition 

of the Gulf of Mexico GRA at § 635.2 

from the definition in the proposed rule. 

NMFS proposed a Gulf of Mexico GRA 

for the months of April and May, during 

which time vessels would be prohibited 

from fishing with pelagic longline gear 

in the defined area. Based on public 

comment, NMFS re-analyzed additional 

spatial and temporal configurations of 

GRAs in the Gulf of Mexico, and instead 

is implementing a GRA during the same 

months (April and May), but of a 

different configuration than proposed. 

However, the GRA remains within the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71556 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

range of areas considered and analyzed 

in the FEIS and the range of alternatives. 

The total area of the Spring Gulf of 

Mexico GRAs being implemented is 

larger than that of the proposed Small 

Gulf of Mexico GRA. This final rule 

implements a GRA comprised of two 

separate areas: An area based on that 

proposed, but extended to the east, and 

reduced in size on the western and 

northern borders, and a second area that 

is adjacent to the southern border of the 

Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s 

northwestern ‘block.’ A larger 

geographic area in the Gulf of Mexico 

that includes areas to the east of what 

was proposed is required to effectively 

reduce bluefin interactions, given the 

location of historic interactions between 

bluefin and pelagic longline gear, and 

the high variability of bluefin 

distribution in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area 

Under § 635.2, the definition of the 

Cape Hatteras GRA was modified. 

NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA 

for the months of December through 

April during which time vessels would 

be prohibited from fishing with pelagic 

longline gear in the defined area, with 

the exception of vessels granted access 

based upon performance criteria. Based 

on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed 

spatial and temporal configurations of 

the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead is 

implementing a modified GRA during 

the same months (December through 

April), but of a slightly different 

configuration than proposed. The total 

area of the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA 

being implemented is smaller than that 

of the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA, due 

to the modification of the southeastern 

region of the GRA. Specifically, the 

southeastern corner as proposed was a 

ninety degree angle, but this final rule 

connects the southwestern corner to a 

more northerly point on the eastern 

boundary of the Cape Hatteras GRA, 

eliminating a triangular shaped area 

from the southeast region of the GRA. 

The shape of the Modified Cape 

Hatteras GRA as implemented will 

minimize the likelihood that pelagic 

longline gear set south of the GRA will 

drift into the GRA (based upon the 

prevailing direction of currents). 

Allow Pelagic Longline Vessels To Fish 

Under General Category Rules 

Under § 635.21, paragraph (c)(3) was 

modified, however this measure is not 

being implemented by this final rule. In 

the proposed rule, NMFS proposed 

allowing pelagic longline vessels that 

are not allowed to fish in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA (based on the performance 

criteria) to instead fish for bluefin tuna 

under General category rule (in the time 

period and area associated with the 

GRA). Based upon public comment and 

further consideration, this alternative is 

not being implemented as part of the 

Amendment 7 final rule due to concerns 

about ecological impacts, and uncertain 

economic benefits. Other commenters 

were concerned about the expansion of 

a targeted bluefin fishery in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA, an area that already has 

large numbers of interactions with 

bluefin. Some noted concern about the 

potential impacts on the rate of harvest 

of the General category quota, which is 

limited, and the indirect impacts on 

General category vessels. Others noted 

that the replacement of pelagic longline 

gear with handgear (targeting bluefin) is 

not economically viable due to the size 

of the pelagic longline vessels and the 

associated trip expenses. Based on these 

public comments, NMFS determined 

that the potential benefits of allowing 

pelagic longline vessels, which are part 

of a limited access fishery, to fish under 

the open-access General category rules 

do not outweigh the potential costs and 

risks associated with this activity at this 

time. 

Limited Conditional Access to Pelagic 

Longline Closed Areas 

Section § 635.21 and paragraph 

§ 635.23(f)(2) were modified because 

this measure that would have provided 

vessels fishing with pelagic longline 

gear some access to the existing pelagic 

longline closed areas was not 

implemented. This measure was 

included in the proposed rule but based 

upon additional information, public 

comment, and further consideration of 

potential administrative costs, NMFS is 

not implementing this measure in the 

final rule. NMFS may obtain data from 

within the closures through the use of 

exempted fishing permits. As explained 

further in Response to Comment # 65, 

the potential benefits of allowing 

pelagic longline vessels limited 

conditional access to closed areas would 

not outweigh the potential costs and 

risks associated with this activity. The 

objectives of this alternative were to 

maintain the relevant conservation 

aspects of the closure, balance the 

objectives of the closures, provide 

commercial data from within the 

closures, and provide additional fishing 

opportunities for permitted longline 

vessels (mitigating the potential 

negative economic impacts of 

Amendment 7). 

Vessel Monitoring System 

Paragraphs § 635.69(a) and 

§ 635.69(e)(4) were modified from the 

proposed rule. The proposed rule 

included measures requiring the use of 

VMS units for Purse Seine vessels, as 

well as reporting requirements for the 

Purse Seine and Longline category 

vessels, but did not provide all the 

relevant details. The scope of the 

measures in this final rule are within 

the scope of the measures proposed. 

This final rule clarifies the scope of the 

VMS requirements applicable to Purse 

Seine category vessels by explaining 

that vessels fishing with purse seine 

gear are subject to the same 

requirements as pelagic longline vessels, 

including hardware and 

communications specifications, 

installation checklists, power down 

exemptions, hail in and hail out 

requirements, declaration out of the 

HMS fishery, interruption in position 

reports, repair and replacement 

requirements, NMFS access to data, etc. 

Secondly, the specific bluefin tuna 

reporting requirements in this final rule 

differ from the proposed rule. The 

proposed rule stated that vessels fishing 

with either pelagic longline gear or 

purse seine gear would be required to 

submit bluefin catch reports for each 

day on which gear is set, and that no 

report would be required for sets where 

there is no catch of bluefin. In contrast, 

this final rule requires submission of a 

bluefin tuna catch report for each 

pelagic longline or purse seine set, 

providing information on the date the 

haul was completed, the number of 

hooks (for pelagic longline gear) and the 

number and size range of bluefin caught 

(including reporting a catch of zero 

bluefin). 

Electronic Monitoring 

The final rule provides details about 

the specific requirements of the 

electronic monitoring program that were 

not in the proposed rule. Section 635.9 

was modified from the proposed rule. 

This final rule provides further 

clarification of the electronic monitoring 

program. In addition to those 

requirements in the proposed rule, this 

final rule implements the following 

requirements: The permit holder must 

make the pelagic longline vessel 

accessible to NMFS or a NMFSapproved contractor to allow for the 

installation and testing of the electronic 

monitoring system, which will include 

training for the captain and crew, and 

may be required to steam to a 

designated port for these activities. The 

NMFS-approved contractor will provide 

the vessel owner a certificate that the 

installed equipment is a fully 

functioning electronic monitoring 

system. The final rule contains more 

detailed info on video cameras; GPS 

receiver; hydraulic drum rotation 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71557 

sensors; control box and monitor; and 

includes some requirements related to 

hydraulics, power, camera mounts and 

lighting. This final rule notes the 

requirement for a written Vessel 

Monitoring Plan, to be developed by the 

NMFS-approved contractor with the 

vessel owner; and includes a pre-trip 

electronic monitoring system test 

requirement. 

Annual Reallocation 

Paragraph 635.27(a)(4) was modified 

from the proposed rule, based on public 

comment. In this final rule, the 

allocations for a particular year will be 

based on the previous year’s individual 

purse seine participant catch rather than 

category-wide catch. This modified 

measure will tie quota allocation more 

closely to individual participant catch 

and create an incentive for fishery 

participants to remain active in the 

fishery. Without this modification to the 

alternative, individual allocations 

would be tied to the catch of the other 

participants in the fishery, which could 

have unfair results if catch were to vary 

greatly among the participants. 

Specifically, pursuant to this final rule, 

each Purse Seine fishery participant will 

initially be given a fifth of the quota 

available to the category for the year 

(159.1 mt divided by five participants 

equals 31.8 mt per participant under the 

current ICCAT quota). Next, NMFS will 

determine the annual quota available for 

use by each individual tuna Purse Seine 

participant that year based on the 

previous year’s performance. Each 

participant will have available either 25 

percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, or 100 

percent of its allocation share of the 

base Purse Seine quota, depending upon 

the level of that participant’s bluefin 

catch the previous year. 

Provide Additional Flexibility for 

General Category Quota-Adjustment 

Paragraph 635.27(a)(1)(ii) was 

modified to clarify the measure. This 

final rule clarifies that, based on public 

comments, NMFS will prioritize the 

transfer of quota from December subquota time period to the January 

subquota time period within a fishing 

year in order to address the unique 

characteristics of the January sub-quota 

period. 

Adjustment of Management Measures 

Paragraph 635.34 was modified to 

clarify as follows: As a result of the 

implementation of new management 

tools via Amendment 7, the proposed 

rule added to the list of management 

measures that NMFS may modify or 

establish in accordance with the 

framework procedures of the FMP. This 

final rule adds two items to this list of 

management measures and provides 

examples of Amendment 7 measures 

that are within the scope of management 

measures currently listed in the 

regulations. The Amendment 7 

measures not included in the proposed 

rule list are as follows: Electronic 

monitoring requirements and examples 

of measures under the purview of the 

administration of the IBQ Program 

(quota share caps by individual or by 

category, permanent sale of shares, and 

NED IBQ rules). 

Classification 

The NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that this final rule is 

consistent with the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 

ATCA, and other applicable law. 

NMFS prepared an environmental 

impact statement that analyzes the 

impact on the environment of a range of 

alternatives that would achieve the 

objectives of Amendment 7, which are 

described in the background section of 

the preamble for this action. A copy of 

the FEIS is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). As further explained in the 

Background, in this action, NMFS is 

implementing measures to minimize 

bycatch to the extent practicable; 

optimize fishing opportunity and 

account for dead discards; reduce 

bluefin tuna dead discards; enhance 

reporting; and adjust other aspects of 

the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP as 

necessary and appropriate. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. The Agency has 

consulted, to the extent practicable, 

with appropriate state and local officials 

to address the principles, criteria, and 

requirements of Executive Order 13132. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

A final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) was prepared for this rule. The 

FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary 

of the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

IRFA, our responses to those comments, 

and a summary of the analyses 

completed to support the action. The 

full FRFA and analysis of economic and 

ecological impacts are available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of 

the FRFA follows. 

The purpose of this final rulemaking, 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, and the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

FMP and its amendments, is to 

implement HMS management measures 

that: (1) Optimize the ability for all 

permit categories to harvest their full 

bluefin quota allocations, account for 

mortality associated with discarded 

bluefin in all categories; maintain 

flexibility of the regulations to account 

for the highly variable nature of the 

bluefin fisheries; and maintain fairness 

among permit/quota categories; (2) 

reduce dead discards of bluefin tuna 

and minimize reductions in target catch 

in both directed and incidental bluefin 

fisheries, to the extent practicable; (3) 

improve the scope and quality of catch 

data through enhanced reporting and 

monitoring to ensure that landings and 

dead discards do not exceed the quota 

and to improve accounting for all 

sources of fishing mortality; and (4) 

adjust other aspects of the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP as necessary 

and appropriate. These objectives are 

intended to support the following goals: 

Prevent overfishing and rebuild bluefin 

tuna, achieve on a continuing basis 

optimum yield, and minimize bluefin 

bycatch to the extent practicable by 

ensuring that domestic bluefin tuna 

fisheries continue to operate within the 

overall TAC set by ICCAT consistent 

with the existing rebuilding plan. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments 

Section 604(a)(2) of the RFA requires 

a summary of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, a summary of the 

assessment of the Agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the rule as a result of such comments. 

NMFS received many comments on the 

proposed rule and IRFA. Summarized 

public comments and the Agency’s 

responses to them are included in this 

final rule, in the ‘‘Responses to 

Comments’’ section of this preamble, 

above. The specific economic concerns 

raised in the comments are also 

summarized and addressed here (the 

numbering of the excerpted comments 

reflects the numbering in the 

‘‘Responses to Comments’’ section, 

above). 

Comment 2: Many commenters, 

particularly those with small businesses 

involved in the pelagic longline fishery, 

expressed concern regarding the 

potential for negative economic impacts 

of Amendment 7 on jobs, families, and 

communities, and noted the importance 

of pelagic longline-caught fish in 

supplying high quality seafood to the 

nation. These commenters were 

concerned about the potential for the 

Amendment 7 measures to put people 

out of business, and ‘‘destroy the pelagic 

longline fishery.’’ Commenters stated 

that vessels that are currently only 

marginally economically viable would 

be at particular risk of going out of 

business, but were also concerned about 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71558 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

any secondary impacts on related 

businesses such seafood dealers, gear 

manufacturers, etc. They urged NMFS to 

use a balanced regulatory approach to 

address the Amendment 7 objectives, 

and stated that Amendment 7 measures 

would increase uncertainty in the 

pelagic longline fishery. 

Response: The seafood supplied to the 

Nation by the pelagic longline fleet is 

valuable as both a source of food, and 

for the generation of income supporting 

local jobs, communities, and the broader 

economy. NMFS designed management 

measures to minimize economic 

impacts by relying on the combined 

effects of multiple management tools 

and incorporating flexibility into the 

system. The preferred measures will 

affect all permit/quota categories, and 

reflect the balance of addressing the 

issues confronting the bluefin tuna stock 

and management of the fishery while 

maintaining the viability of the pelagic 

longline and other fisheries dependent 

upon bluefin tuna. For example, 

reductions in dead discards would be 

achieved through the use of multiple 

measures, including gear restricted 

areas, the IBQ system, and quota 

allocation measures. The preferred 

measures would modify the quota 

system to increase management 

flexibility in order to allocate quota 

among categories to maximize 

opportunities to catch available quota, 

account for dead discards, and respond 

to changing conditions in the fishery. As 

the pelagic longline fleet is adjusting to 

the suite of new measures, NMFS would 

have the flexibility to allocate a limited 

amount of additional quota to the 

pelagic longline vessels if necessary to 

prevent a fishery closure, and still, as a 

result of the gear restricted areas and 

IBQ system, reduce the net amount of 

bluefin catch from the levels recently 

caught. The management measures work 

together to reduce dead discards and 

otherwise reduce bycatch to the extent 

practicable, increase accountability, 

enhance reporting and monitoring, and 

optimize quota allocation, in a 

predictable but flexible manner. The 

potential economic impacts of the 

measures affecting the pelagic longline 

fleet are analyzed in Chapters 5 and 7, 

of the FEIS, and the economic rationale 

is summarized in this FRFA. 

Comment 3: Commenters stated that 

when determining whether the pelagic 

longline fleet should be subject to 

additional restrictions, NMFS should 

consider the current and past regulatory 

environment and other factors as 

context. Commenters stated the pelagic 

longline fishery is already heavily 

regulated to minimize its environmental 

impacts, especially in the GOM (e.g., 

closures, weak hook requirement, 

observer deployment, bait 

requirements), and that progress is being 

made. Furthermore, increases in fuel 

costs strain fishers’ ability to make a 

living, and events such as the 2010 oil 

spill in the GOM continue to be 

relevant. Commenters noted that bluefin 

tuna is managed at the international 

level and believe that the United States 

manages its citizens in a more effective 

and responsible way than other 

countries, and that NMFS should not 

further regulate bluefin tuna and 

increase the management disparity 

between the United States and other 

countries. 

Response: The context in which 

vessels operate, including current 

regulations was a relevant factor NMFS 

considered in determining whether new 

regulations are justified. NMFS took 

into consideration many factors in 

selecting preferred measures that 

address the diverse objectives of 

Amendment 7 in a balanced manner. 

Chapter 6 of the FEIS contains a 

cumulative impacts analysis which is 

broad in scope and takes into 

consideration past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable factors. In 

addition, Chapter 2 of the FEIS contains 

a description of measures and the 

rationale for the preferred measures. 

This FRFA includes a description of the 

steps taken to minimize the economic 

impacts on small entities, and the 

reasons for the preferred measures. 

The United States manages its 

exclusive economic zone in accordance 

with applicable U.S. laws and in 

response to the unique characteristics of 

its fisheries, and therefore the U.S. 

regulations regarding bluefin tuna are 

different from the rules affecting 

citizens of other countries, which 

operate under different laws and 

circumstances. Where U.S. regulations 

are more restrictive than those abroad, 

NMFS believes that the corresponding 

ecological and socio-economic benefits 

that result from such restrictions are 

also likely to be greater than those 

abroad. 

Comment 12: Many commenters 

strongly opposed reallocating quota to 

the Longline category because of 

concerns about the economic impacts 

on a particular geographic region (e.g., 

New England or mid-Atlantic), or quota 

category (e.g., the General category or 

the Angling category). Some 

commenters urged NMFS to respect the 

historical allocation percentages, and 

noted that reallocation would have the 

effect of pitting the different categories 

against each other. Some commenters 

suggested that NMFS consider other 

regulatory and economic circumstances 

facing vessels that may be impacted by 

a reduced quota. For example, 

Congressional representatives from 

Massachusetts and the New England 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

stated that the proposed reallocation 

would disadvantage the New England 

Fishery, the traditional Massachusetts 

fleet, and shore-side infrastructure, and 

would allow fleets from other regions to 

use a disproportionate amount of quota. 

They were concerned about the 

commercial fleet, which is experiencing 

economic damage due to the decline in 

key stocks in the groundfish fishery. 

The Council suggested that NMFS 

assess the port-specific impacts of 

reallocation. A commenter was 

concerned that recreational vessels in 

the mid-Atlantic region would be 

disproportionately affected by quota 

reallocation because the quota may not 

last until the time the bluefin are off the 

mid-Atlantic coast. 

Response: A reduction in quota may 

impact the revenue associated with a 

particular quota category or geographic 

region, or result in secondary economic 

impacts on a community. The FEIS 

analysis estimates that reallocation of 

quota to the Longline category could 

reduce revenue for individual vessels 

with a General category permit by $850 

and result in total reduction in 

maximum revenue of $542,000 for all 

General category vessels. Although 

thirty percent of the General category 

permits are associated with the State of 

Massachusetts (1,150 permits as of 

October 2013), the total number of 

active vessels is substantially lower. Of 

the total number of General category 

permits issued throughout the Atlantic 

coast (3,783), the average number of 

General category vessels landing at least 

one bluefin between 2006 and 2012 was 

474 vessels. Thus, the number of active 

vessels in Massachusetts can be 

presumed to be substantially fewer than 

1,150. 

When considering the social and 

economic impacts of actions, different 

communities and regions may be 

impacted to different degrees due to 

their unique regulatory and economic 

circumstances. The FEIS contains an 

analysis of the community impacts from 

the 2010 Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil 

Spill, and a 2013 analysis that presents 

social indicators of vulnerability and 

resistance for 25 communities selected 

for having a greater than average 

number of HMS permits associated with 

them. Those communities with 

relatively higher dependence upon 

commercial fishing included Dulac, LA; 

Grand Isle, LA; Venice, LA; Gloucester, 

MA; New Bedford, MA; Beaufort, NC; 

Wanchese, NC; Barnegat, NJ; Cape May, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71559 

NJ; and Montauk, NY. The analyses are 

principally at a fishery-wide, or permit 

category level. The bluefin tuna 

fisheries (and other HMS fisheries) are 

widely distributed and highly variable 

due to the diversity of participants 

(location, gear types, commercial, 

recreational), and because bluefin tuna 

are highly migratory over thousands of 

miles, with an annual distribution that 

is highly variable. The specific ports 

and communities that provide the goods 

and services to support the fishery may 

vary as well, as vessels travel over large 

distances to pursue their target species. 

Due to this variability, it is difficult to 

predict potential revenue and secondary 

impacts of preferred management 

measures by port or by state. Vessels 

fishing in any geographic area in the 

Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico are likely to 

have only limited access to bluefin tuna, 

unless they travel long distances within 

the bluefin’s migratory range. 

It is important to note that the actual 

economic impacts of reallocation of 

quota depend upon the total amount of 

quota allocated to (and harvested from) 

each of the quota categories, as a result 

of the combined effect of all of the 

measures that affect quota. For example, 

in addition to the amount of quota 

available as a result of the percentage 

allocations, and deductions for the 68 

mt Annual Reallocation, there may be 

quota available for redistribution to 

various quota categories. Specifically, 

pursuant to the preferred ‘‘Annual 

Reallocation’’ measure, as described in 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS, if the Purse Seine 

category has not caught 70 percent of its 

quota during the previous year, quota 

may be moved to the Reserve category 

and subsequently reallocated across 

multiple user groups. Furthermore, in 

recent years, many categories have not 

fully harvested their amount of quota 

available to them. Thus, the actual 

impacts of reallocation may be minor or 

may be mitigated by future reallocation 

when available. 

Reallocation of quota may result in 

frustration or negative attitudes among 

fishery participants of different quota 

categories, due to the changes to an 

historically accepted quota allocation 

system, or perceptions of unfairness. 

However, the modifications to the quota 

system are warranted for the reasons 

described in the response to comments 

8 through 1. They are also fair due to the 

fact that all quota categories are affected 

in proportion to their quota percentage. 

As explained in the response to 

Comment# 9 above, NMFS designed the 

quota allocation alternatives to 

minimize the economic impacts on the 

non-longline categories. The alternatives 

take into consideration the relative size 

of each category quota (in the case of the 

‘‘Codified Reallocation Alternative,’’ or 

the level of activity of vessels (‘‘Annual 

Reallocation Alternative’’), and are 

designed to consider changing levels of 

quota or landings, respectively, in ways 

that reduce economic impacts. 

Comment 13: Many recreational 

anglers wanted to insulate the Angling 

category from any potential effect of 

quota reallocation to the Longline 

category, citing the economic impacts 

and high value of the recreational 

bluefin fishery to the economy, as well 

as the economic investments of the 

participants and the current regulatory 

burden such vessels face. Vessel owners 

with General category commercial 

permits expressed concern about the 

potential impacts to the General 

category. Commenters requested 

additional quantitative analyses 

comparing the different quota 

categories, including primary and 

secondary impacts. 

Response: As stated above in the 

response to the previous comment, a 

reduction in quota may impact the 

revenue associated with a particular 

quota category or result in secondary 

economic impacts on a community. The 

objective of the preferred allocation 

measures is not to reallocate quota 

based on economic optimization, but to: 

account for bluefin dead discards within 

the Longline category; reduce 

uncertainty in annual quota allocation 

and accounting; optimize fishing 

opportunity by increasing flexibility in 

the current bluefin quota allocation 

system; and ensure that the various 

quota categories are regulated fairly in 

relative to one another. 

The reallocation measures 

implemented by this final rule will 

minimize adverse economic impacts to 

the extent practicable because the 

relative amount of quota reallocated is 

small and proportional to the size of the 

category quota, and the overall quota 

system will be more flexible and 

predictable and able to offset some or all 

of the negative economic impacts. This 

approach was developed consistent 

with our obligation under National 

Standard 6 (Conservation and 

management measures shall take into 

account and allow for variations among, 

and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery 

resources, and catches) and National 

Standard 8 (Conservation and 

management measures shall, consistent 

with the conservation requirements of 

this chapter (including the prevention of 

overfishing and rebuilding of overfished 

stocks), take into account the 

importance of fishery resources to 

fishing communities by utilizing 

economic and social data that meet the 

requirements of paragraph (2), in order 

to (A) provide for the sustained 

participation of such communities, and 

(B) to the extent practicable, minimize 

adverse economic impacts on such 

communities.) 

Although the FEIS includes estimates 

of the value of bluefin tuna quota by 

quota category for comparative 

purposes, the preferred codified 

reallocation was not based on a specific 

economic analysis, but the achievement 

of the stated objectives. An elaborate 

quantitative analysis that compares the 

economic value of the Angling, 

Longline, and General category fisheries 

was not conducted due to the different 

characteristics of the Angling, Longline 

and General category fisheries, the 

variable amount of data associated with 

these fisheries, and the large number of 

factors and assumptions that contribute 

to estimating the value of a fishery. For 

example, under the preferred IBQ 

system, the availability of bluefin tuna 

quota may be a limiting factor for a 

pelagic longline vessel, and therefore 

the lack of adequate bluefin quota, by 

even a small amount, could result in a 

vessel being prohibited from fishing 

with pelagic longline gear. In that 

circumstance, the value of the bluefin 

quota to the vessel owner may be very 

high, and related to the value of the 

target catch (e.g., swordfish or yellowfin 

tuna). On the other hand, the value of 

a bluefin tuna to a recreational angler or 

to the recreational fishery at-large may 

include the value of the recreational 

experience to the angler, as well as the 

associated goods and service supporting 

the fishing trip. The FEIS indicates that 

the Angling category would potentially 

face unquantified reductions in 

economic and social activity associated 

with the 7.36 percent reduction in 

available quota. In contrast, for a vessel 

fishing commercially in the General 

category, a high quality bluefin tuna 

sold to Japan may be extremely valuable 

and other catchfar less important. 

Comment 20: NMFS should avoid 

closures to the pelagic longline fishery. 

Any closure would disrupt markets. 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

GRAs designed to reduce bluefin tuna 

interactions and regulatory discards and 

to thus decrease bycatch have costs 

associated with them, and may have 

disruptive effects on local markets. 

NMFS designed the GRAs (i.e., their 

timing and configuration) after 

considering the amount of reduced 

fishing opportunity as well as the 

amount of reduced bluefin interactions, 

in order to minimize potential 

disruptions in markets. NMFS designed 

the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA to 

provide access opportunities to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71560 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

fishermen that have a proven ability to 

avoid bluefin, and are compliant with 

the observer and logbook requirements. 

As described in the Response to 

Comment #47, NMFS specifically 

modified the Cape Hatteras GRA from 

what was proposed to reduce disruption 

to ongoing fishing in an adjacent area, 

and thereby reduce potentially negative 

economic impacts of the alternative. 

Evaluation of all alternatives considered 

both economic and ecological 

considerations (i.e., the potential 

reductions in revenue associated with 

estimated reductions in bluefin 

interactions). 

Comment 21: NMFS should not 

implement GRAs. NMFS received 

comments indicating that, due to a 

variety of reasons, commercial 

fishermen may be limited to certain 

fishing locations by the size and 

configuration of their vessels, insurance 

requirements, or safety concerns, and 

that some participants in the fishing 

fleet have nowhere else to fish (except 

in the location of the GRA) and they 

would be ‘‘shut out’’ of the fishery. 

Response: The underlying concept of 

the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA 

minimizes economic impacts by 

providing conditional access to the area, 

based on performance criteria. The 

majority of the pelagic longline fleet 

will be allowed to fish in the area upon 

implementation, and in the future if 

conditions for access continue to be 

met. In estimating ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the Modified Cape 

Hatteras GRA, NMFS determined that 

14 vessels will not have access to this 

GRA. Of these 14 vessels, four vessels 

made over 75 percent of their sets in the 

Modified Cape Hatteras GRA. Based 

upon the location of their historical 

catch, and to ensure that NMFS did not 

underestimate the potential economic 

impacts, the analysis assumes that these 

vessels would not redistribute effort 

outside of the gear restricted area. 

Although these four vessels could 

redirect from fishing grounds off Oregon 

Inlet, NC to fishing grounds between 

Cape Fear and Cape Hatteras, such a 

change in fishing grounds may involve 

substantial costs (fuel, longer trips, 

possible transfer and dockage in a new 

port, etc.). However, NMFS modified 

the Cape Hatteras GRA in a way that 

would achieve the reduction in bluefin 

discards, and would also allow 

fishermen to continue to deploy gear in 

regions south and west of the GRA, 

thereby reducing adverse impacts. With 

respect to the potential negative impacts 

of the Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico 

GRA, approximately 61 vessels that fish 

in the Gulf of Mexico would be affected. 

Given the consistent pattern of 

historical catch of large numbers of 

bluefin tuna in certain times and 

locations by pelagic longline gear, 

NMFS determined that a GRA in both 

the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic are 

necessary in order to achieve reductions 

in bluefin tuna dead discards, and that 

the potential economic impacts are 

warranted in order to achieve such 

reductions. The potential negative 

socio-economic impacts were 

minimized by using an iterative process 

to design the gear restricted areas. The 

Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic 

Longline GRAs were designed in order 

to achieve a balance between a 

reduction in bluefin dead discards, 

protection of the Gulf of Mexico 

spawning stock, and continued 

operation of the pelagic longline fleet in 

the Gulf of Mexico. The specific 

boundaries of the area were determined 

by an iterative process, by selecting 

areas of historical pelagic longline 

interactions with bluefin, and 

comparing both the anticipated 

reduction in bluefin interactions with 

the estimated reduction in revenue, of 

different configurations. In addition, 

NMFS selected the time period due to 

its occurrence during the peak bluefin 

spawning period in the GOM.The 

magnitude of the potential economic 

impacts result from the specific location 

and duration of the GRA. The size of the 

Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic 

Longline GRA was based upon the 

historical location and number of 

bluefin interactions, as well as the 

recent persistent trend in fishing effort 

shifting to the east of this area, and the 

known variability in the fishery in 

general. A smaller geographic area 

would be unlikely to achieve 

meaningful reductions in bluefin tuna 

interactions. The duration of the GRA 

encompasses the months with the 

highest number of interactions during 

the spawning period. An alternate, or 

shorter time period would coincide with 

neither the highest number of bluefin 

interactions nor the bluefin spawning 

period peak. 

Comment 29: NMFS should not 

penalize small vessels because of their 

inability of provide adequate space for 

observers. 

Response: NMFS designed the scoring 

system for the Pelagic Observer Program 

Performance metric in the preferred 

alternative such that valid reasons for 

not carrying an observer will not be 

penalized. Observer coverage is integral 

to the management of the fishery as it 

contributes important, objective data in 

support of the management of protected 

species and provides important 

information on the pelagic longline 

fishery utilized in the management of 

bluefin and other HMS species. Due to 

the importance of having enough 

observed trips to meet the observer 

coverage targets required by national 

and international law, NMFS also 

evaluated vessels on the number of trips 

observed. The agency utilizes observer 

data to develop estimates of protected 

resources interactions and estimates of 

discards of other species including 

bluefin. These data are essential for 

stock assessments and are critical in 

meeting international management 

obligations. Under ATCA and as a 

contracting party of ICCAT, the United 

States is required to take part in the 

collection of biological, catch, and effort 

statistics for research and management 

purposes. 

Comment 48: NMFS should consider 

the potential negative economic impact 

on fishermen in the area who do not 

have access to other fishing grounds. 

Response: The preferred design of the 

Cape Hatteras GRA was the result of an 

iterative process. NMFS analyzed 

multiple time periods and geographic 

areas in order to take into consideration 

both the potential reduction in the 

number of bluefin interactions and the 

potential reductions in target catch. The 

analysis considered relevant fisheries 

data and oceanographic trends. In the 

DEIS, due to current patterns in the 

Cape Hatteras area, the zone affected by 

the proposed Cape Hatteras GRA was 

analyzed beyond the explicit boundaries 

of the GRA. Analysis of a buffer region 

was needed because vessels to the south 

and west of the GRA would be 

prevented from fishing in these areas 

due to their gear drifting into the GRA 

(having the effort of creating a larger 

affected geographic area that the 

boundary of the GRA). The DEIS 

analysis of impacts not only considered 

the reduced fishing effort within the 

GRA, but also the reduced fishing effort 

in a buffer region to the south and west 

of the area. Therefore, NMFS included 

sets made in this buffer region into the 

redistribution analyses. In the FEIS, 

based on public comment and 

additional analyses, NMFS now prefers 

the Modified Cape Hatteras GRA which 

would minimize the adverse impacts on 

fishing opportunities while still 

achieving comparable reductions of 

bluefin discards and almost identical 

conservation and management benefits 

as the original proposal. 

Comment 50: A large number of 

commenters expressed general support 

for a GRA in the GOM, while others 

stated that NMFS should not implement 

a GOM GRA, due to the severe 

economic impact it would have on the 

fishery. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71561 

Response: Implementation of a GRA 

in the GOM supports the achievement of 

the Amendment 7 objectives. A GRA 

will, in conjunction with the other 

management measures implemented by 

this final rule, result in the reduction of 

dead discards of bluefin tuna by the 

pelagic longline fishery. Although 

implementation of a GRA would have a 

negative economic impact on the 

pelagic longline fishery, the preferred 

alternative would have less of an impact 

than some of the other alternatives 

considered and analyzed. As described 

in more detail in the responses to 

comments below, NMFS analyzed a 

range of alternatives, and took into 

account the importance of fishery 

resources to fishing communities by 

analyzing economic and social data. 

Because GRAs may result in the 

reduction and/or redistribution of 

fishing effort by pelagic longline gear, 

the preferred alternative represents a 

balance between anticipated reductions 

in dead discards of bluefin, and 

potential negative economic impacts on 

the pelagic longline fishery. 

Furthermore, the preferred alternative 

will support the broader objectives of 

both stock rebuilding as well as the 

continued viability of the commercial 

and recreational fisheries that depend 

upon bluefin tuna. 

Comment 55: One commenter noted 

that the size of the fishable area in the 

GOM is already small, given the 

constraints on the locations where they 

can fish, including existing pelagic 

longline closed areas, as well as the 

areas that must be avoided for other 

reasons (e.g., activity range of 

seismographic vessels, which can 

operate for up to six months, and oils 

rigs). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges that 

the preferred Spring Modified GOMo 

Pelagic Longline GRAs would further 

reduce the amount of fishable areas in 

the GOM available for the use of pelagic 

longline gear, and that vessels choosing 

to fish in the GOM with pelagic longline 

gear must work around other industrial 

users of Gulf of Mexico resources. 

NMFS selected the boundaries of the 

Spring Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs 

with careful consideration of the 

associated benefits and costs. NMFS 

optimized the size of the preferred 

GRAs to achieve a meaningful reduction 

in dead discards, and still leave fishing 

grounds open for the pelagic longline 

fleet. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis 

in the FEIS (Chapter 6) considers the 

impacts of the preferred alternatives in 

the broader context of other historical 

and current activities. 

Comment 56: NMFS should consider 

the impact on the yellowfin tuna and 

swordfish fisheries, which are active in 

the GOM and in the areas covered by 

the GRAs. Specifically, the commenter 

questioned whether the GOM pelagic 

longline fleet would be able to remain 

active. 

Response: NMFS carefully considered 

the impact of the preferred Modified 

Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs on 

yellowfin and swordfish fisheries, both 

of which are robust and healthy 

fisheries in the GOM. The estimated 

reductions in revenue totals of the 

preferred GRAs (assuming effort is 

redistributed) were calculated for the 

alternatives for both swordfish (ranged 

from $11,583 to $2,089,885 on average 

per year) and for yellowfin tuna (ranged 

from $59,500 to $3,964,682, on average 

per year) fisheries. The preferred Spring 

Modified Gulf of Mexico GRAs would 

achieve a balance between conservation 

objectives and providing continuing 

opportunity for the GOM swordfish and 

yellowfin tuna fisheries. The primary 

conservation objectives of the GRAs is 

to reduce bluefin interactions, and 

reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality to 

the extent practicable. NMFS compared 

among the alternatives the amount of 

‘savings’ of bluefin tuna and the 

reduction in target catch as part of its 

analysis of the gear restricted areas. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the 

annual reductions in revenue associated 

with the reduced catches of swordfish 

and yellowfin tuna are estimated at 

$41,504 and $207,110, respectively. The 

annual reduction in total revenue is 

estimated at $1,793,922. An example of 

how the data was compared and 

alternatives evaluated follows: 

Comparing the Preferred Alternative 

with the alternative that would restrict 

the full EEZ from March through May, 

the reduction in the weight of bluefin 

catch would be a little more than twice 

as much under the EEZ GRA (44.2 mt 

versus 19.2 mt under the Preferred), but 

the reduction in total revenue associated 

with the EEZ GRA would be more than 

six times larger than the reduction in 

total revenue associated with the 

Preferred Alternative ($1,793,922 versus 

$281,614 under the Preferred). In other 

words, compared to the Preferred 

Alternative, the amount of additional 

costs that would be associated with the 

EEZ GRA would be disproportionately 

greater than the additional conservation 

benefits associated with the EEZ GRA. 

The Amendment 7 measures are not 

designed to target a particular amount of 

reduction in dead discards, but rather 

reduce dead discards in a meaningful 

way, provide strong incentives to avoid 

and reduce bycatch, and take into 

account the potential impacts on the 

pelagic longline fishery. The combined 

effect of the Modified Spring Gulf of 

Mexico Pelagic Longline GRA and the 

Modified Cape Hatteras Pelagic 

Longline GRA, would reduce the 

number of bluefin discarded by 40 

percent and the number of bluefin kept 

by 10 percent (fishery-wide). 

Comment 63: Some commenters 

supported the proposed measure to 

allow vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear that are not authorized 

conditional access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA, to fish under General category 

rules. Vessel owners wanted to have this 

type of fishing opportunity as mitigation 

for the lost opportunity of fishing with 

pelagic longline gear in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA, between December 

through April. Some commenters did 

not support the proposed opportunity 

for such vessels to fish under the 

General category rules for various 

reasons. Some noted that the activity 

would be a ‘‘dangerous precedent,’’ 

because limited access vessels would be 

allowed to fish under the rules 

applicable to an open access category, 

General category vessels would not be 

allowed to fish as a pelagic longline 

vessel. Others were concerned about the 

expansion of a targeted bluefin fishery 

in the Cape Hatteras GRA, an area that 

already has large numbers of 

interactions with bluefin. A commenter 

found it ironic that vessels not allowed 

to fish with pelagic longline gear in the 

Cape Hatteras GRA (proposed in order 

to reduce bluefin interactions with 

pelagic longline gear) due to their low 

performance criteria score would be 

provided an opportunity to target 

bluefin tuna. Some noted concern about 

the potential impacts on the rate of 

harvest of the General category quota, 

which is limited, and the indirect 

impacts on General category vessels. 

Others noted that the replacement of 

pelagic longline gear with handgear 

(targeting bluefin) is not economically 

viable due to the size of the pelagic 

longline vessels and the associated trip 

expenses. A commenter stated that the 

proposed measure would facilitate 

trans-shipment of bluefin from Longline 

category to General category vessels. A 

commenter suggested that all pelagic 

longline vessels should be able to fish 

under the General category rules, and 

not only those affected by the GRA. 

Response: Based upon public 

comment and further consideration, 

NMFS is not implementing the 

management measure that would have 

allowed vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear that are not authorized 

conditional access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA to fish under General category 

rules. While this measure would have 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71562 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

provided additional fishing 

opportunities to pelagic longline vessels 

without access to the Cape Hatteras 

GRA, the differences in fishing costs 

and productivity between pelagic 

longline gear and handgear are great 

enough that handgear fishing for bluefin 

tuna would not be economically viable 

for a pelagic longline vessel. Given the 

unlikely -economic benefits as well as 

public perceptions of unfairness, the 

potential benefits of allowing vessels to 

fish under the General category rules do 

not outweigh the potential costs and 

risks associated with this activity. 

Comment 64: NMFS received a large 

number of comments that did not 

support the proposed limited 

conditional access to closed areas for 

vessels using pelagic longline gear, for 

a variety of reasons. Commenters, 

including the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, were 

foremost concerned about potential 

negative biological impacts on 

swordfish, billfish, and other species, as 

well as the indirect negative socioeconomic impacts on the recreational 

fishing community if there were 

negative biological impacts. 

Specifically, commenters cited the 

benefits of the DeSoto Canyon and East 

Florida Coast closed areas contributing 

to the rebuilding of the swordfish stock, 

and the stabilization of the blue and 

white marlin stocks. Commenters stated 

that the biological analysis of the 

alternative was inadequate, and one 

commenter was concerned about the 

impacts on dusky sharks. Some 

commenters supported access, noting 

the importance of such access as a 

means to provide flexibility to pelagic 

longline vessels in the context of the 

IBQ Program restrictions, while others 

suggested modifications to the 

alternative such as allowing the use of 

electronic monitoring instead of human 

observers. 

Response: Based upon public 

comment and further consideration of 

potential administrative costs, NMFS is 

not implementing this management 

measure. The potential benefits of 

allowing pelagic longline vessels 

limited conditional access to the closed 

areas would not outweigh the potential 

costs and risks associated with this 

activity. The objectives of the proposed 

measure were to maintain the relevant 

conservation aspects of the closure, 

balance the objectives of the closures, 

provide commercial data from within 

the closures, and provide additional 

fishing opportunities for permitted 

longline vessels (mitigating the potential 

negative economic impacts of 

Amendment 7). The East Florida Coast, 

Charleston Bump, and DeSoto Canyon 

Closed Area were implemented as part 

of a bycatch reduction strategy, based on 

three objectives: (1) Maximize the 

reduction in incidental catch of billfish 

and of swordfish less than 33 lb dressed 

weight; (2) minimize the reduction in 

the target catch of larger swordfish and 

other marketable species; and (3) ensure 

that the incidental catch of other species 

(e.g., bluefin, marine mammals, and 

turtles) either remains unchanged or is 

reduced. Upon implementation, NMFS 

recognized that all three objectives 

might not be met to the maximum 

extent, and that conflicting outcomes 

would require some balancing of the 

objectives. There are data that supports 

the assertion that the closed areas have 

contributed to the achievement of their 

objectives, in concert with other 

management measures. NMFS provides 

an annual review of the potential 

effectiveness of the current suite of 

management measures, including closed 

areas, at reducing bycatch in its annual 

SAFE report for HMS. Although the 

SAFE report does not isolate and 

quantify the effectiveness of closed 

areas as a separate management tool, the 

estimated reductions in discards of 

swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin, 

sailfish, and spearfish, as a result of all 

management measures have remained 

consistently high (-50 to -70 percent), 

suggesting that the current suite of 

international and domestic management 

measures have played a significant role 

in allowing the United States to reduce 

its bycatch interactions. Given the likely 

benefits of the closed areas, the 

difficulty in determining the precise 

magnitude of the benefits of the closed 

areas in the context of other 

management measures, as well as the 

difficulty predicting the potential 

impacts that access to closed areas 

would have, NMFS believes that there is 

uncertainty whether in fact the first 

objective of the alternative (maintain 

relevant conservation aspects of the 

closure) would be met. The access to 

closed areas alternative did not include 

defined bycatch limits, but would have 

relied upon the assumption that low 

levels of fishing effort is sufficient to 

prevent excessive bycatch. Furthermore, 

there would be administrative costs 

associated with the access program. 

Therefore, the benefits associated with 

providing additional fishing 

opportunities (by providing access) 

would not outweigh the costs in terms 

of the risk of undermining the 

conservation benefits of the closed 

areas. With respect to providing 

commercial data from within the 

closures, as stated previously, NMFS 

may obtain data from within the 

closures through the use of exempted 

fishing permits. 

Comment 68: Commenters supported 

implementation of the IBQ system in 

order to hold vessels accountable and 

provide incentives to reduce discards. 

Commenters noted that NMFS should 

provide some flexibility in the IBQ 

system, particularly in the short-term, to 

ensure that vessels, especially small 

vessels, are able to adapt to the new 

restrictions and the overall program is 

successful. Commenters urged NMFS to 

continue to support the pelagic longline 

swordfish fishery, which is important 

for multiple reasons. 

Response: Implementation of the IBQ 

system will increase the responsibility 

and accountability of individual vessels 

and the pelagic longline fishery as a 

whole, for the catch of bluefin tuna. As 

explained in detail in the responses to 

more specific comments, the individual 

bluefin quota system implemented by 

this final rule is designed to provide a 

reasonable and effective means of 

reducing dead discards, increasing 

accountability, and maintaining a viable 

pelagic longline fishery. The 

management measures are intended to 

provide flexibility at the level of the 

individual vessel, and in the quota 

system as a whole, so that the fishery 

can operate under the challenges of a 

substantially new regulatory structure. 

Furthermore, the fishery must be able to 

adapt on a continuing basis to the 

variability of highly migratory species, 

and changing ecological conditions. 

Individual pelagic longline vessels 

have the flexibility to change their 

fishing practices through modification 

of fishing behavior (including time, 

location and methods of fishing, and the 

use of non-longline gear); increasing 

communication within the fishery to 

facilitate bluefin avoidance; and leasing 

of individual bluefin quota. Under 

Amendment 7, NMFS may also provide 

additional flexibility by allocating 

additional quota to the Longline 

category, as described in the response to 

Comments 18 and 19. 

Comment 76: The Louisiana 

Department of Natural Resources 

(Louisiana DNR) commented that 

Amendment 7 will have large negative 

socio-economic impacts on the GOM 

pelagic longline fishery, with greatest 

impacts in Louisiana. The Louisiana 

DNR also asserted the rule will have 

minimal benefits to the bluefin stock, 

and attributed the economic impacts 

mostly to the IBQ Program, which it 

feels is inconsistent with the Louisiana 

Coastal Resources Program. Louisiana 

DNR noted that the potential benefits to 

the stock of bluefin tuna are minimal 

compared to the potentially large socioVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2

rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71563 

economic impact to the targeted 

fisheries, and NMFS’ consistency 

determination lacks sufficient data and 

information. 

Response: Pelagic longline vessels 

may be negatively impacted by the 

preferred IBQ Program, and such 

impacts would likely be felt in the ports 

and communities associated with the 

fishery, including those in Louisiana, 

which is home to approximately 27 

percent of the active pelagic longline 

vessels. Florida, New York, and New 

Jersey would also be impacted due to 

the distribution of active pelagic 

longline vessels (31 percent, 16 percent, 

and 16 percent of the active vessels, 

respectively). Bluefin dead discards in 

the GOM by pelagic longline vessels 

have typically ranged from 36 to 86 mt 

per year. The benefits of the preferred 

IBQ Program include strictly limiting 

bluefin catch in the pelagic longline 

fishery, reduction of dead discards and 

waste, and promotion of economic 

efficiency, all of which will contribute 

to stock growth and a sustainable 

bluefin tuna fishery in the long term. 

The fact that the GOM is a critically 

important spawning area for bluefin 

contributes to the biological importance 

of having a quota system that effectively 

limits bluefin catch and provides 

incentives for pelagic longline vessels to 

minimize interactions with bluefin. 

The IBQ Program was analyzed by 

home port state, and the impacts by 

state vary, depending upon the specific 

measurement (i.e., number of vessels 

with quota share, number of vessels that 

may need more quota than allocated; 

amount of quota that each vessel would 

need; and total amount of quota that 

each state would need). The states with 

the highest number of vessels with 

quota shares would be Florida (43 

vessels with quota shares), Louisiana 

(25 vessels), New Jersey (18 vessels), 

North Carolina (14 vessels) and New 

York (11 vessels). Under the regulatory 

conditions of the Preferred Alternatives, 

within those home port states, the 

number of vessels that would need to 

lease additional quota (above their 

initial allocation) to continue fishing at 

their historic rates are as follows: 

Florida (5 vessels), Louisiana (13 

vessels), New Jersey (4 vessels), North 

Carolina (2 vessels) and New York (3 

vessels). Although the proportion of 

vessels in a particular state that would 

need to lease additional quota is highest 

in New Orleans, the average amount of 

quota that the vessels would need to 

lease is almost identical similar among 

vessels from the ports of Louisiana, 

Florida, and New Jersey. Vessels with 

the homeport state of New York would 

need to lease about four times more 

quota per vessel to continue fishing at 

their historic rates. The estimate of the 

total amount of quota that vessels with 

a home port of New York would need 

to lease is 13.4 mt (11 vessels), and the 

total amount of quota that vessels with 

a home port in Louisiana would need to 

lease is 17.4 mt (25 vessels). NMFS has 

concluded that this action is fully 

consistent with the enforceable policies 

of the management program, though the 

State of Louisiana objects. The FEIS 

analysis demonstrates that NMFS 

utilized many of the factors cited by 

Louisiana as lacking in NMFS’ 

evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the 

best available logbook, dealer, and 

observer data, conducted vessel-specific 

analyses for preferred alternatives on 

GRAs and IBQ measures, and relevant 

recent scientific information. NMFS also 

explored the availability of alternative 

methods of achieving the Amendment 7 

objectives, and considered the economic 

impacts, and the long-term benefits of 

the measures. The alternative methods 

to reduce dead discards—no action or 

group or regional quotas—would have 

more adverse impacts and be less 

effective in achieving Amendment 7 

objectives to reduce dead discards and 

maximize fishing opportunity. The 

design of the IBQ management measures 

and other aspects of Amendment 7 

minimize the significant adverse 

economic impacts, disruption of social 

patterns, and adverse cumulative 

impacts, to the extent practicable, 

relative to other methods analyzed 

while also meeting Amendment 7 

objectives. 

The preferred IBQ Program was 

designed to provide flexibility for 

vessels to be able to continue to 

maintain viable businesses, through 

initial allocations, potential allocation 

of quota from the Reserve category, 

quota leasing, elimination of the target 

species requirement, and, as described 

above, the flexibility for vessels to fully 

account for their catch at the end of a 

trip, after sale of the bluefin. 

Comment 78: Commenters were 

concerned about the ability of new 

entrants to become active in the fishery, 

and some suggested that NMFS use an 

annual system to define eligible vessels, 

such as a minimum number of sets 

during the previous year. A commenter 

noted that businesses which supply new 

equipment to outfit pelagic longline 

vessels would be negatively impacted if 

new entrants were not able to enter the 

fishery. 

Response: The ability for people who 

are currently not involved in the pelagic 

longline fishery to become participants 

in the fishery (new entrants) is an 

important consideration, and is a 

required consideration under the MSA. 

The preferred Amendment 7 IBQ 

Program would add a single additional 

prerequisite for participation in the 

pelagic longline fishery to the 

previously existing two prerequisites 

and associated monitoring and 

compliance requirements (e.g., VMS). 

Prior to this Amendment, the two 

principal elements for participation in 

the fishery were a vessel and limited 

access permit. The preferred IBQ 

Program would implement a 

requirement for a vessel to have the 

minimum amount of bluefin quota 

allocation to fish with pelagic longline 

gear, as well as electronic monitoring 

requirements associated with preferred 

IBQ Program. 

The preferred IBQ Program would 

provide adequate opportunities to new 

entrants to the fishery because there 

would be multiple means by which a 

new entrant may satisfy the quota 

requirement. The structure of the 

preferred IBQ Program would not create 

any unreasonable barriers to new entry. 

A person interested in participating in 

the fishery may purchase a permitted 

vessel with IBQ shares, and therefore be 

allocated quota annually (due to the IBQ 

share associated with the permit), or a 

person may purchase a permitted vessel 

without IBQ shares, and lease quota 

allocation from another permitted 

vessel. Under the preferred IBQ 

Program, as in the past, participation in 

the pelagic longline fishery by new 

entrants would require substantial 

capital investment and potential new 

entrants will face costs which are 

similar to historical participants. 

NMFS considered the merits of setting 

aside a specified amount of quota for 

new entrants, but found several negative 

aspects of such a provision. For 

example, providing quota to new 

entrants would essentially create a 

second quota allocation system, which 

would complicate the overall preferred 

IBQ Program by creating separate class 

of vessels, with different allocations. A 

quota set aside for new entrants would 

result in less quota available for other 

participants in the fishery, and rather 

than the market controlling the quota, 

there would be many policy decisions to 

be made (e.g., would the amount of set 

aside vary according to the number of 

new entrants, or be a fixed amount 

annually? Would the quota be divided 

equally among new entrants, be 

allocated in the minimum share 

amounts, or allocated based on fishing 

history?). NMFS believes in simplifying 

the IBQ Program upon implementation 

where possible, to minimize regulatory 

burden and complexity. A system of 

rules regarding quota set aside would 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71564 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

add additional complications to the IBQ 

Program. Therefore, when considering 

whether additional restrictions to 

facilitate new entrants to the fishery are 

warranted, NMFS determined that given 

the lack of information with which to 

base such restrictions, and the 

uncertainty whether there would be a 

pressing need for such restrictions, a 

quota set aside was not warranted. 

During the three year review of the IBQ 

Program NMFS will consider 

information from the fishery after 

implementation of the IBQ Program, and 

evaluate whether the IBQ Program 

provides adequate opportunities to new 

entrants. 

As suggested by commenters, NMFS 

considered the concept of making an 

annual determination of which vessels 

are eligible to receive quota allocations 

based on a set of criteria (such as a 

certain number of longline sets during 

the previous year). NMFS found that 

there are negative aspects of such an 

annual system. If the vessels allocated 

quota shares varied on an annual basis, 

the IBQ Program would be more 

complex and difficult to administer; 

there would be greater uncertainty 

annually in the fishery; there would be 

incentives to fish on an annual basis 

(due to criteria to fish in order to receive 

quota); and any value associated with a 

permit that would be derived from the 

associated IBQ share may be minimized 

(if the IBQ share is only valid for a year). 

Although such a system could limit the 

number of years a vessel without quota 

share (i.e., a new entrant) must lease 

quota, the negative aspects of this 

approach would be substantial. For 

example, in order to have an IBQ system 

that includes strong accountability, any 

quota ‘debt’ accrued must persist from 

one fishing year to the next. It would be 

difficult to implement persistent 

accountability if the vessels eligible for 

quota changed on an annual basis. 

Comment 82: Many pelagic longline 

vessel owners expressed strong 

concerns that the amount of bluefin 

quota allocated to individual vessels 

would be inadequate to continue to fish, 

and that despite efforts to avoid bluefin, 

vessels would sooner or later encounter 

bluefin. The proposed allocations would 

make continuing fishing operations 

extremely difficult, because they would 

be forced to stop fishing, and therefore 

revenue would be cut off, but expenses 

would continue. Vessel owners stated 

that they would not be able to remain 

in business under such circumstances, 

and some estimated that a large vessel 

would need about 20 bluefin to account 

for the anticipated amount of bluefin 

catch (instead 2 to 13 fish). Some 

highlighted the difference between the 

proposed IBQ allocations and the 

number of bluefin tuna that may be 

retained by a vessel with a General 

category commercial permit (up to 5 

bluefin a trip), as justification for having 

larger individual quota allocations. 

Response: Under the preferred IBQ 

Program, some vessels will not have 

enough quota share to continue to 

account for the same amount of bluefin 

they caught in the past. The FEIS 

analysis indicates that at a quota level 

of 137 mt approximately 25 percent of 

vessels will need to lease additional 

bluefin quota in order to land their 

historical average amount of target 

species if they do not change their 

behavior to reduce their historical rate 

of bluefin interactions. If no leasing of 

IBQ allocation occurs, there could be a 

reduction in target species landings 

with an associated reduction in revenue 

of approximately $7,574,590 total, or 

$56,108 per vessel (135 vessels). 

The precise impacts of the IBQ 

Program are difficult to predict due to 

the variability of bluefin distribution as 

well as the potential range of fishing 

behaviors (and business strategies) of 

vessels in response to the new 

regulations. In order to reduce the 

likelihood of interactions, vessel 

operators may have to pursue new 

strategies including communication 

with other pelagic longline operators 

regarding the known locations of 

bluefin, modifications to fishing time, 

location, and technique, and use of 

alternative gears. In conjunction with 

these strategies, leasing additional quota 

may be necessary. The preferred IBQ 

Program includes the requirement that 

the relevant vessel have a permit as of 

August 21, 2013, which reduced the 

number of eligible vessels, and therefore 

will slightly increase the amount of 

quota share per vessel. Due to the 

difficulty of predicting the precise 

impacts of the preferred IBQ Program, 

NMFS may, as the fishery adjusts to the 

new system, need to consider providing 

additional quota to the Longline 

category in order to increase the amount 

of quota available to individual vessels, 

thereby balancing the need to have an 

operational fishery with the need to 

reduce bluefin bycatch in the fishery. 

During the preferred alternative’s threeyear formal review of the IBQ system, 

NMFS will consider any structural 

changes to the program necessary. 

The pelagic longline fishery is an 

incidental bluefin fishery unlike the 

directed General category handgear 

fishery, and retention limits and other 

management measures are different. The 

preferred alternatives in Amendment 7 

would implement a regulatory system 

that would mitigate the effects of the 

different restrictions among the different 

permit categories. 

Comment 84: Some commenters 

urged NMFS to allocate equal shares of 

bluefin quota to all eligible vessels, for 

multiple reasons. Equal shares would 

avoid the use of historical logbook data; 

would reduce potential negative feelings 

among permit holders with different 

amounts of allocation; and would 

provide higher quota allocations for 

some vessels than under the proposed 

method. Additionally, a commenter 

noted that it may not be necessary to 

consider the amount of target catch in 

the quota share formula (and provide 

more quota to vessels catching more 

target catch) because larger fishing 

operations are better equipped 

financially to adapt to new regulations. 

Another commenter supported basing 

the allocation on target species landings 

and fishing effort, because higher effort 

is likely to result in more bluefin catch. 

Response: NMFS carefully considered 

allocating quota shares on an equal 

basis, but prefers to implement the 

method as proposed, which will 

incorporate two metrics of equal weight: 

Designated species landings and the 

ratio of bluefin to designated species 

landings. While an equal share formula 

has some positive attributes, the overall 

merits of the preferred method would be 

greater. It is important to take into 

consideration the diversity of the 

pelagic longline fleet, maximize the 

potential for the success of the IBQ 

Program, and provide incentives for 

vessels to avoid bluefin tuna. 

NMFS analyzed the pelagic longline 

logbook data on target catch and bluefin 

interactions, and for most vessels, there 

is positive correlation between the 

amount of target catch, and the number 

of bluefin tuna interactions. For most 

vessels, the more swordfish, yellowfin 

tuna, or other target species a vessel 

catches, the more bluefin tuna it 

interacts with. However, a few vessels 

(those responsible for the largest 

number of interactions) interact with 

large numbers of bluefin out of 

proportion with the amount of their 

target catch. Considering this historic 

pattern, basing one of the allocation 

formula elements on the amount of 

designated species landings would 

increase the likelihood that vessels 

would be allocated quota in relation to 

the amount of quota they may need to 

account for their catch of bluefin. 

The second of the two elements (the 

ratio of bluefin interactions to 

designated species landings) is useful 

because it takes into consideration the 

fact that relatively few vessels (i.e., 

about fifteen percent of the vessels) are 

responsible for about 80 percent of the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71565 

interactions with bluefin tuna. Because 

the preferred allocation formula would 

result in a lower allocation for vessels 

with a higher rate of historic 

interactions, it will provide a strong 

incentive for such vessels to make 

changes in their fishing practices to 

reduce their number of bluefin 

interactions. Vessels with historically 

high catches of target species and a low 

rate of interactions with bluefin will 

receive a larger quota share than vessels 

with either higher rates of bluefin 

interactions or lower amounts of target 

species. 

Comment 87: Commenters expressed 

concern about whether vessel owners 

would be willing to lease quota to other 

vessels, given the low amounts of quota 

allocated to vessels, and concern about 

whether the cost of leasing will be 

affordable, especially for owners of 

small vessels. Other commenters did not 

support leasing because access to 

additional quota could enable vessels to 

target bluefin. 

Response: The analysis of the 

preferred IBQ Program in the FEIS 

indicates that at a quota of 137 mt, 25 

percent of vessels will need to lease 

additional quota in order to land their 

historical average amount of designated 

species if they do not change their 

behavior to reduce their historical rate 

of bluefin interactions. Therefore, a 

majority of vessels may have quota in 

excess of what is needed to account for 

their bluefin catch, and may have 

incentive to lease quota to other vessels. 

Notwithstanding the analysis, there is 

uncertainty regarding both the amount 

and price of quota that may be leased. 

A well-functioning leasing market, 

which enables quota to be leased by 

those who need it, will be a key factor 

in whether the preferred IBQ Program 

functions as intended. 

Comment 92: Comments on NMFS’ 

authority to close the pelagic longline 

fishery ranged from those who support 

closing the fishery in conjunction with 

a Longline category quota allocation of 

8.1 percent, to those who said that the 

fishery should be closed only if there is 

unusually high catch of bluefin (and not 

when the quota is reached. Commenters 

noted the potential impacts of closures 

early in the year on the pelagic longline 

fishery, supporting businesses, 

consumers of the fish products, and 

future ICCAT recommendations. 

Response: A closure of the pelagic 

longline fishery may have adverse direct 

and secondary economic impacts, the 

severity of which will depend upon 

how early in the year the closure 

occurred. Under the preferred IBQ 

Program, in which individual vessels 

may not fish with pelagic longline gear 

unless they have quota, it is not likely 

that NMFS will be required to close the 

fishery as a whole. However, individual 

vessels will be prohibited from fishing 

if they have not accounted for their 

catch or do not have the required 

minimum amount of quota allocation to 

depart on a pelagic longline trip. If, 

based on the best available data, NMFS 

estimates that the total amount of dead 

discards and landings are projected to 

reach, have reached, or exceed the 

Longline category quota, NMFS may 

prohibit fishing with pelagic longline 

gear. Similarly, if there is high 

uncertainty regarding the estimated or 

documented levels of bluefin catch, 

NMFS may close the fishery to prevent 

overharvest of the Longline category 

quota, or prevent further discarding of 

bluefin. 

As described in many of the responses 

to comments, NMFS has designed 

Amendment 7 not only reduce dead 

discards and implement accountability, 

but also to provide flexibility for pelagic 

longline vessels fishing under the 

preferred IBQ Program restrictions, and 

flexibility in the quota system as a 

whole, to balance the needs of the 

pelagic longline fishery with the needs 

of the other quota categories. 

Comment 94: NMFS received 

comments that supported electronic 

monitoring (i.e., video camera and gear 

sensors), while other comments either 

expressed concern or opposed it. 

Comments supporting electronic 

monitoring indicated that it is not cost 

prohibitive, that it would allow NMFS 

to ground-truth other data, and that it 

supports accountability and 

enforcement. Those opposed to 

electronic monitoring said that it is cost 

prohibitive, an invasion of privacy, and 

is redundant with existing information. 

Some comments expressed concern 

about the functionality of a system, 

considering the issues experienced with 

some VMS functionality, and the ability 

to identify the difference between 

bigeye and bluefin tuna using video 

cameras. Implementation using a pilot 

scale was suggested, which would allow 

time to set up a functioning 

infrastructure. Expansion of electronic 

monitoring to other categories with dead 

discards was also suggested. 

Response: The preferred measures 

would establish requirements to 

monitor dead discards for all 

commercial user categories to better 

achieve the ICCAT requirement to 

account for sources of bluefin tuna 

fishing mortality and to better monitor 

the fishery for bluefin accounting 

purposes domestically. The Purse seine 

category would be required to report 

dead discards via VMS, and hand gear 

fisheries (General, Harpoon, and 

Charter/headboat categories) would be 

required to report using an automated 

catch reporting system via internet or 

phone. Longline category vessels would 

be required to coordinate installation 

and maintain a video and gear 

electronic monitoring system that would 

record all catch and relevant data 

regarding pelagic longline gear 

deployment and retrieval. The purpose 

of video monitoring for the Longline 

category would be to provide a cost 

effective and reliable source of 

information to verify the accuracy of 

bluefin tuna interactions reported via 

VMS and logbooks. In many instances, 

the FEIS analysis found discrepancies 

between logbook data and observer data 

(considered to be highly accurate) 

reported for the same trip. The preferred 

electronic monitoring measure would 

support accurate catch data and the 

preferred bluefin tuna IBQ management 

measures, by providing a means to 

verify the accuracy of the counts and 

identification of bluefin reported by the 

vessel operator. The per-vessel cost of 

this gear is expected to be 

approximately $19,175 for purchase and 

installation (including maintenance 

costs and loan interest), or $3,835 per 

year over the five-year life of the 

equipment. NMFS has been able to 

procure funding for the initial 

installation of these systems. Variable 

costs are approximately $225 per trip, 

including data retrieval, fishing activity 

interpretation, and catch data 

interpretation. These costs are lower 

than the cost of increased observer 

coverage. The Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center estimates that observer 

deployment costs approximately $1,075 

per sea day, which equates to 

approximately $9,675 per average nine 

day pelagic longline trip. 

Video monitoring is currently used in 

several fisheries, and NMFS has funded 

over 30 pilot projects to further research 

on the use and effectiveness of 

electronic monitoring, including 

research on the accuracy of finfish 

identification. These studies provide 

evidence that properly deployed and 

maintained video monitoring camera 

systems provide effective data for 

accurately identifying large pelagic 

species. NMFS white papers on 

electronic monitoring are available at 

the following Web address: http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/reg_svcs/

Councils/ccc_2013/K_NMFS_EM_

WhitePapers.pdf. NMFS would take into 

account the time required for owners to 

outfit their vessels with newly required 

equipment when establishing the dates 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71566 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

of required effectiveness for electronic 

monitoring. 

Comment 99: NMFS received a 

comment that NMFS should consider 

the fact that transfers of quota under the 

measure that would provide more 

flexibility for General category quota 

transfers will have the effect of moving 

quota from the traditional Northeast 

fishery to the mid-Atlantic and South; 

in other words that Alternative E1c will 

negatively impact Northeast fishermen. 

One commenter stated that NMFS 

should take no action on General 

category subquotas (Alternative E1a). 

Another commenter stated that NMFS 

should establish 12 equal monthly 

subquotas (Alternative E1b). 

Response: NMFS acknowledges the 

concerns that quota distribution may 

impact temporal fishing opportunities 

and considered these factors in selecting 

preferred alternatives. Note that current 

regulations do not preclude General 

category and HMS Charter/Headboat 

category vessels from traveling from one 

area to another. In fact, many vessels 

travel from the northeast and midAtlantic states to participate in the 

winter fishery that occurs largely off 

North Carolina. NMFS would continue 

to consider the regulatory determination 

criteria regarding inseason quota 

transfers in an attempt to balance 

reasonable opportunity to harvest quota 

with other considerations, including 

variations in bluefin distribution and 

availability, among others. The 

preferred alternative would provide 

additional fishing opportunities within 

the General category quota while 

acknowledging the traditional fishery. 

Division of the quota equally by month 

was not preferred because the potential 

negative social and economic impacts 

outweigh the positive impacts. The 

negative aspects of this alternative 

include the potential for gear conflicts 

and a derby fishery, as well as the 

potential for the historical geographic 

distribution of the fishery to be 

dramatically altered. Although this 

alternative would provide some stability 

to the fishery by establishing a known 

amount of quota that would be available 

at the first of each month, if catch rates 

are high in the early portion of the 

month, these quotas could be harvested 

rapidly and may lead to derby style 

fisheries on the first of each month. 

Additionally, if catch rates are high and 

subquotas are reached quickly, NMFS 

under this alternative may have to 

implement multiple closures notices 

throughout the year. 

Comment 101: NMFS received 

comments on allocating a portion of the 

trophy south subquota to the Gulf of 

Mexico (preferred Alternative E3b), 

including that NMFS should not reduce 

the trophy south subquota; the 

reduction would negatively affect 

charter captains in the mid-Atlantic and 

South Atlantic areas; and that the 

change in allocation would increase 

landings of spawning bluefin in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Other commenters stated that 

NMFS should change the division of 

subquota, but not split the subquota 

equally between the southern area and 

the Gulf of Mexico; or that NMFS 

should allocate 10% or 17% of the 

trophy south subquota to the Gulf of 

Mexico. The Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council commented that 

NMFS should take no action on this 

issue (Alternative E3a) and that 

Alternative E3b would lead to an 

unreasonably small recreational bluefin 

trophy quota for the northern region. 

Response: Under the preferred 

alternative, the trophy subquota would 

be divided to provide 33 percent each 

to the northern area, the southern area 

outside the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf 

of Mexico. The objective of this 

alternative is to provide reasonable 

fishing opportunities for recreational 

vessels in the Atlantic and GOM, reduce 

discards, and account for incidentally 

caught bluefin. A separate subquota 

allocation for the GOM would improve 

the equity of the trophy-sized fish 

allocation by increasing the likelihood 

that there would be trophy quota 

available to account for incidental catch 

of bluefin in that area (while still 

providing incentives not to target 

bluefin). An equal 33 percent division 

among the three areas would provide 

the most equitable trophy subquota 

allocation. This preferred measure 

would not affect the amount of Trophy 

subquota available to the northern area. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Final 

Rule Will Apply 

Section 604(a)(3) of the RFA requires 

a description and estimate of the 

number of small entities to which the 

final rule would apply. This final rule 

is expected to directly affect commercial 

and for-hire fishing vessels that possess 

an Atlantic Tunas permit or Atlantic 

HMS Charter/Headboat permit. In 

general, the HMS Charter/Headboat 

category permit holders can be regarded 

as small entities for RFA purposes. HMS 

Angling (Recreational) category permit 

holders are typically obtained by 

individuals who are not considered 

small entities for purposes of the RFA. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has established size criteria for all 

major industry sectors in the U.S. 

including fish harvesters. A business 

involved in fish harvesting is classified 

as a ‘‘small business’’ if it is 

independently owned and operated, is 

not dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates), and has 

combined annual receipts (revenue) not 

in excess of $20.5 million for all its 

affiliated operations worldwide (NAICS 

code 114111, finfish fishing). NAICS is 

the North American Industry 

Classification System, a standard system 

used by business and government to 

classify business establishments into 

industries, according to their economic 

activity. The United States government 

developed NAICS to collect, analyze, 

and publish data about the economy. In 

addition, the SBA has defined a small 

charter/party boat entity (NAICS code 

487210, for-hire) as one with average 

annual receipts (revenue) of less than 

$7.5 million. The SBA recently 

modified its definitions of small 

businesses, and therefore the definitions 

were slightly different between the 

proposed and final rules (79 FR 33647; 

June 12, 2014). 

The average annual revenue per active 

pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be 

$187,000 based on the 170 active vessels 

between 2006 and 2012 that produced 

an estimated $31.8 million in revenue 

annually. The maximum annual 

revenue for any pelagic longline vessel 

during that time period was less than 

$1.4 million, well below the SBA size 

threshold of $20.5 million in combined 

annual receipts. Therefore, NMFS 

considers all Tuna Longline category 

permit holders to be small entities. 

NMFS is unaware of any other Atlantic 

Tunas category permit holders that 

potentially could earn more than $20.5 

million in revenue annually. Therefore, 

NMFS considers all Atlantic Tunas 

permit holders subject to this action to 

be considered small entities. NMFS is 

also unaware of any charter/headboat 

businesses that could exceed the SBA 

receipt/revenue thresholds for small 

entities. 

The preferred alternatives would 

apply to the 4,059 Atlantic Tunas 

permit holders based on an analysis of 

permit holders in October 2013 (NMFS 

2014). Of these permit holders, 252 have 

Longline category permits, 14 have 

Harpoon category permits, 7 have Trap 

category permits, 5 have Purse Seine 

category participants, and 3,783 have 

General category permits. The preferred 

alternatives would also impact HMS 

Angling category and HMS Charter/

Headboat category permit holders. In 

2013, 3,968 vessel owners obtained 

HMS Charter/Headboat category 

permits. It is unknown what portion of 

these permit holders actively participate 

in Atlantic HMS fishing or fishing 

services for recreational anglers. NMFS 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71567 

has determined that the preferred 

alternatives would not likely directly 

affect any small government 

jurisdictions defined under RFA. More 

information regarding the description of 

the fisheries affected, and the categories 

and number of permit holders, can be 

found in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Description of Projected Reporting and 

Record-Keeping Requirements 

Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA requires 

a description of the projected reporting, 

record-keeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the final rule, including 

an estimate of the classes of small 

entities which would be subject to the 

requirements of the report or record. 

Several Amendment 7 measures include 

reporting, record-keeping, and 

compliance requirements that require a 

new Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

filing, and some of the preferred 

alternatives would modify existing 

reporting and record-keeping 

requirements, and add compliance 

requirements. NMFS estimates that the 

number small entities that would be 

subject to these requirements would 

include the Longline category (252), 

Charter/Headboat category (3,968), 

General category (3,783), Harpoon 

category (14) and Purse Seine category 

(3), based on the number of permit 

holders in commercial bluefin tuna 

fishing categories in 2013. The 

following section describes the 

projected reporting, record-keeping and 

other compliance requirements of the 

final rule as required. 

Area-Based Alternatives 

Currently, pelagic longline vessels 

must have agency approved E–MTU 

VMS units installed and must use them 

to hail in and out of port prior to and 

at the end of a fishing trip. The Areabased preferred alternative that would 

grant conditional access (based on 

performance metric criteria) to the 

Modified Cape Hatteras GRA 

(Alternative B 1d) would require that 

pelagic longline vessels authorized to 

fish in the area also submit daily reports 

to NMFS via E–MTU VMS summarizing 

their fishing effort and bluefin tuna 

catch and harvest. This is a slightly 

modification of the preferred alternative 

in the DEIS and in the proposed rule, 

but it has the same additional reporting 

burden, which is expected to take five 

minutes per report/day at a cost of $0.12 

per report. This data will allow NMFS 

to determine whether continued access 

to the areas is warranted based on 

bluefin tuna interaction rates, among 

other things. 

NMFS would calculate performance 

metrics for each pelagic longline vessel 

to determine whether they qualify to 

gain access to the Cape Hatteras GRA. 

These metrics would be based on the 

vessel’s historical catch and reporting 

compliance. Pelagic longline permit 

holders would be permitted to appeal 

their performance metrics by submitting 

a written request, indicating the reason 

for the appeal, and providing supporting 

documentation (e.g., copies of landings 

records, permit ownership, etc.). Each 

appeal request is expected to take 

approximately two hours to compile. 

Quota Control Alternatives 

The preferred alternatives for bluefin 

tuna quota controls include several 

reporting requirements necessary to 

implement IBQs for pelagic longline 

vessels. Some of these requirements are 

also addressed under the alternatives in 

other sections of this document. 

The alternatives in this section 

include options for assigning IBQ 

shares. Preferred alternative C2j would 

implement a process for individuals to 

appeal their IBQ share. Individuals 

would be required to submit a written 

request for an appeal, and include the 

reason for appeal and supporting 

documentation. The reporting burden 

associated with each appeal, those 

submitted to the HMS Management 

Division or to the National Appeals 

Office, are expected to be approximately 

two hours. 

Preferred alternative C2c2 would 

authorize transfer of quota among 

eligible Atlantic tunas Longline permit 

holders and Purse Seine category 

participants. To support tracking of IBQ 

transfers among IBQ participants and 

establish a tracking system for purchase 

of bluefin tuna under the IBQ System, 

preferred alternative C2e1 would 

require IBQ participants to track and 

execute transfers of IBQ allocation via 

the IBQ System. To access the IBQ 

System eligible users must be able to 

access the system electronically. IBQ 

System users will need some basic 

computer and Internet skills to input 

information for bluefin tuna trade into 

the IBQ System. The record-keeping and 

reporting burden for permit holders is 

expected to be approximately 15 

minutes per trade. The IBQ System will 

also require interaction with federal 

bluefin tuna dealer permit holders that 

purchase bluefin from pelagic long line 

vessels; however, electronic dealer 

reporting for bluefin tuna purchases was 

previously analyzed and approved by 

NMFS in the 2006 Consolidated HMS 

FMP rulemaking (71 FR 58058, October 

2, 2006) and thus the rule effectively 

does not impose a new requirement for 

dealers in this category. An IBQ System 

for bluefin demands a high degree of 

accountability for providing accurate 

data on catch and harvest. Preferred 

alternative C2g2 (same as D2b) would 

require pelagic longline vessels to 

install an electronic monitoring system, 

including video cameras and associated 

recording and monitoring equipment, in 

order to record all longline catch and 

relevant data regarding pelagic longline 

gear deployment and retrieval. Data 

collected during each fishing trip would 

be required to be provided to NMFS, 

within a specified time frame after each 

trip. This alternative would require both 

fixed and variable costs over the service 

life of each camera installed onboard. 

The per-vessel cost of this gear is 

expected to be approximately $19,175 

for purchase and installation (including 

maintenance costs and loan interest), or 

$3,835 per year over the five-year life of 

the equipment. NMFS has been able to 

procure funding for the initial 

installation of these systems. Variable 

costs are approximately $225 per trip, 

including data retrieval, fishing activity 

interpretation, and catch data 

interpretation. 

Preferred alternative C2g1 (same as 

D1b) would require pelagic longline 

vessels to use their E–MTU VMS to 

submit daily reports of bluefin tuna 

catch and harvest and fishing effort. 

Purse seine vessels would be required to 

purchase and install E–MTU VMS units, 

and submit daily reports of catch, 

harvest, and effort as well. This 

alternative would provide more timely 

data as required by the IBQ system than 

the current pelagic longline logbook 

program and dealer reporting 

requirements. As noted above, the 

additional reporting burden for the VMS 

reports is 5 minutes per report/day and 

$0.12 per report. The cost of installing 

E–MTU VMS is $3,300 per vessel and 

daily position reports cost 

approximately $1.44 per day. 

Several alternatives include 

additional compliance requirements 

without additional reporting. Preferred 

alternative C21.2b would require 

mandatory retention of all legal-sized 

dead bluefin tuna caught on pelagic 

longline gear. Preferred alternative C4b 

would allow NMFS to prohibit fishing 

using pelagic longline gear once the 

bluefin tuna quota is reached. 

Conversely, preferred alternative C21.1b 

would relieve certain compliance 

requirements by repealing target catch 

requirements for pelagic longline 

vessels. 

Lastly, one of the preferred 

alternatives would have an additional 

reporting requirement, but would occur 

via a future action under separate 

rulemaking. As required by the MSA, a 

cost recovery program for management 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71568 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

and enforcement costs associated with 

the preferred IBQ Program (Preferred 

alternative C2i) will be addressed via a 

subsequent regulatory action, at which 

time NMFS will update/modify current 

record-keeping and compliance 

requirements. This action may require 

new PRA filings, but does not at this 

time. 

Enhanced Reporting Measures 

Several preferred alternatives are 

identified as measures to enhance 

reporting for bluefin tuna. Three of 

these include the VMS requirements 

(C2g1 and D1b), and electronic 

monitoring of the Longline category 

(C2g2 and D2b), discussed above. The 

last is the preferred alternative to 

require automated catch reporting for 

General, Harpoon, and Charter/

Headboat permit categories (D3b). This 

alternative would require individuals 

with those vessel permits to report their 

catch (i.e., landings and discards) after 

each trip using an automated system 

such as a Web site or phone recording 

system. NMFS estimates that each 

report will take approximately 5 

minutes. Based on previous years’ 

landings, NMFS estimates that the total 

annual reporting burden will be 

approximately 607 hours and could 

affect approximately 8,226 permit 

holders. 

Other Measures 

The other measures implemented by 

this rule would not increase reporting or 

compliance requirements. 

Description of Steps Taken To Minimize 

Significant Economic Impacts of This 

Action 

Section 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires 

a description of the steps NMFS has 

taken to minimize the significant 

economic impacts on small entities 

consistent with the stated objectives of 

applicable statutes, including a 

statement of the factual, policy, and 

legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

adopted in the final rule and the reason 

that each one of the other significant 

alternatives to the rule considered by 

the Agency which affected small entities 

was rejected. The impacts NMFS has 

identified and the steps NMFS has taken 

to minimize them are discussed below 

and in the FEIS. One of the 

requirements of an FRFA is to describe 

any alternatives to the preferred 

alternatives which accomplish the 

stated objectives and which minimize 

any significant economic impacts. These 

impacts and the steps taken to minimize 

them are discussed below and in 

Chapters 4 and 5 of the FEIS. 

Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 

603(c)(1)–(4)) lists four general 

categories of ‘‘significant’’ alternatives 

that would assist an agency in the 

development of significant alternatives. 

These categories of alternatives 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 of the 

rule for small entities. 

In order to meet the objectives of this 

Amendment, consistent with all legal 

requirements, NMFS cannot exempt 

small entities or change the reporting 

requirements only for small entities 

because all the entities affected are 

considered small entities. Thus, there 

are no alternatives discussed that fall 

under the first and fourth categories 

described above. Under the third 

category, ‘‘use of performance rather 

than design standards,’’ NMFS 

considers Alternative B 1c ‘‘Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area with 

Access based on Performance’’, 

Alternative B 1d ‘‘Modified Cape 

Hatteras Pelagic Longline Gear 

Restricted Area with Access Based on 

Performance’’, Alternative C 2 ‘‘IBQs 

Based on Designated Species Landings 

and the Ratio of Bluefin Catch to 

Designated Species Landings’’, and B 3b 

‘‘Limited Conditional Access to Closed 

Areas using Pelagic Longline Gear Based 

on Performance Criteria’’ to all be 

alternatives that use performance 

standards. As described below, NMFS 

analyzed several different alternatives 

and provides the rationale for 

identifying the preferred alternatives to 

achieve the desired objective. 

NMFS considered five different 

categories of potential bluefin 

management measures, each with its 

own range of alternatives that would 

meet the objectives of the MagnusonStevens Act and the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP. The first category, allocation 

alternatives, covers four main 

alternatives that address various quota 

reallocation strategies. The second 

category of alternatives, area based 

alternatives, explores various gear 

restricted areas, gear measures, and 

access to closed areas using pelagic 

longline gear. The third category of 

alternatives, bluefin tuna quota controls, 

covers four main alternatives, which 

include IBQs, regional and group 

quotas, and closure of the pelagic 

longline fishery. The fourth category of 

alternatives, enhanced reporting 

measures, covers six main alternatives, 

which include VMS requirements, 

electronic monitoring of the Longline 

category, automated catch reporting, 

deployment of observers, logbook 

requirements, and expanding the scope 

of the Large Pelagics Survey. The fifth 

category of alternatives, other measures, 

covers seven main alternatives that 

address other Tunas permit categories 

besides Longline and other tuna quotas. 

The expected economic impacts of the 

different alternatives considered and 

analyzed are discussed below. 

The potential impacts that these 

alternatives may have on small entities 

have been analyzed and are discussed in 

the following sections. The economic 

impacts that would occur under these 

preferred alternatives were compared 

with the other alternatives to discuss 

how the economic impacts to small 

entities were minimized while still 

accomplishing the stated objectives of 

this rule. 

Allocation Alternatives 

These alternatives would either 

modify the base allocations (percentages 

of the U.S. quota designated to 

particular for bluefin quota categories) 

and remain the same until and if 

changed by future amendment, or 

would set up a regulatory mechanism 

for modifying the quotas annually or in 

certain years based on defined criteria. 

Alternative A 1—No Action 

The No Action alternative would 

make no changes to the current 

percentages that each quota category is 

allocated (General: 47.1 percent; 

Harpoon: 3.9 percent; Purse Seine: 18.6 

percent; Longline: 8.1 percent; Trap: 0.1 

percent; Angling: 19.7 percent; Reserve: 

2.5 percent). Dead discards would 

continue to be accounted for separately 

from the quota allocations through the 

annual specification process. 

In the short-term, minor to moderate 

direct adverse economic impacts are 

likely to be limited to the Longline 

category due to quota shortages. In 2012, 

NMFS projected that the Longline 

category was likely to fully harvest their 

allocated quota before the end of the 

fishing year, and closed the southern 

area on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31546) and 

the northern area on June 30, 2012 (77 

FR 38011, June 26, 2012). In 2013, the 

Longline category northern and 

southern areas were closed on June 25 

(78 FR 36685) because the adjusted 

quota had been reached. In the longterm, there could be additional minor to 

moderate direct adverse economic 

impacts if other quota categories are 

closed early in the fishing year. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71569 

Alternative A 2—Codified Reallocation 

The Codified reallocation alternative 

(Preferred) would reallocate quota and 

result in increased bluefin quota for the 

Longline category, and would therefore 

alleviate some of the current challenges 

associated with the domestic quota 

system. 

This alternative would codify a quota 

category increase of 62.5 mt whole 

weight to the Longline category 

reflecting the historical 68 mt dead 

discard allowance and the current 

allocation percentages. All of the 

categories, including the Longline 

category, would contribute to the 68 mt 

historical allowance, with a net increase 

of 62.5 to the Longline category after its 

share of the deduction, (i.e., based on 

the current 8.1 percent allocation, the 

Longline category portion of the 68 mt 

is 5.5 mt; 68 mt–5.5 mt equals 62.5 mt, 

hence an increase of 62.5 mt. This 

alternative results in a net increase of 

62.5 mt for the Longline category, which 

would increase the potential revenue 

from bluefin for the Longline category 

by approximately $11,269 per permit 

holder per year. The General category 

would face a potential reduction in the 

maximum revenue from bluefin of 

approximately $850 per permit holder 

per year. The Harpoon category would 

face a potential reduction in the 

maximum revenue from bluefin of 

approximately $2,409 per permit holder 

per year. The Purse Seine category 

could face a potential reduction in the 

maximum revenue from bluefin of 

approximately $107,627 per permit 

holder per year. Although the 

magnitude of revenue loss appears to be 

high for the Purse Seine category, this 

alternative actually would likely have 

minor adverse economic impacts on 

Purse Seine fishermen since landings in 

this category have recently been very 

low. This alternative minimizes 

economic impacts by reallocating only a 

relatively small portion of each 

category’s quota to the Longline 

category. 

Alternative A 2b (Reallocation 

Incorporating Recent Catch Data) would 

revise the quota allocation percentages 

for all categories, basing the new 

allocation on both the current codified 

allocation (50%) and recent catch (50%) 

as applicable to each quota category. 

Reallocating the quota based on recent 

catch data would result in a 83.56% 

increase in the Longline category quota 

and an increase for the Angling category 

of 47.1%. However, this reallocation 

alternative would result in a decrease in 

the quotas of the General, Harpoon, 

Purse Seine, Trap, and Reserve 

categories of 10.85%, 15.56%, 49.01%, 

55.56%, and 48.05%, respectively. 

Revising the quota allocations for all 

categories to reflect recent catch would 

increase the potential revenue from 

bluefin for the Longline category by 

approximately $11,305 per permit 

holder per year. The General category 

could face a potential reduction in the 

maximum revenue from bluefin of 

approximately $1,254 per permit holder 

per year. The Harpoon category could 

face a potential reduction in the 

maximum revenue from bluefin of 

approximately $4,996 per permit holder 

per year. The Purse Seine category 

could face a potential reduction in the 

maximum revenue from bluefin of 

approximately $713,558 per permit 

holder per year. 

Alternative A 2c (Reallocation from 

Purse Seine to Longline Category) 

would reallocate two-fifths (40 percent) 

of the current Purse Seine category 

quota to the Longline category and 

would result in 91.84% increase in the 

Longline category quota and a decrease 

the Purse Seine quota by 39.99%. The 

permanent reallocation of two-fifths of 

the Purse Seine category to the Longline 

category would increase the potential 

revenue from bluefin for the Longline 

category by approximately $12,387 per 

permit holder per year. The Purse Seine 

category could face a potential 

reduction in the maximum revenue 

from bluefin of an equivalent $582,202 

per permit holder per year. The other 

bluefin quota categories would not be 

impacted by this alternative. 

Alternative A 3—Annual Reallocation of 

Bluefin Quota From Purse Seine 

Category 

Annual reallocation Alternatives A 3a 

and A 3b would reallocate anticipated 

unused quota from the Purse Seine 

category to other quota categories or 

would allocate to the Purse Seine 

category in proportion to the number of 

permitted vessels (respectively). 

Under alternative A 3a, the preferred 

alternative, 25 percent of the Purse 

Seine category bluefin quota would be 

guaranteed to be available to the five 

historically permitted fishery 

participants (permit holders) in that 

category, but beyond that, the bluefin 

quota would be based on the previous 

year’s landings and dead discards. 

Based on a formula, quota may be 

reallocated from the Purse Seine 

category to the Reserve category 

annually. The allocation formula is 

designed to allocate a minimum level of 

quota to permitted fishery participants, 

as well as enable quota to increase over 

successive years, in order to avoid being 

too restrictive. Note that NMFS would 

still have the regulatory authority to 

transfer quota inseason to or from any 

fishing category to or from the Reserve, 

and could continue to transfer any 

amount of quota inseason, even if purse 

seine vessels receive the minimum 

amount of quota (25 percent) at the start 

of the season. In recent years, little of 

the Purse Seine category quota has been 

landed. If that continues into the future, 

under alternative A 3a, the Purse Seine 

quota could be reduced by 75 percent. 

The 23.8 mt associated with that 

reduction would reduce the maximum 

revenue from bluefin that the purse 

seine vessel could land by $403,000 

annually. However, given the recent 

bluefin landings history of the purse 

seine fleet, it is unlikely that future 

bluefin landings would be constrained 

substantially by this reduction and 

allocations would be re-evaluated on an 

annual basis. Therefore, alternative A 3a 

would likely only result in minor direct 

adverse short-term economic impacts to 

permitted Purse Seine vessels. Other 

categories would benefit from the 

potential of increased revenue, and this 

alternative would increase predictability 

in the fishery. This alternative 

minimizes economic impacts by 

providing a means to optimize quota 

utilization and account for dead 

discards, enhance quota flexibility in a 

predictable manner, as well incorporate 

a system for Purse Seine fishery 

participants to be allocated their total 

base quota percentage if they are 

consistently active in the fishery. 

Under alternative A 3b (Annual Purse 

Seine Allocation Commensurate with 

the Number of Purse Seine Vessels), 

NMFS would make Purse Seine category 

quota available annually to that category 

based on the number of active Purse 

Seine vessels and would reallocate the 

remainder to the Reserve category. An 

active Purse Seine vessel would be 

defined as a vessel with a valid Purse 

Seine category permit, which has 

requested and received an allocation in 

accordance with the regulations 

(§ 635.27(a)(4)), and is capable of fishing 

purse seine gear (defined at 

§ 635.21(e)(vi)) to harvest Atlantic 

bluefin tuna. The net result would be 

that only those Purse Seine category 

permit holders with active vessels 

would receive Purse Seine quota, and 

individually they would be allocated 

one fifth of the overall Purse Seine base 

quota, acknowledging the preferred 

codified allocation alternative 

(Alternative A 2a), under which the 

Purse Seine base quota would be 159.1 

mt. The economic impacts of this 

alternative would be similar to those 

under alternative A 3a. Alternative A 3b 

would also likely only result in minor 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71570 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

direct adverse short-term economic 

impacts resulting from the loss of 

potential revenue if current bluefin 

fishing levels remain the same. 

Alternative A 4—Modifications to 

Reserve Category 

Under the alternative A 4a, the No 

Action alternative, there would be no 

changes to the allocation to the Reserve 

category or the determination criteria 

that are considered prior to making any 

adjustments to/from this category. This 

alternative would not impact small 

entities. The Reserve category would be 

allocated the current 2.5 percent of the 

U.S. annual quota, and NMFS could 

allocate any portion of the Reserve 

category quota for inseason or annual 

adjustments to any other quota category 

provided NMFS considered the current 

determination criteria and other 

relevant factors first. 

Alternative A 4b (Modify Reserve 

Category), the preferred alternative, 

would increase the amount of quota that 

may be put into the Reserve category 

from several sources and expand the 

potential uses of Reserve category quota. 

Specifically, it would potentially 

increase the Reserve category quota 

beyond the current baseline allocation 

of 2.5 percent and broaden the 

determination criteria to be considered 

in making adjustments to/from the 

Reserve category. This could result in 

moderate beneficial economic impacts if 

unused quota from a previous year 

could be reallocated to the Reserve 

category to potentially offset any 

overharvests in another category, 

consistent with ICCAT 

recommendations on carry-forward of 

unharvested quota. 

Area Based Alternatives 

Alternative B 1—Gear Restricted Areas 

Under alternative B 1, NMFS 

considered a range of GRA alternatives 

from maintaining existing pelagic 

longline closures (the no action 

alternative) to a year-round GRA of the 

entire Gulf of Mexico EEZ (west of 82° 

longitude) in order to reduce 

interactions with bluefin tuna. 

Alternative B 1a, the No Action 

Alternative, would result in the status 

quo regarding GRAss. Although the 

current pelagic longline closed areas 

would remain effective, the data 

indicate that large numbers of 

interactions of pelagic longline gear 

with bluefin occur in consistent areas 

during predictable time periods, which 

are outside of the current closed areas. 

The No Action alternative would 

therefore not reduce dead discards. The 

magnitude of the discards in the pelagic 

longline fishery is likely to stay the 

same or increase under the No Action 

alternative, without implementation of a 

new GRA. This could result in moderate 

long-term adverse economic impacts 

when the Longline category exceeds its 

quota earlier in the fishing year because 

of dead discards and is required to shut 

down. 

Alternative B 1b would define a 

modified rectangular area off Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina, and prohibit 

the use of pelagic longline gear in that 

area annually during the five-month 

period from December through April. 

Other gear types authorized for use by 

pelagic longline vessels, such as buoy 

gear, green-stick gear, or rod and reel, 

would be allowed. This region off North 

Carolina contains seasonally consistent 

concentrations of bluefin and catches by 

the pelagic longline fleet. Logbook and 

observer data indicate that historically 

there have been relatively high catches 

and catch rates of bluefin by pelagic 

longline vessels in this region. The 

specific time and area of the Cape 

Hatteras GRA represents a time and area 

combination likely to result in reduced 

bluefin interactions based on past 

patterns of interactions. This alternative 

is expected to have moderate short and 

long-term direct adverse economic 

impacts on 50 vessels that have 

historically fished in the Cape Hatteras 

GRA during the months of December 

through April. The average annual 

revenue per vessel made in the gear 

restricted area is approximately $28,000 

annually during the restricted months 

assuming that fishing effort does not 

move to other areas. However, it is 

likely that some of the vessels that 

would be impacted by this gear 

restricted area would be able to 

redistribute their effort to other fishing 

areas. NMFS estimated that if a vessel 

historically made less than 40 percent of 

their sets in the GRA, it would likely 

redistribute all of its effort. If a vessel 

made more than 40 percent, but less 

than 75 percent of its sets in the GRA, 

it would likely redistribute 50 percent of 

its effort impacted by the gear restricted 

area to other areas. Finally, if a vessel 

made more than 75 percent of its sets 

solely within the gear restricted area, 

NMFS assumed it would not likely shift 

its effort to other areas. Based on these 

redistribution assumptions, the net 

impact of the Cape Hatteras GRA on 

fishing revenues after redistribution of 

effort is estimated to be $17,900 per 

year. 

Under Alternative B 1c (Cape Hatteras 

Pelagic Longline GRA with Access 

based on Performance), NMFS would 

annually review pelagic longline vessel 

performance using three performance 

metrics, and based on that review, 

authorize some vessels fishing with 

pelagic longline gear to have access to 

the Cape Hatteras GRA. As described in 

more detail in Chapter 2, the 

performance metrics are: (1) Level of 

bluefin interactions/avoidance; (2) 

observer program participation; and (3) 

logbook submissions. NMFS would 

notify vessel owners by mail whether or 

not they are authorized to fish in the 

area. This alternative would use the 

same area off Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina, as in Alternative B 1b, and 

would define criteria for access by HMS 

permitted vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear during the five-month 

period from December through April. 

Vessels that are determined by NMFS to 

have a relatively low rate of interactions 

with bluefin based on past performance, 

and that comply with reporting and 

monitoring requirements would be 

allowed to fish in the area using pelagic 

longline gear. Vessels that have not 

demonstrated their ability to avoid 

bluefin would not be allowed to fish 

with pelagic longline gear in this area; 

or if a vessel has demonstrated its 

ability to avoid bluefin, but has had 

poor record of compliance with 

reporting and monitoring requirements, 

it would not be allowed to fish with 

pelagic longline gear in this area from 

December through April. Individual 

vessel data would be evaluated annually 

for the purpose of determining access, 

and results would be communicated to 

the individual permit holders via a 

permit holder letter. This evaluation 

would be based on the most recent 

complete information available in order 

to provide future opportunities and 

accommodate changes in fishing 

behavior, both positively and 

negatively, based on performance. 

Based on the proposed performance 

criteria, NMFS determined that, of 161 

active vessels in the entire pelagic 

longline fleet, 50 vessels fished in the 

Cape Hatteras GRA or buffer region. Of 

these 50 active vessels, 16 vessels that 

fished in the Cape Hatteras GRA or 

buffer region did not meet the criteria 

for access based on their inability to 

avoid bluefin tuna, and/or compliance 

with POP observer and logbook 

reporting requirements. The average 

annual revenue made in the GRA by 

these 16 vessels is approximately 

$29,000 per vessel during the restricted 

months. However, it is likely that some 

of the vessels that would be impacted by 

this gear restricted area would be able 

to redistribute their effort to other 

fishing areas. The net impact of 

Alternative B 1c on fishing revenues 

after redistribution of effort is estimated 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71571 

to be $19,000 per vessel per year for 

those 16 vessels. 

Alternative B 1d (Modified Cape 

Hatteras Pelagic Longline GRA with 

Access Based on Performance; 

Preferred), would delineate a gear 

restricted area off Cape Hatteras, North 

Carolina and prohibit the use of pelagic 

longline gear in the area annually 

during the five-month period from 

December through April. Access to the 

GRA would be evaluated annually for 

each permitted vessel in the pelagic 

longline fleet using the same 

performance metrics discussed under 

Alternative B 1c. 

NMFS proposed a Cape Hatteras GRA 

for the months of December through 

April during which time vessels would 

be prohibited from fishing with pelagic 

longline gear in the defined area, with 

the exception of vessels granted access 

based upon performance criteria. Based 

on public comment, NMFS re-analyzed 

the spatial and temporal configurations 

of the Cape Hatteras GRA, and instead 

is implementing a modified gear 

restricted area during the same months 

(December through April), but of a 

slightly different configuration than 

proposed. The total area of the Modified 

Cape Hatteras GRA being implemented 

is smaller than that of the proposed 

Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted Area, due 

to the modification of the southeastern 

region of the GRA. Specifically, the 

southeastern corner as proposed was a 

ninety degree angle, but this final rule 

connects the southwestern corner to a 

more northerly point on the eastern 

boundary of the Cape Hatteras GRA, 

eliminating a triangular shaped area 

from the southeast region of the Gear 

Restricted Area. The shape of the 

Modified Cape Hatteras GRA as 

implemented will minimize the 

likelihood that pelagic longline gear set 

south of the GRA will drift into the GRA 

due to the prevailing direction of 

currents. As a result of these analyses, 

and considerations, NMFS has modified 

the preferred alternative to a gear 

restricted area during the same months 

(December through April), but with a 

slightly different configuration. 

NMFS determined that only 14 

vessels that fished in the Modified Cape 

Hatteras GRA would not meet the 

criteria for access based on their 

inability to avoid bluefin tuna, and/or 

compliance with POP observer and 

logbook reporting requirements. The 

average annual revenue from fishing 

sets made in the GRA by these 14 

vessels is approximately $22,000 per 

vessel during the restricted months 

based on past fishing patterns from 

2006–2012. However, it is likely that 

some of the vessels that would be 

impacted by this alternative’s 

implementation of the GRA would 

redistribute their effort to other fishing 

areas. The net impact of Alternative B 

1d on fishing revenues after 

redistribution of effort is estimated to be 

$15,000 per vessel per year for those 14 

vessels. 

This alternative is as effective at 

reducing dead discards as the originallyproposed Cape Hatteras GRA but it 

minimizes economic impacts to the 

extent practicable, consistent with the 

objectives of Amendment 7. The 

modified alternative thereby strikes a 

better balance between reducing dead 

discards of bluefin and continued 

operation of the pelagic longline fleet in 

the Atlantic. Therefore, NMFS prefers 

this modification (i.e., shaving off the 

southeast corner of the restricted area) 

to balance environmental, ecological, 

and economic impacts of the alternative. 

This alternative minimizes economic 

impacts by providing access to vessels 

if certain parameters are met and 

because the time and area of the GRA 

were set based on consideration of 

bluefin interactions as well as economic 

impacts in order to optimize the design 

to achieve the objectives. 

Alternative B 1e would allow vessels 

with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit 

to fish under the rules/regulations 

applicable to the General category as 

they pertain to targeting bluefin using 

non pelagic longline-gear (gear 

authorized under the General category, 

including rod and reel, handline, 

harpoon, etc.), in the area defined as the 

Cape Hatteras GRA during the time of 

the restriction (December through 

April), when the General category 

fishery is open. The bluefin landed with 

authorized handgear would be counted 

against the General category quota. The 

amount of bluefin landings allowed 

under this alternative would be limited 

by the available General category 

subquotas for December and for January. 

Alternative B 1d would result in shortterm, direct, minor, beneficial economic 

impacts for Longline category fishermen 

that otherwise would not be able to fish 

for bluefin in the Cape Hatteras GRA. It 

would result in short-term, direct, 

minor, adverse economic impacts for 

General category participants to the 

extent that any Longline category vessel 

landings of bluefin under General 

category rules results in the available 

subquota being met earlier than it would 

otherwise. A loss or gain of one fish is 

approximately $3,500. If a Longline 

category vessel chooses to fish with 

General category gear in the Cape 

Hatteras GRA versus outside the area 

with pelagic longline gear, the ability to 

land and sell bigeye, albacore, 

yellowfin, and skipjack from that area 

would result in short-term, direct, 

minor, beneficial economic impacts, 

although substantially less so than 

continuing to use longline gear, which 

accounts for a much larger proportion of 

catch of bigeye, albacore, and yellowfin 

tuna than does handgear. If other 

alternatives, such as annual reallocation 

from the Purse Seine category (A3a) or 

providing additional flexibility for 

General category quota adjustment (E1c) 

are implemented, adverse economic 

impacts for General category 

participants may be reduced. 

Alternative B 1f would prohibit the 

use of pelagic longline gears in the GOM 

for 3 months each year. This alternative 

is expected to have moderate short and 

long-term direct adverse economic 

impacts on 69 vessels that have 

historically fished in the GOM EEZ 

during the months of March through 

May. The average annual revenue from 

fishing sets made in the GRA is 

approximately $26,000 per vessel 

during the closure months. Based on 

historical fishing patterns of vessels that 

fish in the OM, it is unlikely that effort 

will be redistributed into areas outside 

of this region. 

Alternative B 1g would define a 

rectangular area in the GOM and 

prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear 

during the two-month period from April 

through May. NMFS tailored the Small 

GOM GRA to maximize the reductions 

in bluefin interactions while 

minimizing the area where pelagic 

longline gear use is restricted. This 

alternative is expected to have moderate 

short- and long-term direct adverse 

economic impacts on 36 vessels that 

have historically fished in the Small 

Gulf of Mexico GRA during April and 

May. The average annual revenue from 

fishing sets made in the GRA is 

approximately $7,500 per vessel during 

the restricted months. However, it is 

likely that some of the vessels that 

would be impacted by this gear 

restricted area would be able to 

redistribute their effort to other fishing 

areas within the GOM. The net impact 

of the Small GOM GRA on fishing 

revenues after redistribution of effort is 

estimated to be $2,600 per vessel per 

year. 

Alternative B 1h would prohibit the 

use of pelagic longlines in the same area 

as in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ GRA (i.e., 

anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico), yearround. This alternative is expected to 

have moderate short- and long-term 

direct adverse economic impacts on 75 

vessels that have historically fished in 

the Gulf of Mexico EEZ. The average 

annual revenue from fishing in the GRA 

is approximately $102,000 per vessel. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71572 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Alternative B 1i, a preferred 

alternative, would establish modified 

GRAs in the central GOM that would 

prohibit the use of pelagic longlines 

from April through May. This 

alternative is based upon public 

comments on the Small GOM GRA, 

which was the preferred alternative in 

the DEIS. The total area of the Modified 

Spring GOM GRA is larger than that of 

the Small GOM GRA. The Spring Gulf 

of MexicoGRAs are comprised of two 

separate areas: An area based on the 

Small GOM GRA preferred in the DEIS, 

but extended to the east and reduced in 

size on the western and northern 

borders, and a second area that is 

adjacent to the southern border of the 

Desoto Canyon Closed Area’s 

northwestern ‘block.’ NMFS will also 

conduct a three-year review to 

determine the effectiveness of the 

Modified Spring GOMGRAs during the 

review of the IBA program and will 

consider any changes at that time as 

appropriate. This alternative is expected 

to have moderate short and long-term 

direct adverse economic impacts on 49 

vessels that have historically fished in 

the Modified Spring GOM GRAs during 

April and May. The average annual 

revenue from fishing sets made in the 

gear restricted area is approximately 

$11,000 per vessel during the restricted 

months. However, it is likely that some 

of the vessels impacted by these GRAs 

would be able to redistribute their effort 

to other fishing areas within the 

GOMand therefore reduce any losses. 

The net impact of the Modified Spring 

GOM GRAs on fishing revenues after 

redistribution of effort is estimated to be 

$5,700 per vessel per year. The 

economic impacts of this alternative 

were minimized through the iterative 

design of the GRA. NMFS carefully 

evaluated the costs and benefits 

associated with this GRA, and 

determined that the specific time and 

area achieves a balance between a 

reduction in bluefin dead discards, 

protection of the GOM Spawning stock, 

and continued operation of the pelagic 

longline fleet in the GOM. 

Alternative B 1j, a preferred 

alternative, would allow HMS vessels 

that possess bottom or pelagic longline 

gear on board to transit the closed areas 

and GRAs if they remove and stow the 

gangions, hooks, and buoys from the 

mainline and drum. The hooks would 

not be allowed to be baited. Allowing 

pelagic and bottom longline vessels to 

transit closed and GRAs after removing 

and stowing gear would result in direct 

short- and long-term beneficial 

economic impacts by potentially 

reducing fuel costs and time at sea for 

vessels that need to transit the closed or 

restricted areas. Allowing transit 

through these areas could also 

potentially improve safety at sea by 

allowing more direct transit routes and 

reducing transit time, particularly 

during inclement weather. More direct 

transit routes and reduced transiting 

time minimize economic impacts of the 

closed and restricted areas. 

Alternative B 2—Gear Measures 

Alternative B 2a, the preferred No 

Action alternative, would not change 

current authorized gear requirements 

(with respect to the use of buoy gear and 

associated restrictions on possession of 

bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack 

tunas (BAYS) and bluefin) applicable to 

those vessels with an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit and either a 

Swordfish Directed or Swordfish 

Incidental permit. Currently, vessels 

with an Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit must also have both a 

Swordfish Directed or Incidental permit, 

and a Shark Directed or Incidental 

permit. There are no economic impacts 

associated with this ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative. Alternative B 2b would 

authorize vessels with a Swordfish 

Incidental permit to fish with buoy gear, 

except vessels fishing in the East Florida 

Coast Pelagic Longline Closed Area. 

Under this alternative, vessels would 

still be limited to 35 buoys. The 

rationale for this alternative is to 

provide increased flexibility and 

encouragement for pelagic longline 

vessels to utilize gears other than 

pelagic longline to maintain and 

enhance fishing opportunities. This 

would result in short- and long-term 

direct beneficial economic impacts by 

providing greater flexibility in the gear 

type that can be used and also by 

reducing the need to acquire a different 

permit to use buoy gear. Alternative B 

2c would allow vessels with an Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit and the 

Swordfish Directed or Incidental permit 

to retain BAYS and bluefin when 

fishing with buoy gear. The rationale for 

this alternative is the same as for 

Alternative B 2b: To provide increased 

flexibility and encouragement for 

pelagic longline vessels to utilize gears 

other than pelagic longline to maintain 

and enhance fishing opportunities in 

the context of new restrictions that may 

be implemented by Amendment 7. This 

alternative would result in short- and 

long-term direct beneficial economic 

impacts by increase the potential 

revenue opportunities by allowing 

additional species to be landed when 

using buoy gear, reducing costs 

associated with discarding, and 

reducing the costs associated with the 

potential need to acquire different 

permits while fishing with buoy gear. 

This alternative would have no effect on 

vessels with a Swordfish Incidental 

permit, unless Alternative B 2b is 

adopted. Without Alternative B 2b, this 

alternative would provide additional 

flexibility for vessels with a Swordfish 

Directed permit and an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline permit. 

Alternative B 3—Access to Closed Areas 

Using Pelagic Longline Gear 

Alternative B 3a, the preferred No 

Action alternative, would maintain the 

current regulations that do not allow 

vessels to enter a closed area with 

pelagic longline gear during the time of 

the closure, unless issued an Exempted 

Fishing Permit. It would not result in 

any further costs to small entities. 

Alternative B 3b would allow 

restricted and conditional access to the 

following closed areas: Charleston 

Bump closed area (February through 

April), a portion of the East Florida 

Coast closed area (year-round), the 

DeSoto Canyon closed area (yearround), and the Northeastern U.S. 

closed area (June). All trips into any of 

the eligible pelagic longline closed areas 

would be required to be observed. 

Current NMFS Pelagic Observer 

Program vessel selection procedures 

would be used to select vessels using 

the current strata (i.e., the procedures 

that select vessels to obtain observer 

coverage each calendar quarter, and 

deploy in each of various geographic 

(statistical) areas). If selected, a vessel 

would be informed of the statistical area 

for which the vessel was selected, and 

the vessel would be allowed to fish 

within the eligible pelagic longline 

closed area provided it is within that 

particular statistical area and that an 

observer is onboard. The scope of the 

alternative and its effects would depend 

upon the level of observer coverage. 

Currently, eight percent of fishing effort 

is covered by observers and funded 

wholly by NMFS. Due to the limits on 

the level of observers, observer 

availability and cost would serve as the 

principal constraint to the amount of 

access. Participating vessels would be 

required to ‘‘declare into’’ the area via 

their VMS unit and report species 

caught and effort daily via VMS. There 

would be minor short- and long-term 

direct beneficial economic and social 

impacts associated with the added 

option for vessels to potentially fish in 

these areas, which could potentially 

increase landings revenues and decrease 

fishing costs by providing access to 

closer and/or more productive fishing 

areas. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71573 

In addition to the requirement to carry 

an observer and declare and report catch 

via VMS, this alternative would further 

require that permitted pelagic longline 

vessels meet various performance 

criteria to be authorized to fish in a 

closed area. Vessels that are determined 

by NMFS to have a relatively low rate 

of interactions with bluefin based on 

past performance, and are compliant 

with reporting and monitoring 

requirements would be allowed to fish 

in the area using pelagic longline gear. 

Those vessels that have not 

demonstrated their ability to avoid 

bluefin or comply with reporting and 

monitoring requirements would not be 

allowed to fish with pelagic longline 

gear in the area. The rationale 

underlying this requirement is that the 

commercial data from within the closed 

areas may be utilized in the future as 

part of the information used to evaluate 

the effectiveness and impacts of closed 

areas, as well as for stock assessments 

or other management measures. 

Confidence in the data may be enhanced 

if the vessels allowed to fish in the 

closed areas have consistently 

demonstrated compliance with relevant 

regulations and are among the vessels 

that have demonstrated the ability to 

avoid bluefin at the level exhibited by 

the majority of the fleet. The 

performance criteria may lead to 

beneficial economic incentives for 

fishery participants to better comply 

with reporting and monitoring 

requirements and reduce bluefin 

interaction rates. Potential revenue 

would be gained if this alternative were 

implemented. 

The maximum number of potential 

observed trips into the closed areas was 

estimated based on historical rates of 

observer coverage (per quarter) in 

various statistical areas, and the fact that 

observer coverage would be a condition 

of a trip into a closed area. NMFS 

estimated the maximum number of trips 

into the pelagic longline closed areas 

would be 20 trips into the East Florida 

Coast closed area, witht an average 

revenue of $17,575 per trip; 80 trips into 

the DeSoto Canyons at an average 

revenue of $17,692 per trip; 2 trips into 

the Northeast closure at an average 

revenue of $40,726 per trip; and 5 trips 

into the Charleston Bump at an average 

revenue of $17,575 per trip. It is import 

to note that these revenue estimates are 

an overestimate, with a large amount of 

uncertainty. The estimates are high 

because it is very unlikely that all 

observed trips in a particular statistical 

area would fish in a closed area. The 

estimates are uncertain because the 

average revenue per trip data is from 

locations outside the closed areas, and 

may not represent the potential revenue 

from inside the closed areas. 

Bluefin Tuna Quota Controls 

Alternative C1—No Action 

Under this alternative, there would be 

no change to the current regulations that 

restrict pelagic longline vessel retention 

of bluefin once the Longline category 

quota has been reached; hence, the total 

amount of dead discards would not be 

restricted. There are no short-term 

economic impacts to vessel owners 

associated with this alternative, but in 

the long-term, if dead discards are not 

curtailed, the pelagic longline fishery 

could face reduced allocations and 

earnings. 

Alternative C 2—Individual Bluefin 

Quotas 

This preferred alternative would 

implement IBQs for vessels permitted in 

the Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

(provided they also hold necessary 

limited access swordfish and shark 

permits) that would result in prohibiting 

the use of pelagic longline gear when 

the vessel’s annual pelagic longline IBQ 

has been caught. The allocation of an 

IBQ share to individual vessels/permits 

as well as a provision for transferability 

of IBQs would reduce bluefin dead 

discards by capping the amount of catch 

(landings and dead discards); provide 

strong incentives to reduce interactions 

and flexibility for vessels to continue to 

operate profitably; accommodate 

different fishing practices within the 

pelagic longline fleet; and create new 

potential for revenue (from a market for 

transferrable IBQs). 

NMFS considered two alternatives for 

vessel eligibility to receive bluefin quota 

shares. The first alternative would be to 

consider any permitted Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category vessel (sub-alternative 

C 2a.1) as being eligible to receive an 

initial allocation of IBQs. Based on the 

most recent number of Atlantic Tuna 

longline limited access permit holders, 

NMFS estimates that 223 vessels would 

be eligible to receive IBQs under this 

alternative. While this alternative might 

be more inclusive of all members of the 

fishery, it would reduce the amount of 

IBQs allocated to each vessel. There 

would also likely be negative short-term 

and potentially long-term direct adverse 

economic impacts associated with 

reduced initial allocation of IBQs to the 

most active participants in the fishery. 

Their initial allocations would likely be 

insufficient to be able to maintain their 

current levels of fishing activity and 

they may not be able to find IBQs to 

lease or have sufficient capital to lease 

a sufficient amount of IBQs. 

The second alternative, subalternative C 2a.2 is the preferred 

alternative and would consider only 

active permitted Atlantic Tunas longline 

vessels. Based on HMS Logbook records 

from 2006–2012, there were 135 active 

pelagic longline vessels during that 

period, with active defined as having 

reported in the HMS Logbook 

successfully setting pelagic longline 

gear at least once between 2006 and 

2012. Allocation of quota shares to a 

smaller number of vessels may reduce 

the likelihood that a permitted vessel 

without quota shares would fish and 

increase the likelihood that available 

quota would be sufficient for active 

vessels. This alternative minimizes 

economic impacts by utilizing criteria 

that result in a pool of eligible vessels 

that is optimized in terms of the number 

of vessels. The optimization balances 

the benefits of a small number of 

eligible vessels (resulting in a larger 

percentage quota share per vessel), and 

the benefits of an inclusive criteria, 

which includes the majority of vessels 

that have fished with pelagic longline 

gear since 2006. The number of vessels 

eligible (135) is slightly larger than the 

average number of vessels that have 

fished annually since 2006. 

In addition to determining who is 

eligible to receive IBQs, NMFS also 

considered four alternatives for how 

IBQ should be initially allocated to 

those eligible vessel owners. Under 

Alternative C 2b.1, NMFS would base 

the initial allocation of IBQs on an equal 

share of the quota to eligible vessels. To 

estimate the potential landings each 

vessel could make given its initial IBQ 

under this alternative, NMFS analyzed 

the ratio of bluefin tuna landings and 

dead discards to designated species 

weight. These estimated potential 

landings were then compared to average 

annual historical landings to estimate 

the reduction in designated species 

landings. Under the 74.8 mt Longline 

category quota scenario, NMFS 

estimates that there could be a reduction 

of 2.1 million pounds of designated 

species landing per year if an IBQ 

allocation based on designated species 

landings is used and no trading of IBQs 

occurs. This would be a reduction of 

annual landings of approximately 36 

percent, and result in a reduction in 

annual revenues of approximately 

$91,000 per vessel. Under the 137 mt 

Longline category quota scenario, NMFS 

estimates that there could be a reduction 

of 1.5 million pounds of designated 

species landing per year if an IBQ 

allocation based on designated species 

landings is used and no trading of IBQs 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71574 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

occurs. This would be a reduction of 

annual landings of approximately 19 

percent, and result in a reduction in 

annual revenues of approximately 

$47,000 per vessel. Under the 216.7 mt 

Longline category quota scenario, NMFS 

estimates that there could be a reduction 

of 0.9 million pounds of designated 

species landing per year if an IBQ 

allocation based on designated species 

landings is used and no trading of IBQs 

occurs. This would be a reduction of 

annual landings of approximately 10 

percent and result in a reduction in 

annual revenues of approximately 

$27,000 per vessel. 

Under Alternative C 2b.2, NMFS 

would base the initial allocation of IBQs 

based on the historical landings of 

designated species from 2006 through 

2012. The designated species include 

swordfish, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, 

albacore tuna, skipjack tuna, 

dolphinfish, wahoo, blue shark, 

porbeagle, shortfin mako, and thresher 

shark. These are the main marketable 

pelagic species landed by pelagic 

longline vessels in addition to bluefin. 

Under the 74.8 mt Longline category 

quota scenario, NMFS estimates that 

there could be a reduction of 2.2 million 

pounds of designated species landing 

per year if an IBQ allocation based on 

designated species landings is used and 

no trading of IBQs occurs. This would 

be a reduction of annual landings of 

approximately 40 percent and result in 

a reduction in annual revenues of 

approximately $102,000 per vessel. 

Under the 137 mt Longline category 

quota scenario, NMFS estimates that 

there could be a reduction of 2.0 million 

pounds of designated species landing 

per year if an IBQ allocation based on 

designated species landings is used and 

no trading of IBQs occurs. This would 

be a reduction of annual landings of 

approximately 24 percent, and result in 

a reduction in annual revenues of 

approximately $62,000 per vessel. 

Under the 216.7 mt Longline category 

quota scenario, NMFS estimates that 

there could be a reduction of 1.2 million 

pounds of designated species landing 

per year if an IBQ allocation based on 

designated species landings is used and 

no trading of IBQs occurs. This would 

be a reduction of annual landings of 

approximately 15 percent, and result in 

a reduction in annual revenues of 

approximately $37,000 per vessel. 

Under Alternative C 2b.3, a preferred 

alternative, NMFS would base the initial 

allocation of IBQs on the historical 

landings of designated species from 

2006 through 2012 and the ratio of 

bluefin catch to designated species 

landings. Using the ratio of bluefin tuna 

landings and dead discards to 

designated species weight, NMFS 

estimated the potential landings each 

vessel could make given its initial IBQ. 

These estimated potential landings were 

then compared to average annual 

historical landings to estimate the 

reduction in designated species. Under 

the 74.8 mt Longline category quota 

scenario, NMFS estimates that there 

could be a reduction of 2.7 million 

pounds of designated species landing 

per year if an IBQ allocation based on 

designated species landings is used and 

no trading of IBQs occurs. This would 

be a reduction of annual landings of 

approximately 33 percent, and result in 

a reduction in annual revenues or 

approximately $84,000 per vessel. 

Under the 137 mt Longline category 

quota scenario, NMFS estimates that 

there could be a reduction of 1.8 million 

pounds of designated species landing 

per year if an IBQ allocation based on 

designated species landings is used and 

no trading of IBQs occurs. This would 

be a reduction of annual landings of 

approximately 22 percent, and result in 

a reduction in annual revenues or 

approximately $56,000 per vessel. 

Under the 216.7 mt Longline category 

quota scenario, NMFS estimates that 

there could be a reduction of 1.2 million 

pounds of designated species landing 

per year if an IBQ allocation based on 

designated species landings is used and 

no trading of IBQs occurs. This would 

be a reduction of annual landings of 

approximately 14 percent and result in 

a reduction in annual revenues or 

approximately $36,000 per vessel. The 

economic impacts of the allocation 

alternative were minimized through the 

use of the dual criteria, which considers 

both the bluefin catch rate, as well as 

the amount of designated species catch. 

The scoring system that determines the 

allocations considers the diversity in the 

fleet so that some vessels are not 

disadvantaged due to the level of their 

fishing activity. Vessels that have 

historically caught larger amounts of 

target species, as reflected in the 

logbook and dealer data will score 

higher on the ‘designated species’ 

element of the allocation criteria. The 

other aspects of the IBQ Program (e.g., 

quota allocation leasing) as well as other 

aspect of Amendment 7 (e.g., allocation 

alternatives), were designed to mesh 

with the IBQ Program in order to 

provide flexibility to increase the 

likelihood of profitable fishing 

operations and minimize negative 

economic impacts, in addition to 

minimizing and accounting for bluefin 

catch. 

After issuing IBQ shares and 

allocation based upon the formula, 

subalternative C 2b.4 would then 

designate all IBQ shares and allocations 

as either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or ‘‘Atlantic’’ 

based upon the geographic location of 

sets (associated with the vessels fishing 

history used to determine the vessel’s 

quota share). Gulf of Mexico IBQ 

allocation could be used in either the 

Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic, but 

Atlantic IBQ allocation could only be 

used in the Atlantic (and not the Gulf 

of Mexico). For a vessel to fish with 

pelagic longline gear in the Gulf of 

Mexico, the vessel would be required to 

have the minimum amount of IBQ to 

depart, and the IBQ would have to be 

Gulf of Mexico. The minimum IBQ 

amount required to fish in the Gulf of 

Mexico would be 0.25 mt based on the 

larger average size of bluefin in the Gulf 

of Mexico. The minimum IBQ amount 

required to fish in the Atlantic would be 

0.125 mt based on the smaller average 

size of bluefin tuna encountered in the 

Atlantic. The economic impact of 

creating these two regional designations 

would primarily be associated with the 

larger minimum IBQ allocations 

required to fish in the Gulf of Mexico 

and the restriction from transferring or 

using Atlantic IBQ in the Gulf of 

Mexico. This would reduce the number 

of potential trading partners for IBQs in 

the Gulf of Mexico region, thus 

potentially leading to less available IBQ 

allocation that could be leased, 

potentially making it more difficult to 

find potential trading partners and 

therefore increasing transaction costs for 

conducting a lease. The regional 

designations minimize economic 

impacts by allowing Gulf of Mexico IBQ 

allocation to be utilized in the Atlantic, 

and through the rules regarding the 

NED, which provide different IBQ 

accounting rules for that unique 

particular area. 

In defining the scope of IBQ transfer 

for alternative C 2c, NMFS considered 

two subalternatives, because only two 

Tuna permit categories are under 

limited access systems. Sub-alternative 

C 2c.1 would allow transfer of bluefin 

quota shares or quota allocation among 

permitted Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category vessels only, and would not 

include transferring with other limited 

access quota categories such as the 

Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category. 

The rationale for this sub-alternative is 

to provide flexibility for pelagic longline 

vessels to obtain or sell quota as 

necessary, so that allocations may be 

aligned with catch (i.e., vessels that 

catch bluefin may be able to obtain 

quota from those that do not interact 

with bluefin, or have not used their full 

allocation of bluefin). This subVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:36 Dec 01, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\02DER2.SGM 02DER2

rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71575 

alternative would constrain the amount 

of bluefin quota available to the 

Longline category vessels to the 

Longline category quota, and not make 

additional quota available. Quota 

transfers would be allowed among all 

Longline category vessels with a valid 

limited access permit, regardless of 

whether they have been allocated quota 

under Alternative C 2b. If a vessel 

catches bluefin using quota that has 

been leased from another vessel, the 

fishing history associated with the catch 

of bluefin tuna would be associated 

with the vessel that catches the bluefin 

(the lessee, not the lessor vessel). In 

other words, the lessee (vessel catching 

the fish) gets the ‘credit’ for the landings 

and dead discards, and not the lessor 

(the vessel that transferred the quota 

allocation to the catching vessel). NMFS 

assumed that the total surplus of IBQs 

would potentially be traded to vessels 

with IBQ shortfalls. To simulate trading, 

the total amount of IBQs surplus was 

divided equally by the number of 

vessels that needed additional IBQs. 

This occurred in two rounds of trades. 

Under the 74.8 mt quota scenario, the 

estimated reduction in annual revenues 

goes from $84,000 per vessel under no 

trading to $18,000 per vessel with 

trading. Under the 137 mt quota 

scenario, the estimated reduction in 

annual revenues goes from $56,000 per 

vessel under no trading to $19 per 

vessel with trading. Finally, under the 

216.7 mt quota scenario, the estimated 

reduction in annual revenues goes from 

$36,000 per vessel under no trading to 

no change in annual revenues with 

trading since there would be a sufficient 

amount of surplus quota to easily cover 

the vessels that do not receive initial 

IBQ allocations to cover their historical 

fishing levels. While this alternative 

would have short-term direct minor 

beneficial economic impacts, those 

beneficial impacts would be lower than 

those under sub-alternative C 2c.2. 

Sub-alternative C 2c.2, the preferred 

alternative, would allow transfer of 

bluefin quota shares or quota allocation 

between those permitted in the limited 

access Atlantic Tunas Longline and 

Purse Seine categories. This subalternative would provide flexibility for 

pelagic longline vessels to obtain, lease, 

or sell quota as necessary, so that 

allocations may be aligned with catch 

(i.e., vessels that catch bluefin may be 

able to obtain quota from those that do 

not interact with bluefin, or have not 

used their full allocation of bluefin). 

This sub-alternative would not 

constrain the amount of bluefin quota 

available to pelagic longline vessels (i.e., 

through the Longline category quota), 

but would make additional quota 

available if purse seine vessels are 

willing to lease quota. This alternative 

would also modify the Purse Seine 

category regulations which currently 

restrict the transfer of Purse Seine quota 

to vessels with Purse Seine category 

permits. Purse Seine quota would be 

transferable to vessels with an Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit. 

Similarly, Purse Seine fishery 

participants would be able to lease 

quota allocation from pelagic longline 

vessels. Quota transfer would be 

allowed among all Longline category 

vessels with a valid limited access 

permit, regardless of whether they have 

been allocated quota under Alternative 

C 2b. If a vessel catches bluefin using 

quota that has been leased from another 

vessel, the fishing history associated 

with the catch of bluefin tuna would be 

associated with the vessel that catches 

the bluefin (the lessee, not the lessor 

vessel). In other words, the lessee 

(vessel catching the fish) gets the ‘credit’ 

for the landings and dead discards, and 

not the lessor (the vessel that transferred 

the quota allocation to the catching 

vessel). This alternative would have 

short-term direct moderate beneficial 

economic impacts. 

NMFS considered both annual leasing 

and permanent sale of IBQs under 

alternative C 2d. Sub-alternative C 2d.1, 

a preferred alternative, would allow 

temporary leasing of bluefin quota 

among eligible vessels on an annual 

basis. Temporary quota transfer would 

give vessels flexibility to lease quota, 

but as a separate and distinct type of 

transaction from the permanent sale of 

quota share. Vessel owners would be 

able to obtain quota on an annual basis 

to facilitate their harvest of target 

species. Sub-leasing of quota would be 

allowed (i.e., IBQ leased from vessel A 

to vessel B, then to vessel C). This subalternative may be combined SubAlternative C 2d.2 (permanent sale of 

quota share), if implemented. IBQ 

allocation leases of one year duration 

would coincide with the time period of 

annual quota allocation for the fishery 

as a whole. For a particular calendar 

year, an individual lease transaction 

would be valid from the time of the 

lease until December 31. This 

alternative would have short-term direct 

moderate beneficial economic impacts 

to participants in the fishery. However, 

in the long-term, the annual transaction 

costs associated with matching lessors 

and lessees, the costs associated with 

drafting agreements, and the uncertainty 

vessel owners would face regarding 

quota availability would reduce some of 

the economic benefits associated with 

leasing. The IBQ allocation leasing 

alternatives minimize economic impacts 

by providing flexibility for pelagic 

longline vessels to lease IBQ as 

necessary so that their IBQ allocations 

may be aligned with catch (i.e., vessels 

that catch bluefin may be able to obtain 

IBQ from those that do not interact with 

bluefin, or have not used their full IBQ 

allocation of bluefin). 

Sub-alternative C 2d.2 would allow 

permanent sale of quota share among 

eligible vessels. Through this subalternative, vessel owners would be able 

to purchase (or sell) quota share and 

permanently increase (or decrease) their 

quota share percentage. Permanent sale 

of quota share provides a means for 

vessel owners to plan their businesses 

and manage their quota according to a 

longer time scale than a single year. 

Vessel owners may be able to save 

money through a single quota share 

transaction instead of reoccurring 

annual quota allocation transactions. 

This sub-alternative may be combined 

with the temporary transfer of quota 

(i.e., annual leasing of quota, SubAlternative C 2d.2), but is a separate and 

distinct type of transaction. (Note, that 

elsewhere in this document NMFS 

considers measures for codified quota 

reallocation alternatives unrelated to an 

IBQ Program; See Alternative A 2). To 

enable effective accounting and reduce 

program complexity, permanent quota 

share transfers would become effective 

in the subsequent year, and would have 

to be executed prior to the annual 

allocation of quota to IBQ holders. 

Limits would be placed on the amount 

of quota an individual entity could 

permanently transfer in order to prevent 

the accumulation of an excessive share 

of quota. This alternative would have 

long-term direct moderate beneficial 

economic impacts to participants in the 

fishery by allowing the ownership of 

IBQs to shift to where they provide the 

best economic benefit in the long-term. 

However, in the short-term, there could 

be issues associated with the IBQ 

market. For example the process of the 

buyers and sellers arriving at a price for 

IBQ shares may be difficult or highly 

variable due to uncertainties such as 

how to value IBQ shares, information 

availability, and associated risks. 

Experiences in other catch share 

programs have shown that fishermen 

may not know how to effectively value 

the IBQs initially and uncertainty in this 

new market may cause IBQs to be 

undervalued in the first few years. This 

could result in both adverse social and 

economic impacts in the fishing 

community if participants sell out of the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71576 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

IBQ market in the early years for less 

than the long-term value of the IBQs. 

Sub-alternative C 2d.3, a preferred 

alternative, would allow permanent sale 

of quota shares among eligible vessel 

owners in the future, after NMFS and 

fishery participants have multiple years 

of experience with the IBQ Program. 

Until NMFS develops and implements a 

permanent IBQ transfer program, vessel 

owners would only be able to conduct 

temporary (annual) leasing of quota 

allocation, and therefore, vessel owners 

would not be able to purchase (or sell) 

quota share to permanently increase (or 

decrease) their quota share percentage. 

A phased-in approach would reduce 

risks for vessel owners during the initial 

stages of the IBQ Program, when the 

market for bluefin quota shares is new 

and uncertain. During the first years of 

the IBQ Program, price volatility may be 

reduced, as well as undesirable 

outcomes of selling or buying quota 

shares at the ‘‘wrong’’ time or price. 

NMFS intends to develop a program to 

allow the permanent sale of quota share 

in the future because it would provide 

a means for vessel owners to plan their 

business and manage their quota 

according to a longer time scale than a 

single year, in a manner that would be 

informed by several years of the 

temporary leasing market. NMFS may 

wait until a formal evaluation of the IBQ 

Program before developing this 

alternative (see IBQ Program Evaluation 

Alternatives C 2h.1 and C 2h.2). This 

sub-alternative may be combined with 

the temporary transfer of quota 

allocation (i.e., annual leasing of quota, 

Sub-Alternative C 2d.1), but is a 

separate and distinct type of transaction. 

While this alternative may result in 

long-term moderate beneficial economic 

impacts, the uncertainty regarding the 

timeline may make business planning 

for vessel owners and IBQ holders more 

difficult and result in some minor 

adverse economic impacts. This 

alternative minimizes economic impacts 

by ensuring that during the initial years 

of the IBQ Program, permanent transfer 

of IBQ shares will not be possible, and 

therefore reduces one of the potential 

risks of the IBQ Program (that a transfer 

will have negative unintended 

economic impacts). 

Under sub-alternative C 2e.1, a 

preferred alternative, quota allocation 

and/or quota share transfers would be 

executed by the eligible vessel owners, 

or their representatives. For example, 

the two vessel owners involved in a 

lease of quota or sale of quota share 

could log into a password protected 

web-based computer system (i.e., a 

NMFS database), and execute the quota 

allocation or quota share transfer. 

Owner-executed transfers would 

provide the quickest execution of a 

transfer because any eligibility criteria 

would be verified automatically via the 

user log-in and password, and not 

involve the submission or review of a 

paper application for a transfer to/by 

NMFS. This would result in short- and 

long-term minor beneficial economic 

impacts resulting from reduced 

transactions costs. 

Under sub-alternative C 2e.2, quota 

and quota share transfers would be 

executed by NMFS. For example, a 

paper application for a sale of quota 

share could be submitted by the two 

vessel owners involved in the quota 

share transaction, and NMFS would 

review and approve the transaction 

based on eligibility criteria (and enter 

data into a computer database that 

would track the transfers of quota). This 

method would not include the use of a 

web-based system, but would rely upon 

mail or facsimile submission of 

applications by the vessel owners to 

NMFS. In comparison to sub-alternative 

C 2e.1, this alternative may result in 

some minor adverse economic impacts 

if delays in NMFS’ review of 

applications results in increased 

transactions costs and fewer trades. 

Under sub-alternative C 2f.1, there 

would be no limit on the amount of 

quota allocation an individual vessel 

(Longline or Purse Seine) could lease 

annually. This alternative would 

provide flexibility for vessels to 

purchase quota in a manner that could 

accommodate various levels of 

unintended catch of bluefin, and enable 

the development of an unrestricted 

market. Because the duration of a 

temporary lease would be limited to a 

single year, the impacts on an 

unrestricted market for bluefin quota 

would be limited in duration. 

Information on this unrestricted market 

could be used to develop future 

restrictions if necessary. This alternative 

would result in short- and long-term 

minor beneficial economic impacts by 

accommodating the various needs of 

vessel owners for IBQ trades. 

Under sub-alternative C 2f.2,the limit 

on the amount of IBQ allocation that 

may be leased annually would be the 

combined Longline and Purse Seine 

category allocations. This alternative 

would provide flexibility for vessels to 

purchase quota in a manner that could 

accommodate various levels of 

unintended catch of bluefin, and enable 

the development of an unrestricted 

market. Because the duration of a 

temporary lease would be limited to a 

single year, the impacts on an 

unrestricted market for bluefin quota 

would be limited in duration. 

Information on this unrestricted market 

could be used to develop future 

restrictions (through proposed and final 

rulemaking) if necessary. This 

alternative would result in short- and 

long-term minor beneficial economic 

impacts by accommodating the various 

needs of vessel owners for IBQ trades. 

Sub-alternative C 2f.3, a preferred 

alternative, would have NMFS consider 

in the future the development of further 

limits on the amount of quota allocation 

an individual vessel (Longline or Purse 

Seine), or the Longline or Purse Seine 

category (in its entirety), could lease 

annually. Setting a different limit than 

the combined amount of Longline and 

Purse Seine category allocations would 

be difficult, as the market for bluefin 

allocations is new and, as a 

consequence, there are no data to inform 

potential, alternative limits. Further, 

NMFS does not believe there is a need 

for a reduced limit. The IBQ Program 

preferred alternatives are designed to 

incentivize longline vessels to minimize 

bluefin interactions, and only 25 

percent of vessels are expected to need 

to lease additional bluefin quota. In 

recent years, the Purse Seine category 

has not fished or not fully harvested the 

amount of quota available. This 

alternative could result in long-term 

minor adverse economic impacts if the 

limits cause some vessel owners to not 

be able to acquire sufficient IBQs for 

their fishing activity needs. 

The measures under alternative C 2g 

are based on the premise that the 

success of an IBQ Program rests upon 

the ability to track ownership of quota 

shares and quota allocation holders; 

allocate the appropriate amount of 

annual harvest privileges (quota 

allocation); reconcile landings and dead 

discards against those privileges; and 

then balance the amounts against the 

total allowable quota. The current 

pelagic longline reporting requirements 

and the monitoring program that 

provide data on pelagic longline bluefin 

landings and dead discards were not 

designed to support inseason 

accounting of dead discards. More 

timely information on catch would be 

necessary in order to monitor a pelagic 

longline IBQ, inclusive of dead discards. 

VMS reporting Sub-alternative C 2g.1, a 

preferred alternative, is the same 

management alternative described in 

Alternative D 1b. This alternative is 

intended to support the implementation 

of a pelagic longline IBQ. The economic 

impacts are detailed in the section 

below discussing Alternative D 1b. 

Electronic monitoring sub-alternative 

C 2g.2, a preferred alternative, is the 

same management alternative described 

in Alternative D 2b of this document. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71577 

This alternative is intended to support 

the implementation of a pelagic longline 

IBQ. The economic impacts are detailed 

in the section below discussing 

Alternative D 2b. 

Under sub-alternative C 2g.3, a 

preferred alternative, in order to 

conduct inseason quota monitoring and 

estimate total bluefin dead discards and 

landings, NMFS may extrapolate 

observer-generated data (in-season) 

regarding bluefin discards (rate, 

number, location, etc.) by pelagic 

longline vessels, based on reasonable 

statistical methods, and available 

observer data. This alternative would 

not require a regulatory change, but 

would inform the public that NMFS 

would use this management practice if 

warranted. NMFS would use this 

observer information in conjunction 

with, or in place of, vessel-generated 

estimates of bluefin discards in order to 

develop inseason estimates of total 

bluefin landings and dead discards. 

NMFS may use this method to estimate 

dead discard rates of bluefin for 

individual vessels in the context of an 

IBQ Program. This sub-alternative 

would address the potential for 

uncertain dead discard data from the 

pelagic longline fleet that may result 

from challenges in the implementation 

of new regulations, technical problems 

relating to the reporting and monitoring 

system, or time lags in the availability 

of data. This alternative would 

potentially have short-term minor or 

neutral indirect beneficial economic 

impacts by addressing the potential for 

fishery disruptions if there are issues in 

the transition to an IBQ monitoring 

system. 

Under sub-alternative C 2h.1, a 

preferred alternative, NMFS would 

formally evaluate the program after 

three years of operation and provide the 

HMS Advisory Panel with a publiclyavailable written document with its 

findings. NMFS would utilize its 

standardized economic performance 

indicators as part of its review. This 

would result in neutral economic 

impacts because it is administrative in 

nature. 

Under sub-alternative C 2h.2, NMFS 

would conduct a formal evaluation of 

the IBQ Program after five years of 

operation and provide the HMS 

Advisory Panel with a written 

document with its findings. As 

described above, NMFS would utilize 

its standardized economic performance 

indicators (and associated standardized 

definitions) as part of its review. This 

alternative would result in neutral 

economic and social impacts because it 

is administrative in nature. 

Under alternative C 2i, a preferred 

alternative, NMFS would develop and 

implement a cost recovery program of 

up to 3 percent of the ex-vessel value of 

fish harvested under the program, for 

costs associated with the costs of 

management, data collection and 

analysis, and enforcement activities, 

could result in direct long-term 

moderate adverse economic impacts to 

the industry. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Act provides NMFS the authority for 

cost recovery under § 303A(e). A cost 

recovery program would not be 

implemented until after the IBQ 

Program evaluation described in 

Alternative C 2h. Immediate 

implementation of a cost recovery 

program without the information 

obtained from the operation of the 

fishery under an IBQ Program would be 

very difficult, and would increase costs 

and uncertainty for fishing vessels 

during a time period when the fishery 

would be bearing other new costs and 

sources of uncertainty. This alternative 

could result in direct long-term 

moderate adverse economic impacts to 

the industry. 

Alternative C 2j, a preferred 

alternative, would implement an 

appeals process for administrative 

review of NMFS’ decisions regarding 

initial allocation of quota shares for the 

IBQ Program. The appeals process for 

administrative review of NMFS’ 

decisions regarding initial allocation of 

quota shares for the IBQ Program would 

result in neutral economic impacts 

because it would utilize the National 

Appeals Office procedures and ensure a 

standardized and centralized appeals 

process, which would provide 

procedural certainty to the participants. 

If an IBQ Program is implemented, 

preferred alternative C 2k would 

implement a control date in conjunction 

with the implementation (effective date) 

of the IBQ Program. The control date 

would serve as a reference date that may 

be utilized with future management 

measures, such as a modification to 

aspects of the IBQ program as a result 

of items identified during the 3-year 

review of the IBQ program. The 

implementation of a control date by 

itself would have no effect, but would 

provide NMFS with a potential 

management tool that may be utilized if 

necessary as part of a future 

management measure. A control date is 

typically used to discourage speculative 

fishing behavior or speculative entry 

into a fishery and notifies the public 

that a date may be used in conjunction 

with future management measures. This 

alternative would likely have neutral 

economic impacts and would only 

result in beneficial short-term economic 

impacts if it actually discouraged 

speculative fishing behavior that may 

have occurred without the control date. 

Sub-alternative C 2l.1, the elimination 

of target catch requirements is a 

preferred alternative. Current target 

catch requirements act at the level of an 

individual trip to limit bluefin 

retention, but do not prevent 

interactions potentially resulting in 

discarding bluefin dead (although it is 

intended to dis-incentivize interactions 

with bluefin by reducing any financial 

incentive for such interactions by 

limiting retention). The target catch 

requirement therefore contributes to the 

discarding of bluefin if the amount of 

target catch species is insufficient to 

retain the numbers of bluefin caught. 

Under this sub-alternative C 2l.1a, the 

current target catch requirements would 

remain in effect. This would have 

neutral economic impacts since it 

would not change what is currently in 

place. 

Sub-alternative C 2l.1b, preferred 

alternative, would eliminate the current 

target catch requirements for pelagic 

longline vessels. This alternative is 

intended to work in conjunction with an 

IBQ. The objective of this alternative is 

to reduce bluefin dead discards and 

optimize fishing opportunity for target 

species. If an IBQ Program is 

implemented, elimination of the target 

catch requirement could reduce dead 

discards, and enable vessels to fish for 

target species in a more flexible manner. 

A vessel that has caught some bluefin 

but has insufficient target species to 

meet the target catch requirement would 

no longer have to choose between 

discarding bluefin or fishing for more 

target species; rather, the vessel would 

use the annual individual bluefin quota 

(IBQ). Thus, the IBQ would replace the 

target catch requirement as the means of 

limiting the amount of bluefin landed 

and discarded dead per vessel on an 

annual basis, instead of on a per trip 

basis. This alternative would likely have 

direct short- and long-term minor 

beneficial economic impacts. 

Sub-alternative C 2l.2a would 

maintain the status quo regarding 

retention of bluefin by pelagic longline 

vessels. There would be no requirement 

to retain commercial legal-sized bluefin 

that are dead. Vessels would continue to 

be able to discard bluefin even if they 

are of commercial legal-size (i.e., 73′′ or 

greater) and dead. If the IBQ Program is 

implemented, all dead discards would 

be accounted for under that program. 

This alternative would have neutral 

economic impacts since it does not 

change what is currently occurring. 

Under sub-alternative C 2l.2b, a 

preferred alternative, pelagic longline 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71578 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

vessels would be required to retain all 

legal-sized commercial bluefin tuna that 

are dead at haul-back. Because these 

fish would be required to be retained, 

legal discards and the waste of fish 

would be decreased, and it would be 

more likely that such fish are accurately 

accounted for, and result in a positive 

use (marketed, used for scientific 

information, etc.). However, given that 

current behavior may be to discard some 

fish in order to optimize landings value 

of bluefin, there could be minor adverse 

economic impacts associated with this 

alternative since vessel operators would 

no longer have the option to discard 

legal-sized bluefin. 

Alternative C 3—Regional and Group 

Quotas 

Alternative C 3a would implement 

annual bluefin quotas by region for 

vessels possessing the Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit (combined 

with the required shark and swordfish 

limited access permits) that would 

result in prohibiting the use of pelagic 

longline gear when a particular region’s 

annual bluefin quota has been caught. 

Both bluefin landings and dead discards 

would count toward the regional quota. 

Annual bluefin quotas would be 

associated with defined geographic 

regions. While regional quotas may be 

simpler than an IBQ system and have 

advantages over a single quota allocated 

for the entire Longline category, some 

regions may face chronic shortages of 

bluefin quota if that region experiences 

increased fishing effort or bluefin 

interaction rates. It is difficult to predict 

the total amount of fishing effort that 

would occur under regional quotas, and 

the amount of bluefin quota that would 

be caught. There is likely to be less 

fishing effort under the Regional quota 

control alternative (compared with the 

No Action alternative) because a few 

vessels could catch a large number of 

bluefin, and because of the closure of 

the entire area to the use of pelagic 

longline gear. The historical data 

indicate that the majority of bluefin 

have been caught by relatively few 

vessels. The amount of target species 

catch such as swordfish and yellowfin 

tuna, would depend primarily upon the 

amount of fishing effort and whether the 

regional quotas or IBQs become 

constraining. If the regional quotas 

reduce pelagic longline fishing effort, 

there may be some minor adverse 

economic and social impacts on 

regional fishing communities where 

effort is reduced. 

Alternative C 3b would implement a 

quota system for vessels possessing the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

(combined with the required shark and 

swordfish limited access permits) that 

would define three bluefin quota groups 

and assign vessels with a valid permit 

to one of the three groups. Both bluefin 

landings and dead discards would count 

toward the group quotas. Each active 

vessel would be assigned to a quota 

group based upon the associated 

permit’s historical bluefin interactions 

to ‘‘designated species’’ landings ratio. 

Active vessels with relatively high 

numbers of bluefin interactions would 

be assigned to one quota group, active 

vessels with a moderate level of bluefin 

interactions would be assigned to a 

second group, and the active vessels 

with a low level of bluefin interactions 

would be assigned to a third quota 

group. Using the current quota 

allocation (8.1%) and the 2012 Longline 

category quota (74.8 mt) to illustrate, the 

low avoider quota group would be 

allocated 24.1 mt and the medium and 

high avoider quota groups would be 

allocated 25.1 mt. Although the three 

quota groups have almost the identical 

number of vessels assigned to them (53, 

54, 54, respectively), as well as similar 

quota, the average amount of bluefin 

that they caught historically varies from 

group to group. The number of bluefin 

tuna interactions from 2006 to 2011 for 

the low, medium, and high avoiders was 

8,050, 1,348, and 95, respectively. 

Converted to averages, the average 

annual number of bluefin interactions 

would be 1,342, 225, and 16. Utilizing 

a rough conversion factor of a .125 mt 

per fish, 225 fish is equivalent to 28 mt. 

The high and medium avoider groups 

are likely to have adequate quota, 

whereas the low avoider group would 

have inadequate quota if the future 

interaction rate of the vessels is similar. 

The average number of interactions 

associated with the low avoider group 

equates to approximately 168 mt. It is 

likely that the group quota associated 

with vessels with the highest historical 

rate of bluefin interactions would be 

attained first. This indicates that there 

would be potentially significant direct 

short- and long-term adverse economic 

impacts to the low avoider group. 

However, there could be moderate to 

minor positive economic impacts to the 

high and medium avoider groups. 

Alternative C 4—NMFS Authority To 

Close the Pelagic Longline Fishery 

Under alternative C 4a, No Action, the 

current regulatory situation would 

continue, in which NMFS does not have 

the authority to prohibit the use of 

pelagic longline gear when the bluefin 

quota is attained. When the quota is 

projected to be reached, pelagic longline 

vessels may no longer retain bluefin 

tuna, but may continue to fish for their 

target species, and must discard any 

bluefin caught. The economic impacts 

of this alternative would lead to shortand long-term direct minor economic 

and social impacts due the loss of 

revenue from bluefin tuna. 

Under alternative C 4b, a preferred 

alternative, NMFS would close the 

pelagic longline fishery (i.e., prohibit 

the use of pelagic longline gear) when 

the total Longline category bluefin quota 

is reached; projected to be reached; is 

exceeded; or in order to prevent overharvest of the Longline category bluefin 

quota and prevent further discarding of 

bluefin; or when there is high 

uncertainty regarding the estimated or 

documented levels of bluefin catch. The 

economic impacts of this alternative 

would depend upon when the closure 

occurred, ranging from January through 

December. The time the pelagic longline 

fishery would be closed would depend 

upon many factors, including the size of 

the Longline category quota, the type of 

quota control alternative and other 

alternatives implemented by 

Amendment 7, and non-regulatory 

factors. The range of quotas that would 

be available to the Longline category 

would depend upon the combination of 

alternatives implemented. 

Based on the Longline category being 

closed in late spring and early summer 

over the past few years and the 2013 

closure occurring in June, NMFS 

estimates that a June closure is a 

plausible example to examine. A June 

closure of the pelagic longline fishery 

would result in a potential loss of 

revenue of approximately $21.0 million, 

or $156,000 per vessel per year. This 

would result in a major short-term 

adverse direct economic impact to the 

pelagic longline fishery and this 

economic impact would continue into 

the long-term if landings and dead 

discard rates continue along the current 

trend. 

Enhanced Reporting Measures 

Alternative D 1—VMS Requirements 

Alternative D 1a, the No Action 

alternative, would have no requirement 

under HMS regulations for an Atlantic 

Tunas Purse Seine category vessel to 

obtain a VMS unit and there would be 

no change to the reporting requirements 

applicable to purse seine vessels. There 

would also be no additional VMS 

requirements under HMS regulations for 

a vessel using pelagic longline gear. 

E–MTU VMS Installation and Operation 

Alternative D 1b, a preferred 

alternative, would require the three 

vessels with an Atlantic Tunas Purse 

Seine category permit to have an E– 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71579 

MTU VMS unit installed by a qualified 

marine electrician to remain eligible for 

the Purse Seine permit. Purse seine 

vessel owners would be required to 

provide a hail-out declaration using 

their E–MTU VMS units, indicating 

target species and gear possessed 

onboard the vessel when leaving port on 

every trip. Purse seine vessel owners 

would also be required to provide a 

hail-in declaration, using their E–MTU 

VMS units, providing information on 

the timing and location of landing 

before returning to port. The units 

would be required to send position 

information to NMFS every hour on a 

24/7 basis, unless the vessel has 

declared out of the fishery or been 

granted a power-down exemption from 

NMFS. 

All of the three vessels that are 

currently authorized to deploy purse 

seine gear for Atlantic tunas have 

already installed E–MTU VMS units in 

compliance with regulations for other 

Council-managed fisheries, including 

Northeast Multispecies and/or Atlantic 

scallop. If vessels have not already had 

a type-approved E–MTU VMS unit 

installed, or if permits were transferred 

to vessels that have not yet installed E– 

MTU VMS, they may be eligible for 

reimbursement (up to $3,100) to offset 

the costs of procuring a type-approved 

unit subject to availability of funds. This 

reimbursement would only cover the 

cost of the E–MTU VMS and could not 

be applied to offset installation costs by 

a qualified marine electrician ($400) or 

monthly communication costs ($44). 

Initial costs, per vessel, for compliance 

with E–MTU VMS requirements 

included in this alternative would be 

$3,500 if no reimbursement were 

received, and $400 if a reimbursement 

were received. On a monthly basis, 

vessels would be required to establish a 

communication service plan 

corresponding to the type-approved E– 

MTU VMS selected. Costs vary based on 

the E–MTU VMS unit and 

communication service provider that is 

selected; however, these costs average 

$44/month and include hourly 

transmission reporting and a limited 

amount of hail in and hail out 

declarations. Charges vary by 

communication service provider for 

additional messaging or transmission of 

data in excess of what allowed in their 

individual plan. Furthermore, costs 

might vary depending on how many 

trips a vessel makes on a monthly basis 

as the number of declarations (hail in/ 

hail out) increase proportionately. For 

this analysis, all communication costs 

were expected to be covered under 

baseline monthly plan costs (i.e., $44/

month). 

If a vessel has already installed a typeapproved E–MTU VMS unit, this 

alternative would have neutral direct 

and indirect socioeconomic impacts in 

the short and long-term as the only 

expense would be monthly 

communication service fees which they 

are already paying for participation in a 

Council-managed fishery. If vessels do 

not have an E–MTU VMS unit installed 

or an Atlantic tunas purse seine permit 

is transferred to another vessel lacking 

VMS, direct, adverse, short-term 

socioeconomic impacts are expected as 

a result of having to pay for the E–MTU 

VMS unit and a qualified marine 

electrician to install the unit. In the 

long-term, direct economic impacts 

would become minor, because monthly 

communication service provider costs 

($44) would be the only expense. 

Economic impacts to shore-based 

businesses, including fish dealers, bait 

and gear suppliers, and other fishing 

related industries are not expected. 

Pelagic longline vessels are already 

required to use an E–MTU VMS that has 

been installed by a qualified marine 

electrician to provide hourly position 

reports and hail in/out declarations to 

provide information on target species, 

gear possessed, and expected time/

location of landing. Therefore, this 

alternative would result in neutral 

economic impacts in the short and long 

term. Economic impacts to shore-based 

businesses, including fish dealers, bait 

and gear suppliers, and other fishing 

related industries are not expected. 

Reporting Bluefin Tuna Interactions 

Using E–MTU VMS 

Preferred alternative D 1b would also 

require vessels fishing for Atlantic tunas 

with pelagic longline or purse seine gear 

to report daily the number of bluefin 

retained, discarded (dead and alive), 

fish disposition, and fishing effort 

(number of sets, number of hooks, 

respectively). This alternative is 

intended to support the inseason 

monitoring of the purse seine and 

pelagic longline fisheries. Although 

NMFS currently has the authority to 

require logbook reporting for the purse 

seine fishery, NMFS has not exercised 

this authority (see Section 2.3.7). 

Current information on the catch of the 

purse seine fishery is limited to dealer 

data on sold fish, and does not include 

information of discarded bluefin or 

other species caught or discarded. 

Inseason information on catch, 

including dead discards, would enhance 

NMFS’ ability to monitor and manage 

all quota categories. 

Purse Seine 

The characteristics of the purse seine 

fishery are unique. Many bluefin may be 

caught by the fishery in a relatively 

short period of time, and the proportion 

of discarded to retained fish may be 

high in some instances. Timely 

information on discarded bluefin tuna, 

and more timely information on 

retained bluefin, would improve the 

current monitoring of bluefin landings 

and dead discards. This alternative 

would provide timely information on 

purse seine fishing effort, and improve 

NMFS’ ability to interpret and utilize 

the bluefin data in the context of the 

fishery as a whole. Recently, there has 

been limited effort in the Atlantic tunas 

purse seine fishery for a variety of 

reasons, including availability and 

quantity of commercial size bluefin and/ 

or current permit holders are 

participating in Council-managed 

fisheries. This alternative would require 

vessel operators to use their E–MTU 

VMS to submit electronic reports 

describing the number and size of 

bluefin that were landed and discarded 

dead. 

Vessel operators fishing for Atlantic 

tunas with purse seine gear are already 

be required to have an E–MTU VMS 

unit installed and capable of submitting 

hourly position reports while fishing in 

addition to hail out/in declarations 

before and after fishing. This alternative 

would, however, increase the amount of 

information that vessel operators 

provide using their E–MTU VMS units. 

Typically, fishermen would make a 

single declaration for each set that 

details the quantity and size of bluefin 

retained. This alternative would result 

in neutral economic impacts in the short 

and long-term because the vessel 

owners would already be paying, on 

average, $44 per month to cover the 

costs of a communication service 

provider. The number of additional 

characters transmitted to report bluefin 

retained and discarded dead are 

expected to be less than 50 characters 

per set, and are not expected to exceed 

the typical monthly allowance for data 

sent using the E–MTU VMS. Economic 

impacts to shore-based businesses, 

including fish dealers, bait and gear 

suppliers, and other fishing related 

industries are not expected. 

Pelagic Longline 

With respect to pelagic longline 

vessels, this alternative is intended to 

support the implementation of a pelagic 

longline IBQ Program, whether 

individual or regional, described under 

Section 2.3. For example, under an IBQ 

Program, each vessel must not harvest 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71580 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

more than is permitted by the total of 

his/her quota share. The IBQ Program 

would require vessel owners/operators 

have the ability to track quota shares 

and quota allocations, reconcile 

landings against quota allocations, and 

then balance the amounts against the 

total allowable quota. Although the 

current pelagic longline reporting 

requirements and the monitoring 

program provide data on pelagic 

longline discards and landings, and 

enable inseason monitoring and 

management based upon landings, the 

reporting requirements and monitoring 

program were not designed to support 

inseason monitoring of dead discards. 

More timely information on dead 

discards would be necessary in order to 

monitor and enforce a pelagic longline 

IBQ Program. Although the current 

information on bluefin discards from 

the pelagic longline fishery, which is 

obtained through logbook data on effort 

and catches from the observer program, 

is sufficient to estimate bluefin dead 

discards on an annual basis, the time lag 

associated with the current information 

is not useful for ‘‘real-time’’ in-season 

monitoring of an IBQ Program. 

Specifically, there is a time lag between 

the time logbooks are submitted or the 

field information is recorded by the 

observer during the fishing trip, the time 

the data are entered into a database, and 

the time the data are finalized (after a 

process of quality control) and available 

for use. A trip declaration requirement 

could be necessary in order for NMFS 

to obtain timely information on pelagic 

longline fishing effort, and interpret and 

utilize the bluefin data in the context of 

the fishery as a whole. 

HMS logbook data (2006–2012) 

indicate that, on average, pelagic 

longline vessels have one interaction 

(9,660 interactions/10,262 trips = 0.94 

interactions/trip) with a bluefin per 

vessel per trip. This alternative would 

require all pelagic longline vessel 

operators to report all interactions (kept, 

discarded dead, discarded alive) and 

estimate fish size (> or < than 73′′ CFL) 

using their E–MTU VMS within 12 

hours of the completion of the haulback. Furthermore, additional 

information on fishing effort, including 

the number of hooks deployed on the 

set that had a bluefin would also be 

reported. 

This alternative is expected to have 

neutral to minor adverse economic 

impacts on pelagic longline vessel 

operators and owners in the short and 

long-term. Economic impacts to shorebased businesses, including fish dealers, 

bait and gear suppliers, and other 

fishing related industries are not 

expected. Existing regulations require 

all pelagic longline vessel operators to 

provide hail out/in declarations and 

provide location reports on an hourly 

basis at all times unless they have 

declared out of the fishery or been 

granted a power down exemption by 

NMFS. In order to comply with these 

regulations, vessel owners must 

subscribe to a communication service 

plan that includes an allowance for 

sending similar declarations (hail out/

in) describing target species, fishing gear 

possessed, and estimated time/location 

of landing using their E–MTU VMS. 

This alternative would require, on 

average, 1 additional report per trip that 

describe bluefin interactions and fishing 

effort. Each report is expected to be 

comprised of less than 50 characters. 

Because of the minimal time 

(approximately 5 minutes) required to 

submit these short reports and the fact 

that owners would likely already be 

enrolled in a communication service 

plan that would encompass 

transmission of these additional 

characters, adverse economic impacts 

are not expected. 

Alternative D 2—Electronic Monitoring 

of Longline Category 

Under alternative D2a, the No Action 

alternative, NMFS would maintain the 

status quo and would not pursue any 

additional measures that would require 

permitted pelagic longline vessels to 

install electronic devices such as 

cameras in order to support the 

monitoring or verification of bluefin 

catch under the IBQ Program. Currently, 

pelagic longline vessels are required to 

use E–MTU VMS units to provide 

hourly position reports and to provide 

hail out/in declarations describing target 

species, fishing gear onboard, and time/ 

location of landing unless they have 

declared out of the fishery or been 

granted a power down exemption by 

NMFS. Under this alternative, these 

requirements would be maintained, and 

no additional electronic monitoring 

requirements would be implemented. 

This alternative would not result in 

economic impacts because it would 

maintain existing requirements. 

Alternative D 2b, a preferred 

alternative, would require the use of 

electronic monitoring, including video 

cameras, by all vessels issued an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

that intend to fish for highly migratory 

species. Specifically, vessels would be 

required to install and maintain video 

cameras and associated data recording 

and monitoring equipment in order to 

record all longline catch and relevant 

data regarding pelagic longline gear 

retrieval and deployment. 

More specifically, this alternative 

would require the installation of NMFSapproved equipment that may include 

one to four video cameras, a recording 

device, video monitor, hydraulic 

pressure transducer, winch rotation 

sensor, system control box, or other 

equipment needed to achieve the 

objectives. Vessel owner/operators 

would be required to install, maintain, 

facilitate inspection of the equipment by 

NMFS, and obtain NMFS approval of 

the equipment. The vessel owner/

operator would be required to store and 

make the data available to NMFS for at 

least 120 days, and facilitate the 

submission of data to NMFS. The vessel 

operator would be responsible for 

ensuring that all catch is handled in a 

manner than enables the electronic 

monitoring system to record such fish, 

and must identify a crew person or 

employee responsible for ensuring that 

all handling, retention, and sorting of 

bluefin occurs in accordance with the 

regulations. 

While the electronic monitoring 

program is being designed and 

implemented, NMFS would continue to 

use logbook, observer, and landings 

information to assess catch by the 

pelagic longline fleet. NMFS would 

communicate in writing with the vessel 

owners during all phases of the program 

to provide information to assistant 

vessel owners, and facilitate the 

provision of technical assistance. 

This alternative would require both 

fixed and variable costs over the service 

life of each camera installed onboard. 

Fixed costs for vessel owners would 

include purchasing the camera ($3,565) 

and having it installed on the vessel 

($500). Variable costs for vessel owners 

include data retrieval ($45/hour; $4,500/ 

year); service ($45/hour; $270/year); 

technician travel ($0.5/mile; $1,680/

year); fishing activity interpretation 

($47/hour; $1,175 year); and catch data 

interpretation ($1.5 hours per haul at a 

labor rate of $47/hour, 1 haul per trip 

and 100 trips; $7,050/year). The 

estimated total variable costs would be 

$14,663, and first year fixed costs would 

be $4,065 for the purchase and 

installation of the equipment. First year 

fixed and variable costs total $18,728/

vessel for the first year. After the first 

year, the annual variable costs of 

operation are estimated to be $14,663/

vessel. The estimate provided here for 

catch data interpretation is likely an 

overestimate as the Agency is primarily 

concerned with verification of bluefin 

reports and no other species (i.e., 

yellowfin tuna, swordfish, dolphin, 

wahoo, etc.) being landed on pelagic 

longline vessels. After purchasing the 

camera and having it installed, expenses 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71581 

would be limited to the variable costs 

listed. This alternative would result in 

direct and indirect adverse economic 

impacts to pelagic longline vessel 

owners in the short and long term. 

NMFS is minimizing the economic 

impacts of this alternative by paying for 

the initial installation of the equipment, 

as well as for some of the variable costs 

such as review of the data. 

Alternative D 3—Automated Catch 

Reporting 

The preferred alternative D 3 would 

require Atlantic Tunas General, 

Harpoon and HMS Charter/Headboat 

permit holders to report their bluefin 

catch (i.e., landings and discards) using 

an expanded version of the bluefin 

recreational automated landings 

reporting system (ALRS). The 

automated system includes two 

reporting options, one that is web-based 

and an interactive voice response 

telephone system. The ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative is not preferred because it 

would not meet the Amendment 7 

objectives, and would have no social or 

economic impacts. 

The primary impacts of the preferred 

alternative are the amount of time the 

new reporting requirement would take, 

and the reporting costs, respectively. 

NMFS estimated the potential annual 

catch for each permit category based on 

previous years data and multiplied it by 

the 5 minutes it takes to complete a 

report (NMFS 2013) for each fish to 

estimate a total reporting burden of 607 

hours for potentially 8,226 permit 

holders as a result of this alternative. 

Since the data are collected online or 

via telephone, there are no monetary 

costs to fishermen or direct economic 

impacts to fishermen from this 

alternative. 

Adjustments to both the online and 

IVR systems of the ALRS to implement 

catch reporting for General, Harpoon, 

and HMS Charter/Headboat category 

permit holders are estimated to cost 

NMFS a total of between $15,000 and 

$35,000 (B. McHale, pers. comm.) 

Annual maintenance would likely cost 

approximately $8,700 per year, which is 

the current cost for maintaining the 

ALRS and the call-in system for reports 

of other recreational HMS landings 

(NMFS 2013). The economic impacts of 

this alternative are minimized because 

the online reporting requirement results 

in a relatively low reporting burden. 

Alternative D 4—Deployment of 

Observers 

Under alternative D 4a, the No Action 

alternative, which is the preferred 

alternative, there would be no changes 

to the current observer coverage in the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, Purse 

Seine, Harpoon, or HMS Charter/

Headboat categories. Therefore, there 

would be no additional cost to small 

businesses. 

Alternative D 4b would increase the 

level of NMFS-funded observers on a 

portion of trips by vessels fishing under 

the Atlantic Tunas Longline, General, 

Purse Seine, Harpoon, or HMS Charter/ 

Headboat categories. There might be 

some minor costs to vessel operators 

with the increased chance that they will 

be selected for observer coverage and 

will have to accommodate an observer. 

Alternative D 5—Logbook Requirement 

for Atlantic Tunas and HMS Category 

Permit Holders 

Alternative D 5, the No Action 

alternative, is preferred and would make 

no changes to the current logbook 

requirements applicable to any of the 

permit categories. It would have no 

economic impact on fishing vessel 

owners. 

Alternative D 5b would require the 

reporting of catch by Atlantic Tunas 

General, Harpoon, and HMS Charter/

Headboat category vessels targeting 

bluefin through submission of an HMS 

logbook to NMFS. The direct social and 

economic impacts of this non-preferred 

alternative include the amount of time 

to complete logbook forms and the cost 

of submission (i.e., mailing) for all 

fishermen permitted in the affected 

permit categories. These impacts would 

be minor, adverse, and long-term. A 

high-end proxy for the impacts of this 

alternative is the current reporting 

burden and cost for the entire HMS 

logbook program, which have been 

estimated for all commercial HMS 

fisheries (28,614 permits, NMFS 2011a). 

The annual reporting burden for the 

entire program is estimated at 36,189 

hours and costs are $94,779 for postage. 

A more refined estimate is 6,735 hours, 

which is based on the number of 

fishermen likely to conduct directed 

fishing trips for bluefin based on the 

total number of General, Charter/

Headboat, and Harpoon category permit 

holders in the states from Maine 

through South Carolina. This is likely 

also an over-estimate, since many 

General and Charter/Headboat permit 

holders in these states fish for yellowfin, 

or other tunas rather than bluefin, or, for 

Charter/Headboat permit holders, other 

HMS. NMFS estimates this alternative 

would have a total annual reporting 

burden of 16,526 hours and a cost of 

$8,263. 

Alternative D 6—Expand the Scope of 

the Large Pelagics Survey 

‘‘No Action’’ is the preferred 

alternative for the scope of the Large 

Pelagics Survey, and would have no 

social or economic impacts. The nonpreferred alternative would expand the 

Large Pelagics Survey to include May, 

November, and December, and add 

surveys to the states south of Virginia, 

including those bordering the Gulf of 

Mexico, in order to increase the amount 

of information available about the 

recreational bluefin fishery, and further 

refine recreational bluefin landings 

estimates. 

The direct economic impact of this 

non-preferred alternative is the amount 

of time that fishermen would expend 

participating in the survey. The impacts 

would be minor, adverse, and long-term. 

There are no financial costs to 

fishermen since the survey is conducted 

in person and over the phone, and there 

would be no direct economic impacts to 

fishermen for this alternative. NMFS 

estimates that the dockside survey takes 

5 minutes on average, the phone survey 

takes 8 minutes, and collection of 

supplemental biological information 

takes about 1 minute. Previously, NMFS 

estimated that annual implementation 

of the Large Pelagics Survey throughout 

Atlantic and Gulf coastal states using 

the current target sample-size of 7,870 

for the dockside survey, 10,780 for the 

phone survey and 1,500 for the 

biological survey would result in a 

reporting burden of 656 hours, 924 

hours, and 25 hours respectively, for a 

total reporting burden of 1,730 hours 

(NMFS 2011b). This estimate could be 

used as a high-end proxy for the 

reporting burden associated with this 

alternative. Another method for 

estimating the reporting burden 

associated with this alternative is to use 

a ratio comparing the sample frame (i.e., 

number of permits) used in the 

coastwide estimate with the sample 

frame for the alternative (i.e., number of 

permits in states south of VA). Using 

this method, the reporting burden 

estimate is 559 hours. Because of the 

sampling design, adding the months of 

May, November, and December is not 

expected to add any reporting burden or 

cost (Ron Salz, pers. comm.). 

Other Measures 

Alternative E 1—Modify General 

Category Subquota Allocations 

If no action is taken under Alternative 

E 1a to modify the General category subperiod allocations, economic impacts 

would be neutral and largely would 

vary by geographic area, with continued 

higher potential revenues during the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71582 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

summer months in the northeast and 

lower amounts to winter fishery 

participants off the mid- and south 

Atlantic states. General category 

participants that fish in the January 

bluefin fishery may continue to perceive 

a disadvantage as the available quota for 

that period is relatively small (5.3% of 

the General category quota) and they do 

not benefit from the rollover of unused 

quota either inseason or from one time 

period to the next. Nor do they benefit 

from prior-year underharvest, because of 

the timing of the annual final quota 

specifications (published in the middle 

of the year). 

Alternative E 1b would establish a 12 

equal monthly subquotas. It would 

allow the General category to remain 

open year-round, and would revise 

subquotas so that they are evenly 

distributed throughout the year (i.e., the 

base quota of 435.1 mt would be divided 

into monthly subquotas of 8.3 percent of 

the General category base quota, or 36.1 

mt). NMFS would continue to carry 

forward unharvested General category 

quota from one time period to the next 

time period. This alternative would 

result in increased harvest in the earlier 

portions of the General category bluefin 

season and decreased harvest in the 

later portions of the season. For early 

season (January–March) General 

category participants, an additional 85.2 

mt would be available (i.e., 108.3–23.1 

mt). At $9.13/lb, this represents a 

potential increase in revenue of 

approximately $1.7 million overall 

during this time period, nearly five 

times the current amount. NMFS does 

not have General category price/lb 

information for April or May since there 

is currently no General category fishing 

during those months, but using $9.13/lb 

as an estimate, potential revenues for 

each of those months would be 

$726,621. Potential revenues for the 

current June–August and September 

periods would decrease by 

approximately $2.2 million (50%) and 

$1.7 million (69%), given recent average 

price ($9.13 and $9.61, respectively). 

For October–November and for 

December, potential revenues would 

increase by approximately $317,000 

(28%) and $287,000 (60%) at $9.21/lb 

and $9.65/lb, respectively. Relative to 

the No Action alternative, under 

Alternative E 1b, there would generally 

be substantially increased revenues for 

January through May and October 

through December and substantially 

decreased revenues for June through 

September, and total annual revenues 

would decrease by approximately 

$100,000 (1%). 

Alternative E 1c, a preferred 

alternative, is similar to Alternative E 1b 

and could result in a shift in the 

distribution of quota and thus fishing 

opportunities to the earlier portion of 

the year. For example, in 2011 and 

2012, June through August General 

category landings totaled 140.3 mt and 

192.2 mt, out of an available (base) 

quota of 217.6 mt. In 2010, June through 

August General category landings 

totaled 125.4 mt of an available 

(adjusted) quota of 269.4 mt. If quota 

that is anticipated to be unused in the 

first part of the summer season is made 

available to January period General 

category participants and bluefin are 

landed against the January period 

subquota, it would potentially result in 

improved and fuller use of the General 

category quota. Also, because bluefin 

price per lb is often higher in the 

January period than during the summer, 

shifting quota to this earlier period 

would result in beneficial impacts to 

early season General category 

participants off the mid- and south 

Atlantic states. It is possible, however, 

that an increase of bluefin on the market 

in the January period could reduce the 

average price for that time of year. 

Participants in the summer fishery may 

perceive such quota transfer to be a shift 

away from historical participants in the 

traditional General category bluefin 

fishing areas off New England and thus 

adverse. However, because unused 

quota rolls forward within a calendar 

year from one period to the next, any 

unused quota from the adjusted January 

period would return to the June through 

August period and onward if not used 

completely during that period. Overall, 

short-term, direct impacts depend on 

the amount and timing of quota 

transferred inseason and would be 

expected to be neutral to minor, 

beneficial for January fishery 

participants and neutral to minor, 

adverse impacts for participants in the 

June through December General 

category fishery. This alternative 

minimizes economic impacts by 

providing additional regulatory 

flexibility for NMFS to transfer quota 

among seasons, and respond to and 

adapt to changes in the bluefin fishery. 

This flexibility therefore enhances 

NMFS’ ability to optimize quota 

distribution among participants, 

seasons, and regions. 

Alternative E 2—NMFS Authority To 

Adjust Harpoon Category Retention 

Limits Inseason 

Under the No Action alternative, 

alternative E 2a, Harpoon category 

participants would continue to have the 

ability to retain and land up to four 

large medium fish per vessel per day, as 

well as unlimited giants. The economic 

impact of the No Action alternative is 

expected to be direct and neutral to 

slightly beneficial and short-term, as 

participants would continue to be able 

to retain and land a 3rd and 4th large 

medium bluefin, if available, and would 

not have to discard these fish if caught 

while targeting giant bluefin. In 2012, 

the first year following implementation 

of the four-fish limit on large mediums, 

there were only two trips on which 

three large mediums were landed and 

two trips on which four large mediums 

were landed, or 6% total of successful 

trips. Harpoon quota revenues in 2012 

were 24 percent lower than 2011 and 71 

percent higher than in 2010. 

Under alternative E 2b, a preferred 

alternative, the daily retention limit of 

large medium bluefin would range from 

two to four bluefin, and the default large 

medium limit would be set at two fish. 

On a per-trip basis, there would be 

minor short-term direct adverse social 

and economic impacts that would 

depend on availability of large mediums 

to Harpoon category vessels on a per 

trip basis and the actual retention limit 

that NMFS sets inseason (or that is in 

place by default). Looking at successful 

2012 trips, NMFS can estimate potential 

impacts of this change by determining 

the number of trips on which three or 

four large mediums were landed in 

2012, and assume that those fish may 

not be able to be landed under this 

alternative. Using 2012 successful trip 

data, if the limit was set at two large 

mediums, the revenue from up to six 

large mediums would be foregone for 

the season, and with a three fish limit, 

the revenue of up to two large mediums 

would be foregone. At an average 2012 

weight of 296 lbs. and an average price 

of $9.13/lb for the Harpoon category, a 

loss of one to six fish would be 

approximately $2,702 to $16,215 for the 

Harpoon category as a whole for the 

year. 

Potentially beneficial economic 

impacts are possible if a lower limit at 

the beginning of the season results in 

the Harpoon category quota lasting 

longer into the season, as the average 

price/lb is generally higher in July and 

August than it is in June. NMFS has not 

needed to close the Harpoon category in 

recent years (i.e., as a result of the quota 

being met), but depending on the size of 

the amount of quota available and the 

number of Harpoon category 

participants, this may be a 

consideration. This alternative 

minimizes economic impacts by 

providing additional regulatory 

flexibility for NMFS to set bluefin trip 

limits, and respond to and adapt to 

changes in the bluefin fishery. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71583 

Alternative E 3—Angling Category 

Subquota Distribution 

Under alternative E 3a, the No Action 

alternative, Angling category 

participants fishing south of 39°18′ N. 

lat. (approximately, Great Egg Inlet, NJ) 

would continue to have their landings 

of trophy bluefin count toward a shared 

66.7% of the Angling category large 

medium and giant bluefin subquota. 

The social impact of the No Action 

alternative is expected to vary by 

geographic area and be dependent on 

the availability of trophy-sized bluefin 

on the fishing grounds. If the pattern of 

high activity off Virginia and North 

Carolina continues, fishermen in the 

mid-Atlantic may have greater 

opportunities to land a bluefin and 

participants in the Gulf of Mexico may 

have no opportunity to land a bluefin 

when the fish are in their area as the 

southern trophy fishery may already be 

closed for the year. For Angling and 

Charter/Headboat fishermen, based on 

the last two years, there would be direct, 

beneficial, short-term social impacts in 

the mid-Atlantic and direct, adverse, 

short-term impacts for participants 

south of that area, including the Gulf of 

Mexico. The issue of economic costs for 

Angling category participants is not 

relevant as there is no sale of tunas by 

Angling category participants. For 

charter vessels, which sell fishing trips 

to recreational fishermen, economic 

impacts are expected to be neutral to 

beneficial for those in the mid-Atlantic 

and neutral to adverse for those south of 

that area, including the Gulf of Mexico, 

as the perceived opportunity to land a 

trophy bluefin may be diminished. This 

should be tempered in the Gulf of 

Mexico, where there is no directed 

fishing for bluefin allowed. Given that 

the current southern trophy bluefin 

subquota of 2.8 mt represents 

approximately 17–30 individual fish, 

impacts are expected to be minor. 

Under Alternative E 3b, the preferred 

alternative, a portion of the trophy south 

subquota would be allocated 

specifically for the Gulf of Mexico. 

Specifically, the trophy subquota would 

be divided as 33% each to the northern 

area, the southern area outside the Gulf 

of Mexico, and the Gulf of Mexico. At 

the current average trophy fish weight, 

this would allow annually up to 8 

trophy bluefin to be landed in each of 

the three areas. 

There would be minor, short-term, 

direct, beneficial social impacts to a 

small number of vessels in the Gulf of 

Mexico given the small amount of fish 

that would be allowed to be landed (as 

well as indirect beneficial economic 

impacts for charter vessels), but the 

perception of greater fairness among 

southern area participants may result in 

indirect, longer-term, beneficial, social 

impacts. There would be minor, shortterm, direct and indirect adverse social 

impacts (and economic impacts for 

charter vessels) for those outside the 

Gulf of Mexico as the perceived 

opportunity to land a trophy bluefin 

may be diminished. 

Alternative E 4—Change Start Date of 

Purse Seine Category to June 1 

Under Alternative E 4a, the No Action 

alternative, there would be no change to 

the start date of the Purse Seine category 

fishery, which is currently set at July 15. 

Economic impacts would be expected to 

be direct and neutral to adverse 

depending on availability of schools of 

bluefin for purse seine operators to 

decide to make a set on. That is, 

currently, if conditions would warrant 

making a set (e.g., based on information 

from spotter pilots) before July 15, purse 

seine operators would not be able to fish 

and would miss the economic 

opportunity to land and sell bluefin 

while the other commercial bluefin 

fisheries are open. Social impacts would 

be minor and neutral to adverse for 

purse seine fishery participants and 

would be minor and neutral to 

beneficial for fishermen in other 

categories due to reduced actual or 

perceived gear conflict from June 1 

through July 14. 

Under the preferred alternative, E 4b, 

extending the range of potential start 

dates for the Purse Seine fishery, 

beginning fishing on June 1, would 

allow NMFS more flexibility in 

determining when the appropriate start 

date should be set, and the potential for 

increased flexibility for purse seine 

operators to choose when to fish, based 

on availability of schools of appropriatesized bluefin and market price. 

Economic impacts would be expected to 

be direct and neutral to moderate and 

beneficial depending on when 

determines the start date should be, and 

depending upon the availability of 

schools of bluefin for purse seine 

operators to decide to make a set on and 

market conditions. Social impacts 

would be minor and neutral to 

beneficial for purse seine fishery 

participants and would be minor and 

neutral to adverse for fishermen in other 

categories due to increased actual or 

perceived gear conflict from June 1 

through July 14. In 2012, the average 

price per pound was $12.46, although 

the price likely reflects the relatively 

small amount of purse seine-caught 

bluefin on the market that year. In 2009, 

the last year in which there were 

Atlantic purse seine bluefin landings, 

the average price per pound was $5.96. 

NMFS minimized the potential 

economic impacts of this alternative by 

altering this measure from that which 

was proposed, to remove the default 

start date of June 1, which was of 

concern to handgear fishermen, but 

instead will finalize an expanded range 

of potential start dates to the Purse 

Seine fishery. 

Alternative E 5—Rule Regarding Permit 

Category Changes 

Under the No Action alternative, E 5a, 

there would be no changes made to 

current regulations regarding the ability 

of an applicant to make a correction to 

their open-access HMS permit category. 

The current regulations prohibit a vessel 

issued an open-access Atlantic Tunas or 

an HMS permit from changing the 

category of the permit after 10 calendar 

days from the date of issuance. This No 

Action alternative is administrative in 

nature, and therefore the social and 

economic impacts associated with it 

would be neutral for most applicants. 

However, for those applicants who 

discover their permit category may not 

allow the vessel to fish in a manner as 

intended, they may experience 

moderate adverse social and economic 

impacts at an individual level. For 

example, if a commercial fishermen 

obtained an Angling category permit 

(recreational) versus a General category 

permit (commercial) and did not 

discover the error until after the 10 

calendar day window, their vessel 

would not be allowed to fish 

commercially for Atlantic tunas for the 

remainder of that year. Likewise, if 

recreational fishermen obtained a 

General category permit (commercial) 

versus an Angling category permit 

(commercial) and did not discover the 

error until after the 10 calendar 

window, their vessel would not be 

allowed to fish under the recreational 

rules and regulations for the remainder 

of the year. These two examples 

demonstrate the potential in lost fishing 

opportunities as a result of the No 

Action alternative. 

Under the preferred alternative, E 5b, 

NMFS would allow category changes to 

an open-access HMS permit for a time 

period greater than 10 calendar days 

(e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days), provided the 

vessel has not fished as verified via 

landings data. This alternative would 

result in neutral social and economic 

impacts for most applicants as there are 

approximately 20 requests annually that 

would fall outside the 10 calendar day 

window. However, those applicants 

who discover their permit category may 

not allow the vessel to fish in a manner 

as intended (∼20 per year), would 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71584 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

experience moderate beneficial social 

and economic impacts provided they 

discover the error in the liberalized 

window (e.g., 30, 45, or 60 days). Using 

the two examples illustrated above and 

assuming no bluefin were caught in 

either case, each applicant would be 

allowed to correct their open-access 

HMS permit category to match their 

intended fishing practices for the 

remainder of that year, thereby 

mitigating the potential of lost fishing 

opportunities, as well as potential 

income. 

Alternative E 6—North Atlantic 

Albacore Tuna Quota 

Alternative E 6a, the No Action 

alternative, maintains the current 

northern albacore tuna quota. In the last 

10 years, U.S. catches reached or 

exceeded the current U.S. initial quota 

(527 mt for 2013) in 2004 with 646 mt 

and in 2007 with 532 mt. However, 

catches have been less than the adjusted 

U.S. quotas (currently about 659 mt) for 

the last several years. Under the No 

Action alternative, there is no domestic 

mechanism to limit annual catches of 

northern albacore beyond the current 

requirements for Atlantic tunas or HMS 

vessel permits, authorized gear, 

observers/logbooks, and time/area 

closures. Therefore, expected shortterm, direct economic impacts and 

social impacts under the No Action 

alternative would be neutral. If future 

overharvests result in the United States 

being out of compliance with the ICCAT 

recommendation, the United States 

would need to put control measures in 

place and neutral to adverse longer-term 

direct economic and social impacts 

could occur if the resulting annual 

quota needs to be reduced by the 

amount of the overharvest. 

If, under preferred alternative, E 6b, 

NMFS implements a domestic quota for 

northern albacore and recent catch 

levels continue, and the U.S. quota 

(including the adjusted quota) 

recommended by ICCAT is maintained 

at the current amount, economic and 

social impacts would not be expected. 

However, if either the U.S. quota is 

reduced as part of a new TAC 

recommendation or catches increase 

above the current adjusted U.S. quota, 

there could be adverse impacts resulting 

from reduced future fishing 

opportunities and ex-vessel revenues. 

At an average price of $1.29/lb for 

commercially-landed albacore in 2011, a 

reduction of one mt would represent 

approximately $2,800 under a full quota 

use situation. Actual impacts would 

largely depend on the availability of 

northern albacore and the ability of 

fishery participants to harvest the quota. 

In addition, any adverse social and 

economic impacts of exceeding the 

TAC, which was adopted as part of the 

overall ICCAT northern albacore 

rebuilding program, would be reduced 

and, in the long term, may be beneficial 

for fishermen as the stock grows. There 

may be slight differences in the level of 

economic and social impacts 

experienced by the specific individuals 

of the northern albacore fishery, as well 

as by participants within a particular 

fishery sector. 

NMFS has determined that 

Amendment 7 does not require 

reinitiation of consultation and that, per 

ESA section 7(d), it would not result in 

an ‘‘irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources’’ that would 

have the effect of foreclosing the 

formulation or implementation of any 

reasonable and prudent alternative 

measures during the ongoing 

consultations. 

On March 31, 2014, NMFS reinitiated 

consultation for the pelagic longline 

fishery. That fishery operates consistent 

with a 2004 Biological Opinion (BiOp) 

that concluded that the Atlantic pelagic 

longline fishery was not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp’s 

ridley or olive ridley sea turtles but was 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of leatherback sea turtles. 

NMFS implemented the Reasonable and 

Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) and Terms 

and Conditions specified in that BiOp 

(e.g., hook type, bait type, mandatory 

workshops). On March 31, 2014, NMFS 

requested reinitiation of consultation of 

the pelagic longline BiOp due to new 

information on mortality rates and total 

mortality estimates for leatherback 

turtles that exceed those specified in the 

RPAs, changes in information about 

leatherback and loggerhead populations, 

and new information on sea turtle 

mortality. While the mortality rate 

measure needs to be re-evaluated, this 

does not affect the overall ability of the 

RPAs to avoid jeopardy during the 

reinitiation. 

NMFS is continuing to implement 

these RPAs during the ongoing 

consultation and has previously 

determined that ongoing operations in 

compliance with that BiOp are 

consistent with sections 7(a)(2) and 7(d) 

of the ESA. 

Implementation of this final rule will 

not affect NMFS’ ability to comply with 

the RPAs and RPMs in the 2004 BiOp, 

and will not trigger additional ESA 

requirements or considerations 

pertaining to the pelagic longline fishery 

and listed sea turtles and other species 

covered in the 2004 BiOp. Amendment 

7 measures (including those that could 

reduce fishing effort) implemented in 

conjunction with current measures in 

the HMS fisheries would not change the 

determination that ongoing operations 

are unlikely 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. A complete 

discussion of the effect of the 

alternatives applicable to the Longline 

category on quota allocation and fishing 

effort is located in Section 4.1.6.1 of the 

FEIS. 

On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a 

final rule to list four Distinct 

Populations Segments (DPS) of 

scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna 

lewini): Two as threatened (Central and 

Southwest Atlantic DPS and Indo-West 

Pacific DPS) and two as endangered 

(Eastern Atlantic DPS and Eastern 

Pacific DPS) under the Endangered 

Species Act (79 FR 38214). The Central 

and Southwest Atlantic DPS consists 

primarily of the population found in the 

Caribbean Sea and off the Atlantic coast 

of Central and South America (includes 

all waters of the Caribbean Sea, 

including the U.S. EEZ off Puerto Rico 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands). 

On August 27, 2014, NMFS published 

a final rule to list the following 20 coral 

species as threatened: Five in the 

Caribbean including Florida and the 

Gulf of Mexico (Dendrogyra cylindrus, 

Orbicella annularis, Orbicella faveolata, 

Orbicella franksi, and Mycetophyllia 

ferox); and 15 in the Indo-Pacific 

(Acropora globiceps, Acropora 

jacquelineae, Acropora lokani, 

Acropora pharaonis, Acropora retusa, 

Acropora rudis, Acropora speciosa, 

Acropora tenella, Anacropora spinosa, 

Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora 

crateriformis, Montipora australiensis, 

Pavona diffluens, Porites napopora, and 

Seriatopora aculeata). Additionally, in 

that August 2014 rule, two species that 

had been previously listed as threatened 

(Acropora cervicornis and Acropora 

palmata) in the Caribbean were found to 

still warrant listing as threatened. 

The Central and Southwest Atlantic 

DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks 

and seven Caribbean species of corals 

occur within the management area of 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species 

(HMS) commercial and recreational 

fisheries which are managed by NMFS’s 

Office of Sustainable Fisheries, HMS 

Management Division. Following these 

listings and based on the information 

included in an October 2014 biological 

evaluation, NMFS determined that 

certain authorized Atlantic HMS gear 

types may affect and are likely to 

adversely affect scalloped hammerhead 

sharks within the Central and 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71585 

Southwest Atlantic DPS. Additionally, 

certain authorized Atlantic HMS gear 

types may affect, but are not likely to 

adversely affect, threatened Caribbean 

coral species. Thus, on October 30, 

2014, NMFS requested reinitiation of 

ESA section 7 consultation for the 2006 

Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery 

Management Plan activities, as amended 

and as previously consulted on in the 

2001 Atlantic HMS biological opinion 

and the 2012 Shark and Smoothhound 

biological opinion, to assess potential 

adverse effects of certain gear types on 

the Central and Southwest DPS of 

scalloped hammerhead sharks and 

seven threatened coral species. 

With regard to the new listings, per 

ESA section 7(d), NMFS has determined 

that Amendment 7 would not result in 

an ‘‘irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources’’ that would 

have the effect of foreclosing the 

formulation or implementation of any 

reasonable and prudent alternative 

measures during the ongoing 

consultations. There are scalloped 

hammerhead shark interactions in the 

Central and Southwest Atlantic DPS, 

based on Fisheries Logbook System and 

Pelagic Observer Program data. The 

number of interactions is consistent 

with the conclusion that scalloped 

hammerhead sharks in the Central and 

Southwest Atlantic DPS are rarely 

targeted and that recreational fishing 

results in catch and release of low 

numbers of under-sized scalloped 

hammerhead sharks. Additionally, 

Atlantic HMS gear types may affect but 

are not likely to adversely affect, 

threatened Caribbean coral species. 

This final rule contains a collectionof-information requirement subject to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and 

which has been approved by OMB 

under control numbers 0648–0372, 

0648–0328, and 0648–0677. Public 

reporting burden for these collections of 

information are estimated to average, as 

follows: 

1. Purse Seine VMS hail out & in, 

OMB # 0648–0372, (5 min/response); 

2. Pelagic Longline (PLL) and Purse 

Seine (PS) VMS catch reports and 

verification, OMB # 0648–0372, (5 min/ 

response for PLL; 15 min for PS) 

3. Electronic Monitoring of Pelagic 

Longline Vessels, Data Retrieval, OMB 

# 0648–0328, (5 min/response) 

4. General, Harpoon, and Charter/

Headboat reporting via automated 

systems, OMB # 0648–0328, (5 min/

response) 

5. Pelagic Longline appeal of 

Performance Metrics, OMB # 0648– 

0677, (2 hr/response) 

6. Pelagic Longline appeal of Quota 

Shares, OMB # 0648–0677, (2 hr/

response) 

7. Pelagic Longline and Purse Seine 

IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, 

Transfer of Allocation, OMB # 0648– 

0677, (2 min/response) 

8. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, 

Online Account Initial Application, 

OMB # 0648–0677, (10 min/response) 

9. IBQ Trade Execution and Tracking, 

Online Account Renewal Application, 

OMB # 0648–0677, (10 min/response) 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare a FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity 

compliance guides.’’ The agency shall 

explain the actions a small entity is 

required to take to comply with a rule 

or group of rules. Copies of this final 

rule and the compliance guide are 

available upon request from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). Copies of the compliance 

guide will also be available from the 

Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division Web site at http://

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

This final rule does not conflict, 

duplicate, or overlap with other relevant 

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

Fishermen, dealers, and managers in 

these fisheries must comply with a 

number of international agreements, 

domestic laws, and other FMPs. These 

include, but are not limited to, the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the ACTA, 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 

Coastal Zone Management Act. We do 

not believe that the new regulations 

duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any 

relevant regulations, Federal or 

otherwise. 

The State of Louisiana objected to the 

consistency determination required by 

15 CFR 930.39, and stated that the 

potential biological benefits of the 

Amendment are minimal compared to 

the potentially large socio-economic 

impacts for pelagic longline vessels, 

especially those related to the IBQ 

program. The State of Louisiana also 

disagreed with the conclusion that the 

proposed activity is consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

LCRP, claiming that the determination 

lacks information sufficient to support 

the consistency statement ‘‘as required 

by federal regulations at 15 CFR 

930.39(a) and as identified in the 

enforceable policies of the Louisiana 

Administrative Code, Title 43, Part I.’’ 

The State of Louisiana states that 

Amendment 7 is inconsistent with 

three, and is not fully consistent with 

six, of the enforceable policies of the 

Louisiana Administrative Code and 

states that Amendment 7 lacks 

comprehensive data and information 

sufficient to support the consistency 

statement. The specific factors of section 

701 of the Louisiana Administrative 

Code that the State of Louisiana states 

are not fully consistent with 

Amendment 7 are Section 701 F(5), 

availability of feasible alternative sites 

or methods of implementing the use; 

F(7) economic need for use and extent 

of impacts of use on economy of 

locality; F(11) extent of impacts on 

existing and traditional uses of the area 

and on future uses for which the area is 

suited; F(16) proximity to and extent of 

impacts on public lands or works, or 

historic, recreational, or cultural 

resources; F(17) extent of impacts on 

navigation, fishing, public access, and 

recreational opportunities; and F(19) 

extent of long term benefit or adverse 

impacts. 

After reviewing these concerns and, 

in accordance with the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) regulations at 

15 CFR 930.43(d)(2), NMFS has 

concluded that the proposed action is 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the LCRP, as noted below, though the 

State of Louisiana objects. Specifics on 

this conclusion are as follows. 

Regarding factor F(5), there are no 

alternative sites for implementing the 

use of pelagic longline fishing within 

the Gulf of Mexico—pelagic longline 

fishing already occurs within all 

available federal and state waters. As 

noted below, alternative methods of 

reducing dead discards that were 

analyzed included group or regional 

quotas and would have had more 

adverse impacts than the preferred 

alternative. Regarding factor F(7), the 

State of Louisiana correctly states that 

pelagic longline fishing is an important 

economic activity contributing to the 

Louisiana economy. Pelagic longline 

fishing will continue to be authorized 

within the Gulf of Mexico, and valuable 

target species such as swordfish and 

yellowfin tuna are abundant in the 

region such that, should pelagic 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71586 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

longline vessels continue to offload to 

Louisiana-based federal dealers, pelagic 

longline fishing will continue to 

contribute to the Louisiana economy. 

Regarding factor F(11), as stated 

above, pelagic longline fishing will 

continue to be authorized within the 

Gulf of Mexico such that existing and 

traditional uses as well as future uses of 

the area will continue. Therefore, NMFS 

believes that the proposed action is 

consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the LCRP. 

Regarding factor F(16), productive 

fishing grounds will still be available for 

pelagic longline fishing within the Gulf 

of Mexico even with the preferred 

alternative that would implement the 

Modified Spring Gulf of Mexico GRAs. 

As noted in Chapter 4 of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 

with redistribution of effort, NMFS 

anticipates a reduction of approximately 

$281,000 in ex-vessel value from 

implementing the preferred alternative, 

which, while approximately 3 percent 

of the Gulf of Mexico pelagic longline 

fleet total ex-vessel value of $9.74 

million, means that roughly 97 percent 

of ex-vessel value within the Gulf of 

Mexico will continue to contribute to 

the State of Louisiana economy. 

Therefore, NMFS believes that the 

proposed action is consistent to the 

maximum extent practicable with the 

enforceable policies of the LCRP. 

Regarding factor F(17), the preferred 

alternative to implement the Modified 

Spring Gulf of Mexico GRA would 

restrict access to two additional areas 

within the Gulf of Mexico where bluefin 

bycatch has consistently occurred from 

2006–2012 and which comprise 

approximately 11 percent of the area. In 

combination with the DeSoto Canyon 

pelagic longline closed areas, which 

were closed to reduce bycatch of 

juvenile swordfish and overfished 

billfish and coastal sharks, and other 

applicable HMS pelagic longline closed 

areas, approximately 25 percent of the 

Gulf of Mexico is restricted to pelagic 

longline gear. While these measures 

impact pelagic longline fishing, other 

fishing activities, navigation, public 

access, and recreational opportunities 

would remain unaffected. Therefore, 

NMFS believes that the proposed action 

is consistent to the maximum extent 

practicable with the enforceable policies 

of the LCRP. 

Regarding factor F(19), 

implementation of Amendment 7 

measures would provide different 

benefits and adverse impacts for the 

pelagic longline fleet within the Gulf of 

Mexico depending on the measure. The 

preferred Codified and Annual 

Reallocation alternatives would provide 

short and long term benefits to the 

pelagic longline fishery through an 

increased codified quota of 62 mt in 

addition to potential for additional 

quota as a result of the annual 

reallocation alternative. Implementation 

of IBQs, as noted above, would provide 

approximately 75 percent of pelagic 

longline vessels an allocation sufficient 

for reported bluefin interactions. A 

portion of Louisiana homeported vessels 

would likely need to lease additional 

bluefin quota or modify fishing behavior 

to reduce bluefin interactions, although 

implementation of the Modified Spring 

Gulf of Mexico GRAs would limit access 

to areas of high bluefin interactions, 

thereby likely reducing bluefin 

interactions without additional changes 

by fishermen. Therefore, NMFS believes 

that the proposed action is consistent to 

the maximum extent practicable with 

the enforceable policies of the LCRP. 

The State of Louisiana also states that 

Amendment 7 is inconsistent with the 

enforceable policies of the Lousiana 

Administrative Code’s Section 701G (2), 

adverse economic impacts on the 

locality of the used and affected 

governmental bodies; (6), adverse 

disruption of existing social patterns; 

and (10), adverse effects of cumulative 

impacts. 

Regarding factors G(2) and (6), the 

implementation of Amendment 7 

measures would provide different 

benefits and adverse impacts for the 

pelagic longline fleet within the Gulf of 

Mexico depending on the measure. 

While some impacts are expected to be 

short-and long-term moderate adverse 

impacts, NMFS has balanced the overall 

impacts to the pelagic longline fleet as 

well as other user groups to achieve 

Amendment 7 objectives in a fair and 

appropriate manner, and as described in 

Chapters 5, 7, and 8 of the FEIS, has 

minimized adverse social and economic 

impacts to the extent practicable, 

consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, and CZMA. Providing 

additional codified quota as well as the 

potential of additional quota through 

annual reallocation, in combination 

with GRAs where bluefin interactions 

have been historically high and IBQs 

that provide 75 percent of the fleet with 

sufficient quota to continue current 

fishing practices- balances the need to 

reduce dead discards with providing 

fishing opportunities to all user groups. 

The adverse impacts to 13 Louisiana 

homeported vessels that would likely 

need to lease approximately 7 metric 

tons of bluefin are warranted given the 

long-term benefits to the overall pelagic 

longline fleet under the combination of 

all preferred alternatives. 

Regarding G(10), the Gulf of Mexico 

pelagic longline fleet is a heavily 

regulated fishery and has experienced 

several natural and man-made adverse 

impacts as well as regulatory changes in 

recent years. Several regulatory 

measures have been implemented to 

reduce bycatch of threatened or 

endangered species (i.e., circle hooks in 

2004) and overfished species such as 

bluefin (e.g., weak hooks in 2011) or 

coastal sharks (i.e., sandbar sharks in 

2008 and scalloped hammerhead sharks 

in 2013). These measures often have 

short term adverse impacts but are 

ultimately needed for the sustainability 

of the fishery in the long term. In each 

of these actions, NMFS has minimized 

adverse impacts to the extent 

practicable while still meeting 

conservation objectives, consistent with 

applicable law. 

Furthermore, the FEIS analysis 

demonstrates that NMFS utilized many 

of the factors cited by the State of 

Louisiana as lacking in NMFS’s 

evaluation. Specifically, NMFS used the 

best available logbook, dealer, and 

observer data, conducted vessel-specific 

analyses for preferred alternatives on 

gear restricted areas and IBQ measures, 

and relied on relevant recent scientific 

information. NMFS also explored the 

availability of alternative methods of 

achieving the Amendment 7 objectives, 

and considered the economic impacts, 

as well as the long term benefits of the 

measures. The alternative methods to 

reduce dead discards of no action or 

group or regional quotas would have 

more adverse impacts and be less 

effective in achieving Amendment 7 

objectives to reduce dead discards and 

maximize fishing opportunity. The 

design of the IBQ management measures 

and other aspects of Amendment 7 

minimize the significant adverse 

economic impacts, disruption of social 

patterns, and adverse cumulative 

impacts, to the extent practicable, 

relative to other methods analyzed 

while also meeting Amendment 7 

objectives. 

As explained in Chapter 5 of the 

FEISit includes limited state specific 

analyses of the impacts of the preferred 

codified and IBQ measures. Due to the 

nature of the bluefin fisheries (widely 

distributed and highly variable), the 

FEIS analyses are principally at a 

fishery-wide, or permit category level. 

The IBQ analyses show that 

approximately 75 percent of the pelagic 

longline fleet would receive an initial 

allocation that would be consistent with 

their historical reported landings such 

that they would be able to continue to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71587 

operate without having to acquire 

additional quota. Under the preferred 

137 mt alternative (see Table 5.26), the 

total additional amount of quota needed 

to continue fishing at historical levels is 

estimated to total 51.3 metric tons 

across all the vessels needing additional 

quota. Many vessels, however, would 

not need their full initial IBQ allocation 

to continue fishing at their historic 

levels. The total of this surplus quota 

across all vessels likely not fully use 

their initial IBQ allocation is estimated 

to be 82.8 mt in the context of the 

preferred 137 mt alternative. The total 

surplus of quota exceeds the total 

amount needed under the preferred 137 

mt alternative, so the transfer of quota 

among pelagic longline vessels should 

reduce potential economic impacts of 

the IBQ program. 

The states with the largest amount of 

additional IBQ needed include 

Louisiana, New York, and Florida, 

while vessels with home ports in 

Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana 

would have the most surplus quota 

available to trade. Specific to pelagic 

longline vessels homeported in 

Louisiana, NMFS estimates that 

approximately 12 vessels would receive 

an initial allocation either at or above 

their historical reported landings and 

would have approximately 10.4 mt of 

surplus allocation. Conversely, 

approximately 13 vessels would need 

additional quota of 17.4 mt to maintain 

current fishing practices. Therefore, the 

total quota need among State of 

Louisiana homeported vessels would be 

7 mt. Vessels may change their fishing 

practices such that the amount of quota 

they need is reduced or they may be 

able to lease quota from other vessels 

with surplus quota. Therefore, the 

adverse impacts to State of Louisiana 

homeported vessels would be 

minimized to the extent practicable 

while still meeting the objectives of 

Amendment 7. 

List of Subjects 

15 CFR Part 902 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

50 CFR Part 635 

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, 

Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: November 21, 2014. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR 

part 635 are amended as follows: 

Title 15—Commerce and Foreign Trade 

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION 

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER 

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: 

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 902 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 350 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 902.1, the table in paragraph (b) 

under 50 CFR is amended by adding 

new entries in numerical order for 

§§ 635.5(a)(4), 635.9(e), 635.14(d), 

635.15(a)(2), (c)(2) and (k)(4), and 

635.69(a) and (e)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned 

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

CFR Part or 

section where the 

information 

collection 

requirement is 

located 

Current OMB control 

number (all numbers 

begin with 0648–) 

* * * * * 

50 CFR: ........................................

* * * * * 

635.5(a)(4) ..... –0328 

* * * * * 

635.9(e) ......... –0328 

635.14(d) ....... –0677 

635.15(a)(2), 

(c)(2) and 

(k)(4) .......... –0677 

* * * * * 

635.69(a) and 

(e)(4) .......... –0372 

* * * * * 

Title 50—Wildlife and Fisheries 

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 § 635.2: 

■ a. Revise the definitions of ‘‘Bottom 

longline,’’ ‘‘Green-stick gear,’’ and 

‘‘Pelagic longline,’’ and 

■ b. Add the definitions of ‘‘Cape 

Hatteras gear restricted area,’’ ‘‘In 

transit,’’ ‘‘Spring Gulf of Mexico gear 

restricted area,’’ and ‘‘Transiting’’ in 

alphabetical order. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 635.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Bottom longline means a longline that 

is deployed with enough weights and/ 

or anchors to maintain contact with the 

ocean bottom. For the purposes of this 

part, a vessel is considered to have 

bottom longline gear on board when a 

power-operated longline hauler, a 

mainline, weights and/or anchors 

capable of maintaining contact between 

the mainline and the ocean bottom, and 

leaders (gangions) with hooks are on 

board. Removal of any of these elements 

constitutes removal of bottom longline 

gear. Bottom longline vessels may have 

a limited number of floats and/or high 

flyers onboard for the purposes of 

marking the location of the gear but 

removal of these floats does not 

constitute removal of bottom longline 

gear. 

* * * * * 

Cape Hatteras gear restricted area 

means the area within the Atlantic 

Ocean bounded by straight lines 

connecting the following coordinates in 

the order stated: 34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. 

long.; 35°40′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. long.; 

35°40′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long.; 37°10′ N. 

lat., 75°00′ W. long.; 37°10′ N. lat., 

74°20′ W. long.; 34°30′ N. lat., 74°20′ W. 

long.; 34°50′ N. lat., 75°00′ W. long; 

34°50′ N. lat., 75°10′ W. 

* * * * * 

Green-stick gear means an actively 

trolled mainline attached to a vessel and 

elevated or suspended above the surface 

of the water with no more than 10 hooks 

or gangions attached to the mainline. 

The suspended line, attached gangions 

and/or hooks, and catch may be 

retrieved collectively by hand or 

mechanical means. Green-stick does not 

constitute a pelagic longline or a bottom 

longline as defined in this section. 

In transit means non-stop progression 

through an area without any fishing 

activity occurring. 

* * * * * 

Pelagic longline means a longline that 

is suspended by floats in the water 

column and that is not fixed to or in 

contact with the ocean bottom. For the 

purposes of this part, a vessel is 

considered to have pelagic longline gear 

on board when a power-operated 

longline hauler, a mainline, floats 

capable of supporting the mainline, and 

leaders (gangions) with hooks are on 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71588 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

board. Removal of any of these elements 

constitutes removal of pelagic longline 

gear. 

* * * * * 

Spring Gulf of Mexico gear restricted 

area means two areas within the Gulf of 

Mexico described here. The first area is 

bounded by straight lines connecting 

the following coordinates in the order 

stated: 26°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long.; 

27°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long.; 27°30′ N. 

lat., 89° W. long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 89° W. 

long.; 26°30′ N. lat., 94°40′ W. long. The 

second area is bounded by straight lines 

connecting the following coordinates in 

the order stated: 27°40′ N. lat., 88° W. 

long.; 28° N. lat., 88° W. long.; 28° N. 

lat., 86° W. long.; 27°40′ N. lat., 86° W. 

long.; 27°40′N. lat., 88° W. long. 

* * * * * 

Transiting means progressing through 

an area without any fishing activity 

occurring. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 635.4 revise paragraphs (j)(3) 

and (o)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 635.4 Permits and fees. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 

(3) A vessel owner issued an Atlantic 

Tunas permit in the General, Harpoon, 

or Trap category or an Atlantic HMS 

permit in the Angling or Charter/

Headboat category under paragraph (b), 

(c), or (d) of this section may change the 

category of the vessel permit once 

within 45 calendar days of the date of 

issuance of the permit, provided the 

vessel has not landed bluefin tuna 

during those 45 calendar days as 

verified by NMFS via landings data. 

After 45 calendar days from the date of 

issuance of the permit, the vessel owner 

may not change the permit category 

until the following fishing season. 

* * * * * 

(o) * * * 

(4) The owner of a vessel issued an 

HMS Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 635.5: 

■ a. Paragraph (a)(3) is revised; 

■ b. Paragraph (a)(4) is redesignated as 

paragraph (a)(5); 

■ c. New paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(6) are 

added; 

■ d. Paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) is revised; 

■ e. Paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is added; and 

■ f. Paragraph (c)(1) is revised. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) Bluefin tuna landed by a 

commercial vessel and not sold. If a 

person who catches and lands a large 

medium or giant bluefin tuna from a 

vessel issued a permit in any of the 

commercial categories for Atlantic tunas 

does not sell or otherwise transfer the 

bluefin tuna to a dealer who has a dealer 

permit for Atlantic tunas, the person 

must contact a NMFS enforcement 

agent, at a number designated by NMFS, 

immediately upon landing such bluefin 

tuna, provide the information needed 

for the reports required under paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) of this section, and, if requested, 

make the tuna available so that a NMFS 

enforcement agent or authorized officer 

may inspect the fish and attach a tag to 

it. Alternatively, such reporting 

requirement may be fulfilled if a dealer 

who has a dealer permit for Atlantic 

tunas affixes a dealer tag as required 

under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section 

and reports the bluefin tuna as being 

landed but not sold on the reports 

required under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this 

section. If a vessel is placed on a trailer, 

the person must contact a NMFS 

enforcement agent, or the bluefin tuna 

must have a dealer tag affixed to it by 

a permitted Atlantic tunas dealer, 

immediately upon the vessel being 

removed from the water. All bluefin 

tuna landed but not sold will be applied 

to the quota category according to the 

permit category of the vessel from 

which it was landed. 

(4) Bluefin tuna discarded dead, or 

landed by a commercial vessel and sold. 

The owner of a vessel that has been 

permitted or that is required to be 

permitted under § 635.4 in the Atlantic 

Tunas General or Harpoon categories, or 

has been permitted or is required to be 

permitted under § 635.4 under the HMS 

Charter/Headboat category and fishing 

under the General category quotas and 

daily limits as specified at § 635.23(c), 

must report all discards and/or landings 

of bluefin tuna through the NMFS 

electronic catch reporting system within 

24 hours of the landings or the end of 

trip. Such reports may be made by 

either calling a phone number 

designated by NMFS or by submitting 

the required information online to a 

Web site designated by NMFS. The 

owner of a vessel that has been 

permitted in a different bluefin tuna 

category must report as specified 

elsewhere in this section (§ 635.5). 

* * * * * 

(6) Atlantic Tunas permitted vessels. 

The owner or operator of an Atlantic 

Tunas vessel fishing with pelagic 

longline gear or an Atlantic Tunas Purse 

Seine category participant is subject to 

the VMS reporting requirements under 

§ 635.69(e)(4) and the applicable 

Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) Program 

and/or leasing requirements under 

§ 635.15(a)(2). 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Landing reports. Each dealer with 

a valid Atlantic Tunas dealer permit 

issued under § 635.4 must submit the 

landing reports to NMFS for each 

bluefin received from a U.S. fishing 

vessel. Such reports must be submitted 

electronically by sending a facsimile to 

a number designated by NMFS not later 

than 24 hours after receipt of the 

bluefin. Landing reports must include 

the name and permit number of the 

vessel that landed the bluefin and other 

information regarding the catch as 

instructed by NMFS. Landing reports 

submitted via facsimile must be signed 

by the permitted vessel owner or 

operator immediately upon transfer of 

the bluefin. When purchasing bluefin 

tuna from eligible IBQ Program 

participants or Atlantic Tunas Purse 

Seine category participants, permitted 

Atlantic Tunas dealers must also enter 

landing reports into the electronic IBQ 

System established under 635.15, not 

later than 24 hours after receipt of the 

bluefin. The vessel owner or operator 

must confirm that the IBQ System 

landing report information is accurate 

by entering a unique PIN when the 

dealer report is submitted. The dealer 

must inspect the vessel’s permit to 

verify that it is a commercial category, 

the required vessel name and permit 

number as listed on the permit are 

correctly recorded on the landing report, 

and that the vessel permit has not 

expired. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Dealers must comply with dealer 

requirements related to the Individual 

Bluefin Quota Program under 

§ 635.15(a)(4)(iii). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Bluefin tuna. The owner of a 

vessel permitted, or required to be 

permitted in the Atlantic HMS Angling 

or Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat 

category under § 635.4 must report the 

catch of all bluefin tuna discarded dead 

and/or retained under the Angling 

category quota designated at § 635.27(a) 

through the NMFS electronic catch 

reporting system within 24 hours of the 

landing. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add § 635.9 to subpart A—with 

paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (e)(1) effective 

June 1, 2015—to read as follows: 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71589 

§ 635.9 Electronic monitoring. 

(a) Applicability. An owner or 

operator of a commercial vessel 

permitted or required to be permitted in 

the Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

under § 635.4, and that has pelagic 

longline gear on board, is required to 

have installed, operate, and maintain an 

electronic monitoring (EM) system on 

the vessel, as specified in this section. 

Vessel owner or operators can contact 

NMFS or a NMFS-approved contractor 

for more details on procuring an EM 

system. 

(b) EM Installation. (1) NMFS or a 

NMFS-approved contractor will assess 

individual Atlantic Tunas Longline 

permitted vessels that are currently 

eligible for IBQ share, install and test all 

EM systems; provide training to vessel 

owners or operators or their designees; 

and develop in consultation with vessel 

owners or operators or their designees 

required operational plans (Vessel 

Monitoring Plan or VMP) for the EM 

systems, as described in paragraph (e)(2) 

of this section. 

(2) Vessel owners or operators, as 

instructed by NMFS, will be required to 

coordinate with NMFS or a NMFSapproved contractor to schedule a date 

or range of dates for EM installation, 

and/or may be required to steam to a 

designated port for EM installation on 

NMFS-determined dates. NMFS may 

require vessel owners to make minor 

modifications to vessel equipment to 

facilitate installation and operation of 

the EM system, such as, but not limited 

to, installation of a fitting for the 

pressure side of the line of the drum 

hydraulic system, a power supply for 

the EM system and power switches/

connections, additional lighting, and/or 

a mounting structure(s) for installation 

of the camera(s). EM installation must 

be completed by June 1, 2015 in order 

to fish with pelagic longline gear after 

that date. 

(i) Certificate of Installation. After 

confirming that an EM system that 

meets the requirements of this section is 

properly installed, the system has been 

tested, and training and a required 

operational plan (VMP) are completed, 

NMFS or the NMFS-approved 

contractor will provide a Certificate of 

Installation to the vessel owner or 

operator. 

(ii) Vessels described under paragraph 

(a) of this section may not depart on a 

fishing trip without having a valid 

Certificate of Installation and VMP on 

board. 

(c) EM System Components. The EM 

system installed by the NMFS-approved 

contractor must be comprised of video 

camera(s), recording equipment, and 

other related equipment and must have 

the following components and 

capabilities: 

(1) Video camera(s). (i) Video cameras 

must be mounted and placed so as to 

provide clear, unobstructed views of the 

area(s) where the pelagic longline gear 

is retrieved and of catch being removed 

from hooks prior to being placed in the 

hold or discarded. There must be 

lighting sufficient to illuminate clearly 

individual fish. 

(ii) Video camera(s) must be in 

sufficient numbers (a minimum of two 

and up to four), with sufficient 

resolution (no less than 720p (1280 × 

720)) for NMFS, the USCG, and their 

authorized officers and designees, or 

any individual authorized by NMFS to 

determine the number and species of 

fish harvested. To obtain the views 

described in paragraph (c)(1)(i), at least 

one camera must be mounted to record 

close-up images of fish being retained 

on the deck at the haulback station, and 

at least one camera must be mounted to 

record activity at the waterline along the 

side of the vessel at the haul back 

station. NMFS or the NMFS-approved 

contractor will determine if more 

cameras are needed. 

(iii) The EM system must be capable 

of initiating video recording at the time 

gear retrieval starts. It must record all 

periods of time when the gear is being 

retrieved and catch is removed from the 

hooks until it is placed in the hold or 

discarded. 

(2) GPS receiver. A GPS receiver is 

required to produce output, which 

includes location coordinates, velocity, 

and heading data, and is directly logged 

continuously by the control box. The 

GPS receiver must be installed and 

remain in a location where it receives a 

strong signal continuously. 

(3) Hydraulic and drum rotation 

sensors. Hydraulic sensors are required 

to continuously monitor the hydraulic 

pressure and a drum rotation sensor 

must continuously monitor drum 

rotations. 

(4) EM control box. The system must 

include a control box that receives and 

stores the raw data provided by the 

sensors and cameras. The control box 

must contain removable hard drives and 

storage systems adequate for a trip 

lasting 30 days. 

(5) EM systems monitor. A 

wheelhouse monitor must provide a 

graphical user interface for harvester to 

monitor the state and performance of 

the control box and provide information 

on the current date and time 

synchronized via GPS, GPS coordinates, 

current hydraulic pressure reading, 

presence of a data disk, percentage used 

of the data disk, and video recording 

status. 

(6) The EM system must have 

software that enables the system to be 

tested for functionality and that records 

the outcome of the tests. 

(d) Data maintenance, storage, and 

viewing. The EM system must have the 

capacity to allow NMFS, the USCG, and 

their authorized officers and designees, 

or any NMFS-approved contractor to 

observe the live video on the EM 

systems monitor as described in 

paragraph (c)(5) of this section. Vessel 

owner or operators must provide access 

to the system, including the data upon 

request. 

(e) Operation. (1) Unless otherwise 

authorized by NMFS in writing, a vessel 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section must collect video and sensor 

data in accordance with the 

requirements in this section, in order to 

fish with pelagic longline gear. 

(2) Vessel monitoring plan. The vessel 

owner or operator must have available 

onboard a written VMP for its system, 

which is an operational plan developed 

by the NMFS-approved contractor 

containing the standardized procedures 

relating to the vessel’s EM system. 

VMPs may include, but are not limited 

to, information on the locations of EM 

system components; contact information 

for technical support; instructions on 

how to conduct a pre-trip system test; 

instructions on how to verify proper 

system functions; location(s) on deck 

where fish retrieval should occur to 

remain in view of the cameras; 

procedures for how to manage EM 

system hard drives; catch handling 

procedures; a size reference for 

facilitating determination of fish size; 

periodic checks of the monitor during 

the retrieval of gear to verify proper 

functioning; reporting procedures. The 

VMP should minimize to the extent 

practicable any impact on the current 

operating procedures of the vessel, and 

should help ensure the safety of the 

crew. 

(3) Handling of fish and duties of 

care. The vessel owner or operator must 

ensure that all fish that are caught, even 

those that are released, are handled in 

a manner that enables the video system 

to record such fish, and must ensure 

that all handling and retention of 

bluefin tuna occurs in accordance with 

relevant regulations and the operational 

procedures outlined in the VMP. The 

vessel owner or operator is responsible 

for ensuring the proper continuous 

functioning of the EM system, including 

that the EM system must remain 

powered on for the duration of each 

fishing trip from the time of departure 

to time of return; cameras must be 

cleaned routinely; and EM system 

components must not be tampered with. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71590 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(4) Completion of trip. Within 48 

hours of completing a fishing trip,, the 

vessel owner or operator must mail the 

removable EM system hard drive(s) 

containing all data to NMFS or NMFSapproved contractor, according to 

instructions provided by NMFS. The 

vessel owner or operator is responsible 

for using shipping materials suitable to 

protect the hard drives (e.g.,, bubble 

wrap), tracking the package, and 

including a self-addressed mailing label 

for the next port of call so replacement 

hard drives can be mailed back to the 

vessel owner or operator. Prior to 

departing on a subsequent trip, the 

vessel owner or operator must install a 

replacement EM system hard drive(s) to 

enable data collection and video 

recording. The vessel owner or operator 

is responsible for contacting NMFS or 

NMFS-approved contractor if they have 

requested but not received a 

replacement hard drive(s) and for 

informing NMFS or NMFS-approved 

contractor of any lapse in the hard drive 

management procedures described in 

the VMP. 

(f) Failure to adequately monitor the 

gear and catch. The vessel owner or 

operator must monitor and maintain the 

EM system in working condition, which 

includes ensuring the proper 

continuous functioning of the EM 

system, cameras provide clear 

unobstructed views, and video picture 

quality is clear. Prior to departing on a 

trip with pelagic longline gear on board, 

the vessel owner or operator must test 

the functionality of the system and 

contact NMFS or the NMFS-approved 

contractor if the system is not 

functioning properly. In that case, or if 

NMFS independently determines that 

an EM system fails to meet the 

requirements of this section, the vessel 

cannot leave port unless and until 

NMFS provides written authorization. 

NMFS may grant such authorization 

after confirming that an EM system is 

functioning properly or other 

circumstances as determined by NMFS 

warrant authorization. 

(g) Repair and replacement. If the 

vessel owner or operator becomes aware 

that the EM system on the vessel is not 

functioning properly at sea, the vessel 

owner or operator must contact NMFS 

and follow the instructions given. Such 

instructions may include but are not 

limited to returning to port until the EM 

system is repaired. Once in port, an EM 

system must be functioning properly 

(e.g., repaired, reinstalled, or replaced) 

consistent with the installation 

requirements in this section before the 

vessel can fish with pelagic longline 

gear. 

Subpart B—Individual Vessel 

Measures 

■ 8. Revise the subpart B heading to 

read as set forth above. 

■ 9. Add § 635.14 to subpart B to read 

as follows: 

§ 635.14 Performance metrics. 

(a) General. For purposes of 

§ 635.21(c)(3), NMFS will determine 

‘‘qualified’’ vessels based on the 

performance metrics in paragraph (b) of 

this section. Specifically, NMFS will 

use fishery dependent and fishery 

independent data to evaluate vessel 

performance based on avoidance of 

bluefin tuna interactions while fishing 

with a pelagic longline gear and history 

of compliance with the observer and 

logbook requirements of §§ 635.7 and 

635.5, respectively. 

(b) Calculation of performance 

metrics. In year one of implementation, 

NMFS will analyze the relevant data 

from the period 2006 to 2012 to 

determine a vessel’s score and 

qualification status. Subsequently, 

NMFS will analyze available data from 

the most recent complete three 

consecutive year period to determine a 

vessel’s score and qualification status. 

NMFS will communicate the results of 

the annual determination to individual 

permit holders in writing. NMFS may 

revise, through the framework 

procedures under § 635.34, the scoring 

system to reflect changes in the fishery 

or ensure that it provides the desired 

incentives and meets the goals of this 

program. The process used to calculate 

the performance metrics are described 

fully in Amendment 7 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP. The main 

metrics are summarized below. 

(1) Bluefin tuna interactions 

performance metric. The basis for the 

bluefin tuna interactions performance 

metric is the ratio of the number of 

bluefin tuna interactions (i.e., the 

number of fish landed, discarded dead, 

and discarded alive) to the total weight 

of designated target species landings (in 

pounds). For the purposes of this 

section, the designated target species 

are: Swordfish; yellowfin, bigeye, 

albacore, and skipjack tunas; dolphin; 

wahoo; and porbeagle, shortfin mako, 

and thresher sharks. A relatively low 

bluefin tuna interaction to designated 

species ratio (‘bluefin tuna ratio’) 

indicates that the vessel has 

successfully avoided catching bluefin 

tuna while fishing with pelagic longline 

gear in the performance metric period. 

(2) Observer compliance performance 

metric. NMFS will score vessels based 

on both the vessel owner’s and the 

operator’s compliance with the observer 

requirements outlined in § 635.7 of this 

part and § 600.746 of this chapter. In 

addition, the scoring system will 

consider the number of trips for which 

an individual vessel was selected to 

carry an observer, the number of trips 

actually observed, the reason why a 

particular trip was not observed, and 

other relevant observer information. The 

scoring system is neutral with respect to 

valid reasons that a vessel may have 

been selected by the observer program, 

but did not take an observer (e.g., no 

observer was available or the vessel was 

not fishing with pelagic longline gear). 

The scoring system is designed to weigh 

trips that were not observed due to 

noncompliance with the 

communication requirements more 

heavily than those not observed due to 

noncompliance with the safety and 

accommodation requirements. The 

scoring system is also designed to 

consider evidence of fishing activity 

that may have occurred without 

required communication or observer 

coverage. 

(3) Logbook compliance performance 

metric. NMFS will score vessels based 

on both the vessel owner’s and vessel 

operator’s compliance with the logbook 

reporting requirements outlined in 

§ 635.5. This metric will reflect the 

timeliness of the submission of the 

logbooks (for example, the amount of 

time elapsed between the offloading of 

the catch and the logbook submission). 

(4) Combining performance metrics. 

The performance metrics described 

under paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 

this section will be combined through 

the use of a decision formula described 

in Amendment 7 to the 2006 

Consolidated HMS FMP. The decision 

formula will result in a designation for 

each vessel of ‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘not 

qualified.’’ 

(c) Annual notification. NMFS will 

notify permitted vessel owners annually 

of the score of their vessel (i.e., 

‘‘qualified’’ or ‘‘not qualified’’) by 

certified mail. The score applies for only 

one year. NMFS will make aggregate 

data regarding access to gear restricted 

areas available to the general public. 

(d) Appeals. Permitted vessel owners 

can appeal their performance score 

determinations pursuant to the 

procedures, timing, and other 

requirements at § 635.15(k)(4)(i), (ii), 

and (iv). Any initial administrative 

determination or appeal would be 

evaluated based upon the following 

criteria: 

(1) The accuracy of NMFS records 

regarding the relevant information; and 

(2) correct assignment of historical 

data to the vessel owner/permit holder. 

The current owner of a permitted vessel 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71591 

may also appeal on the basis of 

historical changes in vessel ownership 

or permit transfers. Appeals based on 

hardship factors will not be considered. 

■ 10. Add § 635.15 to subpart B—with 

paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)(ii) and (b)(5)(i) 

effective January 1, 2016—to read as 

follows: 

§ 635.15 Individual bluefin tuna quotas. 

(a) General. This section establishes 

an IBQ Program for eligible Atlantic 

Tunas Longline permit holders that use 

pelagic longline gear under this part and 

addresses Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 

category leasing. 

(1) Overview. Under the IBQ Program, 

NMFS will assign eligible Atlantic 

Tunas Longline permit holders initial 

IBQ shares equivalent to a percentage of 

the annual Longline category quota. 

Purse Seine Category quota shares are 

allocated separately pursuant to 

§ 635.27(a)(4). 

(2) Electronic IBQ System. IBQ 

Program participants, Atlantic Tunas 

Purse Seine category participants, and 

other permit holders eligible to lease 

IBQ allocations under paragraph (c) of 

this section, must have access to the 

electronic IBQ system and set up an IBQ 

account on that system as instructed by 

NMFS. 

(b) IBQ allocation and usage. An IBQ 

quota allocation is the amount of bluefin 

tuna (whole weight) in metric tons (mt), 

which an IBQ Program participant is 

allotted to account for incidental catch 

of bluefin tuna during a given calendar 

year. Unless otherwise required under 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section, an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permitted 

vessel’s initial IBQ allocation for a 

particular year is derived by multiplying 

its IBQ share (percentage) by the 

Longline category quota for that year. 

(1) Annual calculation and 

notification of IBQ allocations. 

Annually, as described in detail in 

paragraph (f) of this section, NMFS will 

notify IBQ share recipients of their IBQ 

allocation for the next calendar year. 

IBQ allocations expire at the end of each 

calendar year. 

(2) Regional designations. As 

described further under paragraph (k)(3) 

of this section, all IBQ shares and 

resultant allocations are designated as 

either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or ‘‘Atlantic’’ 

based upon the geographic location of 

sets as reported to NMFS under the 

requirements of § 635.5. Regional 

percentages determine the share and 

allocation within the two pelagic 

longline (PLL) share categories: Gulf of 

Mexico (PLL GOM) and Atlantic (PLL 

ATL). PLL GOM shares and resultant 

allocations can be used to fish with 

pelagic longline gear in either the Gulf 

of Mexico or the Atlantic regions. PLL 

ATL shares and resultant allocations 

can only be used to fish with pelagic 

longline gear in the Atlantic region. 

Purse Seine category annual allocations 

can only be used to fish in the Atlantic 

region, even if leased to a PLL 

participant. For the purposes of this 

section, the Gulf of Mexico region 

includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west 

and north of the boundary stipulated at 

50 CFR 600.105(c) and the Atlantic 

region includes all other waters of the 

Atlantic Ocean with the exception 

regarding fishing taking place in the 

Northeast Distant (NED) gear restricted 

area defined at § 635.2 and is further 

described in paragraph (b)(8) of this 

section. 

(3) Minimum IBQ allocation. Before 

departing on a fishing trip, a vessel with 

an eligible Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit that fishes with or has 

pelagic longline gear onboard, must 

have the minimum IBQ allocation for 

either the Gulf of Mexico or Atlantic, 

depending on fishing location. The 

minimum IBQ allocation for a vessel 

fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, or 

departing for a fishing trip in the Gulf 

of Mexico, is 0.25 mt ww (551 lb ww). 

The minimum IBQ allocation for a 

vessel fishing in the Atlantic or 

departing for a fishing trip in the 

Atlantic is 0.125 mt ww (276 lb ww). A 

vessel owner or operator may not 

declare into or depart on a fishing trip 

with pelagic longline gear onboard 

unless it has the relevant required 

minimum IBQ allocation for the region 

in which the fishing activity will occur. 

(4) Accounting for bluefin tuna 

caught. (i) With the exception of vessels 

fishing in the NED, in compliance with 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(8) of 

this section, all bluefin tuna catch (dead 

discards and landings) must be 

accounted for and deducted from the 

vessel’s IBQ allocation. 

(ii) If the amount of bluefin tuna catch 

on a particular trip exceeds the amount 

of the vessel’s IBQ allocation, the vessel 

may continue to fish and complete the 

trip, but must resolve any quota debt 

(see paragraph (b)(5) of this section 

before declaring into or departing on a 

subsequent fishing trip with pelagic 

longline gear onboard by acquiring 

additional IBQ allocation through 

leasing, as described in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(iii) IBQ Program participants, 

Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 

participants, and dealers must comply 

with reporting requirements at 

§ 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). The vessel owner or 

operator of a vessel that caught bluefin 

tuna must enter dead discard 

information from the trip 

simultaneously with the dealer entering 

that trip’s landings information into the 

electronic IBQ system (pursuant to 

§ 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A)). The vessel owner or 

operator must also confirm the accuracy 

of the dealer reported data at the time 

of entry in the electronic IBQ System. 

No IBQ transactions will be processed 

between 6 p.m. eastern time on 

December 31 and 2 p.m. Eastern Time 

on January 1 of each year to provide 

NMFS time to reconcile IBQ accounts 

and update IBQ shares and allocations 

for the upcoming fishing year. 

(5) Exceeding an available allocation. 

This paragraph (b)(5) applies to a vessel 

with, or an permit holder of, an Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category permit or an 

Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 

permit unless otherwise specified. If the 

amount of bluefin tuna catch for a 

particular trip (as defined at § 600.10 of 

this chapter) exceeds the amount of 

allocation available to the vessel, the 

permitted vessel is considered to have a 

‘‘quota debt’’ equal to the difference 

between the catch and the allocation. 

For example, if a vessel has an 

allocation of 0.40 mt (882 lb), and 

catches 0.50 mt (1,102 lb) of bluefin 

tuna on a trip, that vessel would have 

a quota debt of 0.10 mt (220 lb). 

(i) Trip level quota debt. Vessels with 

a quota debt cannot fish with or have 

gear for which the vessel is permitted 

onboard until the quota debt is settled 

by leasing allocation for the appropriate 

region (per paragraph (c) of this section) 

and applying the leased allocation to 

settle the quota debt or through 

additional allocation (per paragraph (f) 

of this section) such that the permitted 

vessel has at least the minimum quota 

allocation required to fish as specified 

in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

(ii) Annual level quota debt. If, by the 

end of the fishing year, a permit holder 

does not have adequate allocation 

(obtained either through leasing under 

paragraph (c) of this section) or 

additional allocation under paragraph 

(f) of this section to settle their vessel’s 

quota debt, the vessel’s allocation will 

be reduced in the amount equal to the 

quota debt in the subsequent year or 

years until the quota debt is fully 

accounted for. A vessel may not fish if 

it has outstanding quota debt, even 

across fishing years. 

(iii) Association with permit. Quota 

debt is associated with the vessel’s 

permit, and remains associated with the 

permit if/when the permit is transferred 

or sold. At the end of the year, if an 

owner with multiple permitted vessels 

has a quota debt on one or more vessels 

owned, the IBQ system will apply any 

remaining unused allocation associated 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71592 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

with that owner’s other vessels to 

resolve the quota debt. 

(6) Duration. IBQ allocation issued 

under this section is valid for the 

relevant fishing year unless it is 

revoked, suspended, or modified or 

unless the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category quota is closed per § 635.28(a). 

(7) Unused IBQ allocation. Any IBQ 

allocation that is unused at the end of 

the fishing year may not be carried 

forward by a permit-holder to the 

following year, but would remain 

associated with the Longline category as 

a whole, and subject to the quota 

regulations under § 635.27, including 

annual quota adjustments. 

(8) The IBQ Program and the 

Northeast Distant Area (NED). The 

following restrictions apply to vessels 

fishing with pelagic longline gear in the 

NED: 

(i) When NED bluefin quota is 

available. Permitted vessels fishing with 

pelagic longline gear may fish in the 

NED, and any bluefin catch will count 

toward the ICCAT-allocated separate 

NED quota until the NED quota has been 

filled. Permitted vessels fishing in the 

NED are still required to have the 

minimum IBQ allocation, specified 

under paragraph (b)(3) of this section to 

depart on a trip using pelagic longline 

gear. 

(ii) When NED bluefin quota is filled. 

Permitted vessels fishing with pelagic 

longline gear may fish in the NED after 

the ICCAT-allocated separate NED quota 

has been filled but the permitted vessels 

must abide by all the requirements of 

the IBQ program. Bluefin catch will be 

accounted for using the vessel’s IBQ 

allocation, as described under 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (k)(3) of this 

section. 

(c) IBQ Allocation Leasing—(1) 

Eligibility. The permit holders of vessels 

issued valid Atlantic Tunas Longline 

permits and participants in the Atlantic 

Tunas Purse Seine category are eligible 

to lease IBQ allocation to and/or from 

each other. A person who holds an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit that is 

not associated with a vessel may not 

lease IBQ allocation. 

(2) Application to lease—(i) 

Application information requirements. 

All IBQ allocation leases must occur 

electronically through the electronic 

IBQ system, and include all information 

required by NMFS. 

(ii) Approval of lease application. 

Unless NMFS denies an application to 

lease IBQ allocation according to 

paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, the 

electronic IBQ system will provide an 

approval code to the IBQ lessee 

confirming the transaction. 

(iii) Denial of lease application. 

NMFS may deny an application to lease 

IBQ allocation for any of the following 

reasons, including, but not limited to: 

The application is incomplete; the IBQ 

lessor or IBQ lessee is not eligible to 

lease per paragraph (c)(1) of this section; 

the IBQ lessor or IBQ lessee permits is 

sanctioned pursuant to an enforcement 

proceeding; or the IBQ lessor has an 

insufficient IBQ allocation available to 

lease (i.e., the requested amount of lease 

may not exceed the amount of IBQ 

allocation associated with the lessor). 

As the electronic IBQ system is 

automated, if any of the criteria above 

are applicable, the lease transaction will 

not be allowed to proceed. The decision 

by NMFS is the final agency decision; 

there is no opportunity for an 

administrative appeal. 

(3) Conditions and restrictions of 

leased IBQ allocation—(i) Subleasing. In 

a fishing year, an IBQ allocation may be 

leased numerous times following the 

process specified in paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section. 

(ii) History of leased IBQ allocation 

use. The fishing history associated with 

the catch of bluefin tuna will be 

associated with the vessel that caught 

the bluefin tuna regardless of how the 

vessel acquired the IBQ allocation (e.g., 

through initial allocation or lease), for 

the purpose of calculation of the 

performance metrics described under 

§ 635.14(b), or other relevant restrictions 

based upon bluefin catch. 

(iii) Duration of IBQ allocation lease. 

IBQ allocations expire at the end of each 

calendar year. Thus, an IBQ lessee may 

only use the leased IBQ allocation 

during the fishing year in which the IBQ 

allocation is applicable. 

(iv) Temporary prohibition of leasing 

IBQ allocation. No leasing of IBQ 

allocation is permitted between 6 p.m. 

eastern time on December 31 of one year 

and 2 p.m. Eastern Time on January 1 

of the next. . This period is necessary to 

provide NMFS time to reconcile IBQ 

accounts, and update IBQ shares and 

allocations for the upcoming fishing 

year. 

(v) Related restrictions. Other 

regulations specific to the Atlantic 

Tunas Purse Seine category are set forth 

at § 635.27(a)(4)(v). 

(d) Sale of IBQ shares. Sale of IBQ 

shares currently not permitted. 

(e) Changes in vessel and permit 

ownership. In accordance with the 

regulations specified under § 635.4(l), a 

vessel owner that has an IBQ share may 

transfer the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit to another vessel that he 

or she owns or transfer the permit to 

another person. The IBQ share as 

described under this section would 

transfer with the permit to the new 

vessel, and remain associated with that 

permit. Within a fishing year, when an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit transfer 

occurs (from one vessel to another), the 

associated IBQ shares are transferred 

with the permit, however IBQ allocation 

is not, unless the IBQ allocation is also 

transferred through a separate 

transaction within the electronic IBQ 

system. As described under paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (k)(1) of this section, a person 

or entity that holds an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline permit that is not associated 

with a vessel may not receive or lease 

IBQ allocation. 

(f) Annual notification of shares and 

allocations. On January 1 of each year, 

NMFS will notify eligible IBQ 

Participants, as specified in paragraph 

(k)(1) of this section, of their IBQ share 

and the resulting IBQ allocation (mt) for 

the relevant fishing year, as well as the 

regional designations based on the 

available Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category quota, and any existing quota 

debt. NMFS will provide this 

information through the electronic IBQ 

system and via annual permit holder 

letters. Unless specified otherwise, 

those IBQ shares and resultant 

allocations will be available for use at 

the start of each fishing year. Permit 

holders (of eligible Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permits) that have not 

completed the process of permit 

renewal or permit transfer as of 

December 31 will be issued IBQ 

allocation upon completion of the 

permit renewal or permit transfer, 

provided the eligible permit is 

associated with a vessel. 

(g) Evaluation. NMFS will continually 

monitor the IBQ Program with respect to 

the objectives listed in the FEIS and 

make any changes through future 

rulemakings as deemed necessary to 

meet those objectives. Three years after 

full implementation, NMFS will publish 

a written report describing any findings. 

(h) Property rights. IBQ shares and 

resultant allocations issued pursuant to 

this part may be revoked, limited, 

modified or suspended at any time 

subject to the requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, or other 

applicable law. Such IBQ shares and 

resultant allocations do not confer any 

right to compensation and do not create 

any right, title, or interest in any bluefin 

tuna until it is landed or discarded 

dead. 

(i) Enforcement and monitoring. 

NMFS will enforce and monitor the IBQ 

Program through the use of the reporting 

and record keeping requirements 

described under § 635.5, the monitoring 

requirements under §§ 635.9 and 

635.69, and its authority to close the 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71593 

pelagic longline fishery specified under 

§ 635.28. 

(j) Cost recovery. In a future action, 

NMFS will develop and implement cost 

recovery for the IBQ program that will 

cover costs of management, data 

collection and analysis, and 

enforcement activities. Fees shall be 

collected from quota share and/or 

allocation holders for the IBQ program 

pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act 

sections 303A(e) and 304(d)(2). Such 

fees shall not exceed 3 percent of the exvessel value of fish harvested under the 

program. 

(k) Initial IBQ shares. During year one 

of implementation of the IBQ Program 

described in this section, NMFS will 

issue IBQ shares to eligible Atlantic 

Tunas Longline permit holders, as 

specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this 

section. New entrants to the pelagic 

longline fishery would need to obtain an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, as well 

as other required limited access permits, 

as described under § 635.4(l), and would 

need to lease IBQ allocations per 

paragraph (c) of this section if the 

permits acquired did not qualify for an 

initial IBQ share. 

(1) Eligible IBQ share Recipients. (i) 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit 

holders whose valid permit was 

associated with a vessel as of August 21, 

2013, and that was determined to be 

‘‘active’’ would be eligible to receive an 

initial IBQ share. ‘‘Active’’ vessels are 

those vessels that have used pelagic 

longline gear on at least one set between 

2006 and 2012 as reported to NMFS on 

logbooks, per the requirements of 

§ 635.5. In determining a permitted 

vessel’s initial IBQ share eligibility and 

calculating the initial IBQ share, NMFS 

used the data associated with the 

qualifying vessel’s history (and not the 

permit). Therefore, for the purposes of 

this section, the vessel owner at the time 

of reporting is not relevant. If the 

logbook reports indicate that a 

particular vessel used pelagic longline 

gear for at least one set between 2006 

and 2012, and the vessel was issued a 

valid Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit as of August 21, 2013, the 

current permit holder is qualified to 

receive an initial IBQ share. 

(ii) Except as described in paragraph 

(k)(4) of this section regarding appeals, 

if the logbook reports indicate that a 

particular vessel did not use pelagic 

longline gear for at least one set between 

2006 and 2012, and/or the vessel was 

not issued a valid Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit on August 21, 

2013, the current permit holder is not 

eligible to receive an initial IBQ share 

even if the current permit holder fished 

with pelagic longline gear on a different 

vessel between 2006 and 2012. Persons 

that held an Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit that was not associated 

with a vessel as of August 21, 2013 are 

not eligible for an initial IBQ share. 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permits holders that are ineligible to 

receive an initial IBQ share would need 

to lease IBQ allocation per paragraph (c) 

of this section, as well as meet all other 

applicable requirements, before the 

vessel could fish with or possess pelagic 

longline gear onboard. 

(2) IBQ share determination (i) Initial 

IBQ shares. NMFS has reviewed each 

permitted vessel’s reported bluefin tuna 

interactions (all discards and landings) 

and landings of designated species 

(swordfish, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, 

and skipjack tunas; dolphin; wahoo; and 

porbeagle, shortfin mako and thresher 

sharks) and placed each permitted 

vessel into one of three tiers: Low, 

medium and high based on the ratio of 

bluefin tuna interactions. The IBQ share 

will be assigned based on the three tiers. 

(ii) Appeals to initial IBQ shares. 

When NMFS determines that all appeals 

pursuant to paragraph (k)(4) of this 

section have been resolved, NMFS may 

adjust the initial IBQ share percentages 

described under paragraph (k)(2)(i) as 

necessary to accommodate those 

appellants that have been deemed 

eligible for an initial IBQ share or are 

provided an increased IBQ share. 

(3) Regional designations. All initial 

IBQ shares and resultant allocations are 

designated as either ‘‘Gulf of Mexico’’ or 

‘‘Atlantic’’ based upon the geographic 

location of sets as reported to NMFS 

under the requirements of § 635.5. 

Eligible permit holders may use Gulf of 

Mexico IBQ shares and resultant 

allocations to fish in either the Gulf of 

Mexico or the Atlantic regions. Eligible 

permit holders may use Atlantic IBQ 

shares and resultant allocations only to 

fish in the Atlantic region. If a permitted 

vessel had fishing history in both the 

Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic, it may 

receive both the Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic IBQ shares, depending upon 

the amount of IBQ share and the 

proportion of fishing history in the two 

areas. Based on the procedures 

described under paragraphs (k)(1) and 

(2) of this section, if a permit holder 

would be issued a regional IBQ share 

that results in a regional allocation less 

than a minimum amount for a particular 

area (i.e., less than 0.125 mt for the 

Atlantic or less than 0.25 mt for the Gulf 

of Mexico), the de minimis regional IBQ 

share and resultant allocation would be 

designated to the other regional 

designation. 

(4) Appeals of initial IBQ share. 

Atlantic Tunas Longline Permit holders 

may appeal their initial IBQ shares 

through the two-step process described 

below. NMFS will provide further 

explanation on how to submit an appeal 

when it informs permit holders of their 

initial IBQ shares. 

(i) Initial administrative 

determination (IAD). The HMS 

Management Division will evaluate 

requests from Atlantic Tunas Longline 

Permit holders regarding their initial 

IBQ shares. Any request must be 

postmarked no later than March 2, 2015, 

be in writing, and indicate the reason 

for the request, and contain 

documentation supporting the request 

(see paragraphs (k)(4)(iii) and (iv) of this 

section). The HMS Management 

Division will evaluate the request and 

supporting documentation, and notify 

the appellant by a written IAD regarding 

a decision to approve or deny the 

request. The IAD will explain the basis 

for any denial decision. 

(ii) Appeal of IAD. Within 90 days 

after the date of issuance of the IAD, the 

permit holder may appeal the IAD to the 

NMFS National Appeals Office, 

pursuant to procedures at 15 CFR part 

906. 

(iii) Items subject to IAD and appeal. 

The only items subject to an IAD or 

appeal are: Initial IBQ share eligibility 

based on ownership of an active vessel 

with a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit combined with the 

required shark and swordfish limited 

access permits; the accuracy of NMFS 

records regarding that vessel’s amount 

of designated species landings and/or 

bluefin interactions; and correct 

assignment of target species landings 

and bluefin interactions to the vessel 

owner/permit holder. As described 

under paragraph (k)(1) of this section, 

the IBQ share formulas are based upon 

historical data associated with a 

permitted vessel. Because vessels may 

have changed ownership or permits may 

have been transferred during 2006 

through 2012, the current owner of a 

permitted vessel may also appeal on the 

basis of historical changes in vessel 

ownership or permit transfers. Appeals 

based on hardship factors (e.g., illness of 

vessel owner, divorce, etc.) will not be 

considered. 

(iv) Supporting documentation for 

IAD or appeal. NMFS will consider 

official NMFS logbook records or 

weighout slips for landings between 

January 1, 2006, through December 31, 

2012, that were submitted to NMFS 

prior to March 2, 2013 (60 days after the 

cutoff date for eligible landings) and 

verifiable sales slips, receipts from 

registered dealers, state landings 

records, and permit records as 

supporting documentation for a request 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71594 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

or appeal under paragraph (k)(4) of this 

section. NMFS will count only those 

designated species landings that were 

landed legally when the owner had a 

valid permit. No other proof of catch 

history or species interactions will be 

considered, except for NMFS logbook 

records, observer data, or other NMFS 

data. NMFS permit records will be the 

sole basis for determining permit 

transfers. Copies of documents may be 

submitted, provided they are of equal 

legibility and quality as the originals, 

and such copies shall have the same 

force and effect as if they were originals. 

NMFS may request the originals at a 

later date. NMFS may refer any 

submitted materials that are of 

questionable authenticity to the NMFS 

Office of Enforcement for investigation. 

■ 11. Add § 635.19 to subpart C to read 

as follows: 

§ 635.19 Authorized gears. 

(a) 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 § 635.21(a), 

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, freeswimming or undersized HMS. Except 

for vessels permitted under § 635.4(o) or 

as specified in this section, a vessel 

using or having onboard in the Atlantic 

Ocean any unauthorized gear may not 

possess an Atlantic HMS on board. 

(b) 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 bluefin 

tuna, 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 Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

permit who fishes for, retains, or 

possesses BAYS tunas in the U.S. 

Caribbean, as defined at § 622.2 of this 

chapter, may have on board and use 

handline, harpoon, rod and reel, bandit 

gear, green-stick gear, and buoy gear. 

(1) Angling. Speargun (for BAYS 

tunas only), and rod and reel (including 

downriggers) and handline (for all 

tunas). 

(2) Charter/headboat. Rod and reel 

(including downriggers), bandit gear, 

handline, and green-stick gear are 

authorized for all recreational and 

commercial Atlantic tuna fisheries. 

Speargun is authorized for recreational 

Atlantic BAYS tuna fisheries only. 

(3) General. Rod and reel (including 

downriggers), handline, harpoon, bandit 

gear, and green-stick. 

(4) Harpoon. Harpoon. 

(5) Longline. Longline and green-stick. 

(6) Purse seine. Purse seine. 

(7) Trap. Pound net and fish weir. 

(c) Billfish. (1) Only persons who have 

been issued a valid HMS Angling or 

valid Charter/Headboat permit, or who 

have been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas 

General category or Swordfish General 

Commercial permit and are 

participating in a tournament as 

provided in § 635.4(c), may possess a 

blue marlin, white marlin, or roundscale 

spearfish in, or take a blue marlin, white 

marlin, or roundscale spearfish from, its 

management unit. Blue marlin, white 

marlin, or roundscale spearfish may 

only be harvested by rod and reel. 

(2) Only persons who have been 

issued a valid HMS Angling or valid 

Charter/Headboat permit, or who have 

been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas 

General category or Swordfish General 

Commercial permit and are 

participating in a tournament as 

provided in § 635.4(c), may possess or 

take a sailfish shoreward of the outer 

boundary of the Atlantic EEZ. Sailfish 

may only be harvested by rod and reel. 

(d) Sharks. 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. No person issued an HMS 

Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

permit may possess a shark taken from 

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

of this chapter, by any gear other than 

with rod and reel, handline or bandit 

gear. 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. 

(e) Swordfish. (1) No person may 

possess north Atlantic swordfish taken 

from its management unit by any gear 

other than handgear, green-stick, or 

longline, except that such swordfish 

taken incidentally while fishing with a 

squid trawl may be retained by a vessel 

issued a valid Incidental HMS squid 

trawl permit, subject to restrictions 

specified in § 635.24(b)(2). No person 

may possess south Atlantic swordfish 

taken from its management unit by any 

gear other than longline. 

(2) An Atlantic swordfish may not be 

retained or possessed on board a vessel 

with a gillnet. A swordfish will be 

deemed to have been harvested by 

gillnet when it is onboard, or offloaded 

from, a vessel fishing with or having on 

board a gillnet. 

(3) A person aboard a vessel issued or 

required to be issued a valid directed 

handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish or 

an HMS Commercial Caribbean Small 

Boat 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 

fishing with or having on board longline 

gear. Only vessels that have been issued 

a valid directed or handgear swordfish 

LAP or an HMS Commercial Caribbean 

Small Boat permit under this part may 

utilize or possess buoy gear. 

(4) Except for persons aboard a vessel 

that has been issued a directed, 

incidental, or handgear limited access 

swordfish permit, a Swordfish General 

Commercial permit, an Incidental HMS 

squid trawl permit, or an HMS 

Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

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. 

(5) A person aboard a vessel issued or 

required to be issued a valid Swordfish 

General Commercial permit may only 

possess North Atlantic swordfish taken 

from its management unit by rod and 

reel, handline, bandit gear, green-stick, 

or harpoon gear. 

■ 12. Section 635.21 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 635.21 Gear operation, restricted areas, 

and deployment restrictions. 

(a) All Atlantic HMS fishing gears. (1) 

An Atlantic HMS harvested from its 

management unit that is not retained 

must be released in a manner that will 

ensure maximum probability of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71595 

survival, but without removing the fish 

from the water. 

(2) If a billfish is caught by a hook and 

not retained, the fish must be released 

by cutting the line near the hook or by 

using a dehooking device, in either case 

without removing the fish from the 

water. 

(3) Restricted gear and closed areas 

for all Atlantic HMS fishing gears. (i) No 

person may fish for, catch, possess, or 

retain any Atlantic HMS or anchor a 

fishing vessel that has been issued a 

permit or is required to be permitted 

under this part, in the areas and seasons 

designated at § 622.34(a)(3) of this 

chapter. 

(ii) From November through April of 

each year, no vessel issued, or required 

to be issued, a permit under this part 

may fish or deploy any type of fishing 

gear in the Madison-Swanson closed 

area or the Steamboat Lumps closed 

area, as defined in § 635.2. 

(iii) From May through October of 

each year, no vessel issued, or required 

to be issued, a permit under this part 

may fish or deploy any type of fishing 

gear in the Madison-Swanson or the 

Steamboat Lumps closed areas except 

for surface trolling. For the purposes of 

this section, surface trolling is defined 

as fishing with lines trailing behind a 

vessel which is in constant motion at 

speeds in excess of four knots with a 

visible wake. Such trolling may not 

involve the use of down riggers, wire 

lines, planers, or similar devices. 

(iv) From January through April of 

each year, no vessel issued, or required 

to be issued, a permit under this part 

may fish or deploy any type of fishing 

gear in the Edges 40 Fathom Contour 

closed area, as defined in § 635.2. 

(b) Longline—general restrictions. (1) 

All vessels that have pelagic or bottom 

longline gear onboard and that have 

been issued, or are required to have, a 

limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna 

Longline category permit for use in the 

Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean 

Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must 

possess inside the wheelhouse the 

document provided by NMFS entitled 

‘‘Careful Release Protocols for Sea 

Turtle Release with Minimal Injury,’’ 

and must also post inside the 

wheelhouse the sea turtle handling and 

release guidelines provided by NMFS. 

(2) Transiting and gear stowage: If a 

vessel issued a permit under this part is 

in a closed or gear restricted area 

described in this section with pelagic or 

bottom longline gear on board, it is a 

rebuttable presumption that any fish on 

board such a vessel were taken with 

pelagic or bottom longline in the closed 

or gear restricted area except where 

such possession is aboard a vessel 

transiting a closed area with all fishing 

gear stowed appropriately. Longline 

gear is stowed appropriately if all 

gangions and hooks are disconnected 

from the mainline and are stowed on or 

below deck, hooks are not baited, and 

all buoys and weights are disconnected 

from the mainline and drum (buoys may 

remain on deck). 

(3) When a marine mammal or sea 

turtle is hooked or entangled by pelagic 

or bottom longline gear, the operator of 

the vessel must immediately release the 

animal, retrieve the pelagic or bottom 

longline gear, and move at least 1 nm 

(2 km) from the location of the incident 

before resuming fishing. Similarly, 

when a smalltooth sawfish is hooked or 

entangled by bottom longline gear, the 

operator of the vessel must immediately 

release the animal, retrieve the bottom 

longline gear, and move at least 1 nm 

(2 km) from the location of the incident 

before resuming fishing. Reports of 

marine mammal entanglements must be 

submitted to NMFS consistent with 

regulations in § 229.6 of this title. 

(4) Vessels that have pelagic or bottom 

longline gear on board and that have 

been issued, or are required to have 

been issued, a permit under this part 

must have only corrodible hooks on 

board. 

(c) Pelagic longlines. (1) If a vessel 

issued or required to be issued a permit 

under this part: 

(i) Is in a closed area designated under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section and has 

bottom longline gear onboard, the vessel 

may not, at any time, possess or land 

any pelagic species listed in table 2 of 

appendix A to this part in excess of 5 

percent, by weight, of the total weight 

of pelagic and demersal species 

possessed or landed, that are listed in 

tables 2 and 3 of appendix A to this 

part. 

(ii) Has pelagic longline gear on 

board, persons aboard that vessel may 

not possess, retain, transship, land, sell, 

or store silky sharks, oceanic whitetip 

sharks, or scalloped, smooth, or great 

hammerhead sharks. 

(2) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(3) 

of this section, if pelagic longline gear 

is on board a vessel issued or required 

to be issued a permit under this part, 

persons aboard that vessel may not fish 

or deploy any type of fishing gear: 

(i) In the Northeastern United States 

closed area from June 1 through June 30 

each calendar year; 

(ii) In the Charleston Bump closed 

area from February 1 through April 30 

each calendar year; 

(iii) In the East Florida Coast closed 

area at any time; 

(iv) In the Desoto Canyon closed area 

at any time; 

(v) In the Cape Hatteras gear restricted 

area from December 1 through April 30 

each year; 

(vi) In the Spring Gulf of Mexico gear 

restricted area from April 1 through May 

30 each year; 

(vii) In the Northeast Distant gear 

restricted area at any time, unless 

persons onboard the vessel complies 

with the following: 

(A) The vessel is limited to possessing 

onboard and/or using only 18/0 or larger 

circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 

10 degrees. The outer diameter of the 

circle hook at its widest point must be 

no smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm) 

when measured with the eye on the 

hook on the vertical axis (y-axis) and 

perpendicular to the horizontal axis 

(x-axis), and the distance between the 

circle hook point and the shank (i.e., the 

gap) must be no larger than 1.13 inches 

(28.8 mm). The allowable offset is 

measured from the barbed end of the 

hook and is relative to the parallel plane 

of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook 

when laid on its side. The only 

allowable offset circle hooks are those 

that are offset by the hook manufacturer. 

If green-stick gear, as defined at § 635.2, 

is onboard, a vessel may possess up to 

20 J-hooks. J-hooks may be used only 

with green-stick gear, and no more than 

10 hooks may be used at one time with 

each green-stick gear. J-hooks used with 

green-stick gear may be no smaller than 

1.5 inch (38.1 mm) when measured in 

a straight line over the longest distance 

from the eye to any other part of the 

hook; and, 

(B) The vessel is limited, at all times, 

to possessing onboard and/or using only 

whole Atlantic mackerel and/or squid 

bait, except that artificial bait may be 

possessed and used only with greenstick gear, as defined at § 635.2, if greenstick gear is onboard; and, 

(C) Vessels must possess, inside the 

wheelhouse, a document provided by 

NMFS entitled, ‘‘Careful Release 

Protocols for Sea Turtle Release with 

Minimal Injury,’’ and must post, inside 

the wheelhouse, sea turtle handling and 

release guidelines provided by NMFS; 

and, 

(D) Required sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation gear, which NMFS has 

approved under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) of 

this section, on the initial list of 

‘‘NMFS-Approved Models For 

Equipment Needed For The Careful 

Release of Sea Turtles Caught In Hook 

And Line Fisheries,’’ must be carried 

onboard, and must be used in 

accordance with the handling 

requirements specified in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(vii)(E) through (G) of this section; 

and, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71596 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(E) Sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of 

this section, must be used to disengage 

any hooked or entangled sea turtles that 

cannot be brought on board, and to 

facilitate access, safe handling, 

disentanglement, and hook removal or 

hook cutting from sea turtles that can be 

brought on board, where feasible. Sea 

turtles must be handled, and bycatch 

mitigation gear must be used, in 

accordance with the careful release 

protocols and handling/release 

guidelines specified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and in 

accordance with the onboard handling 

and resuscitation requirements specified 

in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title. 

(F) Boated turtles: When practicable, 

active and comatose sea turtles must be 

brought on board, with a minimum of 

injury, using a dipnet approved on the 

initial list specified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All turtles 

less than 3 ft. (.91 m) carapace length 

should be boated, if sea conditions 

permit. A boated turtle should be placed 

on a standard automobile tire, or 

cushioned surface, in an upright 

orientation to immobilize it and 

facilitate gear removal. Then, it should 

be determined if the hook can be 

removed without causing further injury. 

All externally embedded hooks should 

be removed, unless hook removal would 

result in further injury to the turtle. No 

attempt to remove a hook should be 

made if the hook has been swallowed 

and the insertion point is not visible, or 

if it is determined that removal would 

result in further injury. If a hook cannot 

be removed, as much line as possible 

should be removed from the turtle using 

approved monofilament line cutters 

from the initial list specified in 

paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section, 

and the hook should be cut as close as 

possible to the insertion point, using 

bolt cutters from that list, before 

releasing the turtle. If a hook can be 

removed, an effective technique may be 

to cut off either the barb, or the eye, of 

the hook using bolt cutters, and then to 

slide the hook out. When the hook is 

visible in the front of the mouth, an 

approved mouth-opener from the initial 

list specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) 

of this section may facilitate opening the 

turtle’s mouth, and an approved gag 

from that list may facilitate keeping the 

mouth open. Short-handled dehookers 

for ingested hooks, long-nose pliers, or 

needle-nose pliers from the initial list 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of 

this section should be used to remove 

visible hooks that have not been 

swallowed from the mouth of boated 

turtles, as appropriate. As much gear as 

possible must be removed from the 

turtle without causing further injury 

prior to its release. Refer to the careful 

release protocols and handling/release 

guidelines required in paragraph 

(c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and the 

handling and resuscitation requirements 

specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title, 

for additional information. 

(G) Non-boated turtles: If a sea turtle 

is too large, or hooked in a manner that 

precludes safe boating without causing 

further damage or injury to the turtle, 

sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of 

this section, must be used to disentangle 

sea turtles from fishing gear and 

disengage any hooks, or to clip the line 

and remove as much line as possible 

from a hook that cannot be removed, 

prior to releasing the turtle, in 

accordance with the protocols specified 

in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(C) of this 

section. Non-boated turtles should be 

brought close to the boat and provided 

with time to calm down. Then, it must 

be determined whether or not the hook 

can be removed without causing further 

injury. A front flipper or flippers of the 

turtle must be secured, if possible, with 

an approved turtle control device from 

the list specified in paragraph 

(c)(2)(vii)(D) of this section. All 

externally embedded hooks must be 

removed, unless hook removal would 

result in further injury to the turtle. No 

attempt should be made to remove a 

hook if it has been swallowed, or if it 

is determined that removal would result 

in further injury. If the hook cannot be 

removed and/or if the animal is 

entangled, as much line as possible 

must be removed prior to release, using 

an approved line cutter from the list 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of 

this section. If the hook can be removed, 

it must be removed using a longhandled dehooker from the initial list 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(vii)(D) of 

this section. Without causing further 

injury, as much gear as possible must be 

removed from the turtle prior to its 

release. Refer to the careful release 

protocols and handling/release 

guidelines required in paragraph 

(c)(2)(vii)(C) of this section, and the 

handling and resuscitation requirements 

specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title, 

for additional information. 

(3) Restricted access to the Cape 

Hatteras Gear Restricted Area. A vessel 

that has been issued, or is required to 

have been issued, a limited access 

permit under this part may fish with 

pelagic longline gear in the Cape 

Hatteras gear restricted area described in 

paragraph (c)(2)(v) of this section, 

provided the vessel has been 

determined by NMFS to be ‘‘qualified,’’ 

(for the relevant year) using the 

performance metrics described in 

§ 635.14. 

(4) In the Gulf of Mexico, pelagic 

longline gear may not be fished or 

deployed from a vessel issued or 

required to have been issued a limited 

access permit under this part with live 

bait affixed to the hooks; and, a person 

aboard a vessel issued or required to 

have been issued a limited access 

permit under this part that has pelagic 

longline gear on board may not possess 

live baitfish, maintain live baitfish in 

any tank or well on board the vessel, or 

set up or attach an aeration or water 

circulation device in or to any such tank 

or well. For the purposes of this section, 

the Gulf of Mexico includes all waters 

of the U.S. EEZ west and north of the 

boundary stipulated at 50 CFR 

600.105(c). 

(5) The operator of a vessel permitted 

or required to be permitted under this 

part and that has pelagic longline gear 

on board must undertake the following 

sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures: 

(i) Possession and use of required 

mitigation gear. Required sea turtle 

bycatch mitigation gear, which NMFS 

has approved under paragraph (c)(5)(iv) 

of this section as meeting the minimum 

design standards specified in 

paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (M) of 

this section, must be carried onboard, 

and must be used to disengage any 

hooked or entangled sea turtles in 

accordance with the handling 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(c)(5)(ii) of this section. 

(A) Long-handled line clipper or 

cutter. Line cutters are intended to cut 

high test monofilament line as close as 

possible to the hook, and assist in 

removing line from entangled sea turtles 

to minimize any remaining gear upon 

release. NMFS has established 

minimum design standards for the line 

cutters, which may be purchased or 

fabricated from readily available and 

low-cost materials. The LaForce line 

cutter and the Arceneaux line clipper 

are models that meet these minimum 

design standards. One long-handled line 

clipper or cutter meeting the minimum 

design standards, and a set of 

replacement blades, are required to be 

onboard. The minimum design 

standards for line cutters are as follows: 

(1) A protected and secured cutting 

blade. The cutting blade(s) must be 

capable of cutting 2.0–2.1 mm (0.078 

in.–0.083 in.) monofilament line (400-lb 

test) or polypropylene multistrand 

material, known as braided or tarred 

mainline, and must be maintained in 

working order. The cutting blade must 

be curved, recessed, contained in a 

holder, or otherwise designed to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71597 

facilitate its safe use so that direct 

contact between the cutting surface and 

the sea turtle or the user is prevented. 

The cutting instrument must be securely 

attached to an extended reach handle 

and be easily replaceable. One extra set 

of replacement blades meeting these 

standards must also be carried on board 

to replace all cutting surfaces on the line 

cutter or clipper. 

(2) An extended reach handle. The 

line cutter blade(s) must be securely 

fastened to an extended reach handle or 

pole with a minimum length equal to, 

or greater than, 150 percent of the height 

of the vessel’s freeboard, or 6 feet 

(1.83 m), whichever is greater. It is 

recommended, but not required, that the 

handle break down into sections. There 

is no restriction on the type of material 

used to construct this handle as long as 

it is sturdy and facilitates the secure 

attachment of the cutting blade. 

(B) Long-handled dehooker for 

ingested hooks. A long-handled 

dehooking device is intended to remove 

ingested hooks from sea turtles that 

cannot be boated. It should also be used 

to engage a loose hook when a turtle is 

entangled but not hooked, and line is 

being removed. The design must shield 

the barb of the hook and prevent it from 

re-engaging during the removal process. 

One long-handled device, meeting the 

minimum design standards, is required 

onboard to remove ingested hooks. The 

minimum design standards are as 

follows: 

(1) Hook removal device. The hook 

removal device must be constructed of 

5/16-inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless 

steel and have a dehooking end no 

larger than 1–7/8-inches (4.76 cm) 

outside diameter. The device must 

securely engage and control the leader 

while shielding the barb to prevent the 

hook from re-engaging during removal. 

It may not have any unprotected 

terminal points (including blunt ones), 

as these could cause injury to the 

esophagus during hook removal. The 

device must be of a size appropriate to 

secure the range of hook sizes and styles 

used in the pelagic longline fishery 

targeting swordfish and tuna. 

(2) Extended reach handle. The 

dehooking end must be securely 

fastened to an extended reach handle or 

pole with a minimum length equal to or 

greater than 150 percent of the height of 

the vessel’s freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m), 

whichever is greater. It is recommended, 

but not required, that the handle break 

down into sections. The handle must be 

sturdy and strong enough to facilitate 

the secure attachment of the hook 

removal device. 

(C) Long-handled dehooker for 

external hooks. A long-handled 

dehooker, meeting the minimum design 

standards, is required onboard for use 

on externally-hooked sea turtles that 

cannot be boated. The long-handled 

dehooker for ingested hooks described 

in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this section 

would meet this requirement. The 

minimum design standards are as 

follows: 

(1) Construction. A long-handled 

dehooker must be constructed of 5/16- 

inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless steel rod. 

A 5-inch (12.7-cm) tube T-handle of 1- 

inch (2.54 cm) outside diameter is 

recommended, but not required. The 

design should be such that a fish hook 

can be rotated out, without pulling it 

out at an angle. The dehooking end 

must be blunt with all edges rounded. 

The device must be of a size appropriate 

to secure the range of hook sizes and 

styles used in the pelagic longline 

fishery targeting swordfish and tuna. 

(2) Extended reach handle. The 

handle must be a minimum length equal 

to the height of the vessel’s freeboard or 

6 ft. (1.83 m), whichever is greater. 

(D) Long-handled device to pull an 

‘‘inverted V.’’ This tool is used to pull 

a ‘‘V’’ in the fishing line when 

implementing the ‘‘inverted V’’ 

dehooking technique, as described in 

the document entitled ‘‘Careful Release 

Protocols for Sea Turtle Release With 

Minimal Injury,’’ required under 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, for 

disentangling and dehooking entangled 

sea turtles. One long-handled device to 

pull an ‘‘inverted V’’, meeting the 

minimum design standards, is required 

onboard. If a 6-ft (1.83 m) J-style 

dehooker is used to comply with 

paragraph (c)(5)(i)(C) of this section, it 

will also satisfy this requirement. 

Minimum design standards are as 

follows: 

(1) Hook end. This device, such as a 

standard boat hook or gaff, must be 

constructed of stainless steel or 

aluminum. A sharp point, such as on a 

gaff hook, is to be used only for holding 

the monofilament fishing line and 

should never contact the sea turtle. 

(2) Extended reach handle. The 

handle must have a minimum length 

equal to the height of the vessel’s 

freeboard, or 6 ft. (1.83 m), whichever is 

greater. The handle must be sturdy and 

strong enough to facilitate the secure 

attachment of the gaff hook. 

(E) Dipnet. One dipnet, meeting the 

minimum design standards, is required 

onboard. Dipnets are to be used to 

facilitate safe handling of sea turtles by 

allowing them to be brought onboard for 

fishing gear removal, without causing 

further injury to the animal. Turtles 

must not be brought onboard without 

the use of a dipnet. The minimum 

design standards for dipnets are as 

follows: 

(1) Size of dipnet. The dipnet must 

have a sturdy net hoop of at least 31 

inches (78.74 cm) inside diameter and a 

bag depth of at least 38 inches (96.52 

cm) to accommodate turtles below 3 ft. 

(0.914 m) carapace length. The bag mesh 

openings may not exceed 3 inches (7.62 

cm). There must be no sharp edges or 

burrs on the hoop, or where the hoop is 

attached to the handle. 

(2) Extended reach handle. The 

dipnet hoop must be securely fastened 

to an extended reach handle or pole 

with a minimum length equal to, or 

greater than, 150 percent of the height 

of the vessel’s freeboard, or at least 6 ft 

(1.83 m), whichever is greater. The 

handle must made of a rigid material 

strong enough to facilitate the sturdy 

attachment of the net hoop and able to 

support a minimum of 100 lbs (34.1 kg) 

without breaking or significant bending 

or distortion. It is recommended, but not 

required, that the extended reach handle 

break down into sections. 

(F) Tire. A minimum of one tire is 

required onboard for supporting a turtle 

in an upright orientation while it is 

onboard, although an assortment of 

sizes is recommended to accommodate 

a range of turtle sizes. The required tire 

must be a standard passenger vehicle 

tire, and must be free of exposed steel 

belts. 

(G) Short-handled dehooker for 

ingested hooks. One short-handled 

device, meeting the minimum design 

standards, is required onboard for 

removing ingested hooks. This dehooker 

is designed to remove ingested hooks 

from boated sea turtles. It can also be 

used on external hooks or hooks in the 

front of the mouth. Minimum design 

standards are as follows: 

(1) Hook removal device. The hook 

removal device must be constructed of 

1⁄4-inch (6.35 mm) 316 L stainless steel, 

and must allow the hook to be secured 

and the barb shielded without reengaging during the removal process. It 

must be no larger than 15⁄16 inch (3.33 

cm) outside diameter. It may not have 

any unprotected terminal points 

(including blunt ones), as this could 

cause injury to the esophagus during 

hook removal. A sliding PVC bite block 

must be used to protect the beak and 

facilitate hook removal if the turtle bites 

down on the dehooking device. The bite 

block should be constructed of a 3⁄4-inch 

(1.91 cm) inside diameter high impact 

plastic cylinder (e.g., Schedule 80 PVC) 

that is 10 inches (25.4 cm) long to allow 

for 5 inches (12.7 cm) of slide along the 

shaft. The device must be of a size 

appropriate to secure the range of hook 

sizes and styles used in the pelagic 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71598 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

longline fishery targeting swordfish and 

tuna. 

(2) Handle length. The handle should 

be approximately 16–24 inches (40.64 

cm–60.69 cm) in length, with 

approximately a 5-inch (12.7 cm) long 

tube T-handle of approximately 1 inch 

(2.54 cm) in diameter. 

(H) Short-handled dehooker for 

external hooks. One short-handled 

dehooker for external hooks, meeting 

the minimum design standards, is 

required onboard. The short-handled 

dehooker for ingested hooks required to 

comply with paragraph (c)(5)(i)(G) of 

this section will also satisfy this 

requirement. Minimum design 

standards are as follows: 

(1) Hook removal device. The 

dehooker must be constructed of 5⁄16- 

inch (7.94 cm) 316 L stainless steel, and 

the design must be such that a hook can 

be rotated out without pulling it out at 

an angle. The dehooking end must be 

blunt, and all edges rounded. The 

device must be of a size appropriate to 

secure the range of hook sizes and styles 

used in the pelagic longline fishery 

targeting swordfish and tuna. 

(2) Handle length. The handle should 

be approximately 16–24 inches (40.64 

cm–60.69 cm) long with approximately 

a 5-inch (12.7 cm) long tube T-handle of 

approximately 1 inch (2.54 cm) in 

diameter. 

(I) Long-nose or needle-nose pliers. 

One pair of long-nose or needle-nose 

pliers, meeting the minimum design 

standards, is required on board. 

Required long-nose or needle-nose 

pliers can be used to remove deeply 

embedded hooks from the turtle’s flesh 

that must be twisted during removal. 

They can also hold PVC splice 

couplings, when used as mouth 

openers, in place. To meet the minimum 

design standards such pliers must 

generally be approximately 12 inches 

(30.48 cm) in length, and should be 

constructed of stainless steel material. 

(J) Bolt cutters. One pair of bolt 

cutters, meeting the minimum design 

standards, is required on board. 

Required bolt cutters may be used to cut 

hooks to facilitate their removal. They 

should be used to cut off the eye or barb 

of a hook, so that it can safely be pushed 

through a sea turtle without causing 

further injury. They should also be used 

to cut off as much of the hook as 

possible, when the remainder of the 

hook cannot be removed. To meet the 

minimum design standards such bolt 

cutters must generally be approximately 

17 inches (43.18 cm) in total length, 

with 4-inch (10.16 cm) long blades that 

are 21⁄4 inches (5.72 cm) wide, when 

closed, and with 13-inch (33.02 cm) 

long handles. Required bolt cutters must 

be able to cut hard metals, such as 

stainless or carbon steel hooks, up to 1⁄4- 

inch (6.35 mm) diameter. 

(K) Monofilament line cutters. One 

pair of monofilament line cutters is 

required on board. Required 

monofilament line cutters must be used 

to remove fishing line as close to the eye 

of the hook as possible, if the hook is 

swallowed or cannot be removed. To 

meet the minimum design standards 

such monofilament line cutters must 

generally be approximately 71⁄2 inches 

(19.05 cm) in length. The blades must be 

1 in (4.45 cm) in length and 5⁄8-in (1.59 

cm) wide, when closed, and are 

recommended to be coated with Teflon 

(a trademark owned by E.I. DuPont de 

Nemours and Company Corp.). 

(L) Mouth openers/mouth gags. 

Required mouth openers and mouth 

gags are used to open sea turtle mouths, 

and to keep them open when removing 

ingested hooks from boated turtles. 

They must allow access to the hook or 

line without causing further injury to 

the turtle. Design standards are included 

in the item descriptions. At least two of 

the seven different types of mouth 

openers/gags described below are 

required: 

(1) A block of hard wood. Placed in 

the corner of the jaw, a block of hard 

wood may be used to gag open a turtle’s 

mouth. A smooth block of hard wood of 

a type that does not splinter (e.g. maple) 

with rounded edges should be sanded 

smooth, if necessary, and soaked in 

water to soften the wood. The 

dimensions should be approximately 11 

inches (27.94 cm) 1 inch (2.54 cm) 1 

inch (2.54 cm). A long-handled, wire 

shoe brush with a wooden handle, and 

with the wires removed, is an 

inexpensive, effective and practical 

mouth-opening device that meets these 

requirements. 

(2) A set of three canine mouth gags. 

Canine mouth gags are highly 

recommended to hold a turtle’s mouth 

open, because the gag locks into an open 

position to allow for hands-free 

operation after it is in place. A set of 

canine mouth gags must include one of 

each of the following sizes: small (5 

inches) (12.7 cm), medium (6 inches) 

(15.24 cm), and large (7 inches) (17.78 

cm). They must be constructed of 

stainless steel. A 1-inch (4.45 cm) piece 

of vinyl tubing (3⁄4-inch (1.91 cm) 

outside diameter and 5⁄8-inch (1.59 cm) 

inside diameter) must be placed over 

the ends to protect the turtle’s beak. 

(3) A set of two sturdy dog chew 

bones. Placed in the corner of a turtle’s 

jaw, canine chew bones are used to gag 

open a sea turtle’s mouth. Required 

canine chews must be constructed of 

durable nylon, zylene resin, or 

thermoplastic polymer, and strong 

enough to withstand biting without 

splintering. To accommodate a variety 

of turtle beak sizes, a set must include 

one large (51⁄2–8 inches (13.97 cm–20.32 

cm) in length), and one small (31⁄2–41⁄2

inches (8.89 cm–11.43 cm) in length) 

canine chew bones. 

(4) A set of two rope loops covered 

with hose. A set of two rope loops 

covered with a piece of hose can be 

used as a mouth opener, and to keep a 

turtle’s mouth open during hook and/or 

line removal. A required set consists of 

two 3-foot (0.91 m) lengths of poly braid 

rope (3⁄8-inch (9.52 mm) diameter 

suggested), each covered with an 8-inch 

(20.32 cm) section of 1⁄2-inch (1.27 cm) 

or 3⁄4-inch (1.91 cm) light-duty garden 

hose, and each tied into a loop. The 

upper loop of rope covered with hose is 

secured on the upper beak to give 

control with one hand, and the second 

piece of rope covered with hose is 

secured on the lower beak to give 

control with the user’s foot. 

(5) A hank of rope. Placed in the 

corner of a turtle’s jaw, a hank of rope 

can be used to gag open a sea turtle’s 

mouth. A 6-foot (1.83 m) lanyard of 

approximately 3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) 

braided nylon rope may be folded to 

create a hank, or looped bundle, of rope. 

Any size soft-braided nylon rope is 

allowed, however it must create a hank 

of approximately 2–4 inches (5.08 cm– 

10.16 cm) in thickness. 

(6) A set of four PVC splice couplings. 

PVC splice couplings can be positioned 

inside a turtle’s mouth to allow access 

to the back of the mouth for hook and 

line removal. They are to be held in 

place with the needle-nose pliers. To 

ensure proper fit and access, a required 

set must consist of the following 

Schedule 40 PVC splice coupling sizes: 

1 inch (2.54 cm), 11⁄4 inch (3.18 cm), 11⁄2

inch (3.81 cm), and 2 inches (5.08 cm). 

(7) A large avian oral speculum. A 

large avian oral speculum provides the 

ability to hold a turtle’s mouth open and 

to control the head with one hand, 

while removing a hook with the other 

hand. The avian oral speculum must be 

9-inches (22.86 cm) long, and 

constructed of 3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) wire 

diameter surgical stainless steel (Type 

304). It must be covered with 8 inches 

(20.32 cm) of clear vinyl tubing (5⁄16- 

inch (7.9 mm) outside diameter, 

3⁄16-inch (4.76 mm) inside diameter). 

(M) Turtle control devices. One turtle 

control device, as described in 

paragraph (c)(5)(i)(M)(1) or (2) of this 

section, and meeting the minimum 

design standards, is required onboard 

and must be used to secure a front 

flipper of the sea turtle so that the 

animal can be controlled at the side of 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71599 

the vessel. It is strongly recommended 

that a pair of turtle control devices be 

used to secure both front flippers when 

crew size and conditions allow. 

Minimum design standards consist of: 

(1) Turtle tether and extended reach 

handle. Approximately 15–20 feet of 1⁄2- 

inch hard lay negative buoyance line is 

used to make an approximately 30-inch 

loop to slip over the flipper. The line is 

fed through a 3⁄4-inch fair lead, eyelet, 

or eyebolt at the working end of a pole 

and through a 3⁄4-inch eyelet or eyebolt 

in the midsection. A 1⁄2-inch quick 

release cleat holds the line in place near 

the end of the pole. A final 3⁄4-inch 

eyelet or eyebolt should be positioned 

approximately 7-inches behind the cleat 

to secure the line, while allowing a safe 

working distance to avoid injury when 

releasing the line from the cleat. The 

line must be securely fastened to an 

extended reach handle or pole with a 

minimum length equal to, or greater 

than, 150 percent of the height of the 

vessel’s freeboard, or a minimum of 6 

feet (1.83 m), whichever is greater. 

There is no restriction on the type of 

material used to construct this handle, 

as long as it is sturdy. The handle must 

include a tag line to attach the tether to 

the vessel to prevent the turtle from 

breaking away with the tether still 

attached. 

(2) T&G ninja sticks and extended 

reach handles. Approximately 30–35 

feet of 1⁄2-inch to 5⁄8-inch soft lay 

polypropylene or nylon line or similar 

is fed through 2 PVC conduit, fiberglass, 

or similar sturdy poles and knotted 

using an overhand (recommended) knot 

at the end of both poles or otherwise 

secured. There should be approximately 

18–24 inches of exposed rope between 

the poles to be used as a working 

surface to capture and secure the 

flipper. Knot the line at the ends of both 

poles to prevent line slippage if they are 

not otherwise secured. The remaining 

line is used to tether the apparatus to 

the boat unless an additional tag line is 

used. Two lengths of sunlight resistant 

3⁄4-inch schedule 40 PVC electrical 

conduit, fiberglass, aluminum, or 

similar material should be used to 

construct the apparatus with a 

minimum length equal to, or greater 

than, 150 percent of the height of the 

vessel’s freeboard, or 6 feet (1.83 m), 

whichever is greater. 

(ii) Handling and release 

requirements. (A) Sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation gear, as required by 

paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (D) of 

this section, must be used to disengage 

any hooked or entangled sea turtles that 

cannot be brought onboard. Sea turtle 

bycatch mitigation gear, as required by 

paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E) through (M) of 

this section, must be used to facilitate 

access, safe handling, disentanglement, 

and hook removal or hook cutting of sea 

turtles that can be brought onboard, 

where feasible. Sea turtles must be 

handled, and bycatch mitigation gear 

must be used, in accordance with the 

careful release protocols and handling/ 

release guidelines specified in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and in 

accordance with the onboard handling 

and resuscitation requirements specified 

in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title. 

(B) Boated turtles. When practicable, 

active and comatose sea turtles must be 

brought on board, with a minimum of 

injury, using a dipnet as required by 

paragraph (c)(5)(i)(E) of this section. All 

turtles less than 3 ft. (.91 m) carapace 

length should be boated, if sea 

conditions permit. 

(1) A boated turtle should be placed 

on a standard automobile tire, or 

cushioned surface, in an upright 

orientation to immobilize it and 

facilitate gear removal. Then, it should 

be determined if the hook can be 

removed without causing further injury. 

(2) All externally embedded hooks 

should be removed, unless hook 

removal would result in further injury 

to the turtle. No attempt to remove a 

hook should be made if it has been 

swallowed and the insertion point is not 

visible, or if it is determined that 

removal would result in further injury. 

(3) If a hook cannot be removed, as 

much line as possible should be 

removed from the turtle using 

monofilament cutters as required by 

paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, and 

the hook should be cut as close as 

possible to the insertion point before 

releasing the turtle, using boltcutters as 

required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 

section. 

(4) If a hook can be removed, an 

effective technique may be to cut off 

either the barb, or the eye, of the hook 

using bolt cutters, and then to slide the 

hook out. When the hook is visible in 

the front of the mouth, a mouth-opener, 

as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 

section, may facilitate opening the 

turtle’s mouth and a gag may facilitate 

keeping the mouth open. Short-handled 

dehookers for ingested hooks, long-nose 

pliers, or needle-nose pliers, as required 

by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section, 

should be used to remove visible hooks 

from the mouth that have not been 

swallowed on boated turtles, as 

appropriate. 

(5) As much gear as possible must be 

removed from the turtle without causing 

further injury prior to its release. Refer 

to the careful release protocols and 

handling/release guidelines required in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the 

handling and resuscitation requirements 

specified in § 223.206(d)(1) of this title, 

for additional information. 

(C) Non-boated turtles. If a sea turtle 

is too large, or hooked in a manner that 

precludes safe boating without causing 

further damage or injury to the turtle, 

sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear 

required by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) 

through (D) of this section must be used 

to disentangle sea turtles from fishing 

gear and disengage any hooks, or to clip 

the line and remove as much line as 

possible from a hook that cannot be 

removed, prior to releasing the turtle, in 

accordance with the protocols specified 

in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. 

(1) Non-boated turtles should be 

brought close to the boat and provided 

with time to calm down. Then, it must 

be determined whether or not the hook 

can be removed without causing further 

injury. A front flipper or flippers of the 

turtle must be secured with an approved 

turtle control device from the list 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(D) of 

this section. 

(2) All externally embedded hooks 

must be removed, unless hook removal 

would result in further injury to the 

turtle. No attempt should be made to 

remove a hook if it has been swallowed, 

or if it is determined that removal 

would result in further injury. If the 

hook cannot be removed and/or if the 

animal is entangled, as much line as 

possible must be removed prior to 

release, using a line cutter as required 

by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. If 

the hook can be removed, it must be 

removed using a long-handled dehooker 

as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this 

section. 

(3) Without causing further injury, as 

much gear as possible must be removed 

from the turtle prior to its release. Refer 

to the careful release protocols and 

handling/release guidelines required in 

paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the 

handling and resuscitation requirements 

specified in § 223.206(d)(1) for 

additional information. 

(iii) Gear modifications. The 

following measures are required of 

vessel operators to reduce the incidental 

capture and mortality of sea turtles: 

(A) Gangion length. The length of any 

gangion on vessels that have pelagic 

longline gear on board and that have 

been issued, or are required to have, a 

limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna 

Longline category permit for use in the 

Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean 

Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must be at 

least 10 percent longer than any 

floatline length if the total length of any 

gangion plus the total length of any 

floatline is less than 100 meters. 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71600 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) Hook size, type, and bait. Vessels 

fishing outside of the NED gear 

restricted area, as defined at § 635.2, 

that have pelagic longline gear on board, 

and that have been issued, or are 

required to have, a limited access 

swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit for use in the 

Atlantic Ocean, including the Caribbean 

Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, are limited, 

at all times, to possessing on board and/ 

or using only whole finfish and/or squid 

bait, and the following types and sizes 

of fishing hooks: 

(1) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an 

offset not to exceed 10°; and/or, 

(2) 16/0 or larger non-offset circle 

hooks. 

(i) For purposes of paragraphs 

(c)(5)(iii)(B)(1) and (2) of this section, 

the outer diameter of an 18/0 circle 

hook at its widest point must be no 

smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm), and 

the outer diameter of a 16/0 circle hook 

at its widest point must be no smaller 

than 1.74 inches (44.3 mm), when 

measured with the eye of the hook on 

the vertical axis (y-axis) and 

perpendicular to the horizontal axis (xaxis). The distance between the hook 

point and the shank (i.e., the gap) on an 

18/0 circle hook must be no larger than 

1.13 inches (28.8 mm), and the gap on 

a 16/0 circle hook must be no larger 

than 1.01 inches (25.8 mm). The 

allowable offset is measured from the 

barbed end of the hook, and is relative 

to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or 

shank, of the hook when laid on its side. 

The only allowable offset circle hooks 

are those that are offset by the hook 

manufacturer. In the Gulf of Mexico, as 

described at § 600.105(c) of this chapter, 

circle hooks also must be constructed of 

corrodible round wire stock that is no 

larger than 3.65 mm in diameter. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(3) If green-stick gear, as defined at 

§ 635.2, is onboard, a vessel may possess 

up to 20 J-hooks. J-hooks may be used 

only with green-stick gear, and no more 

than 10 hooks may be used at one time 

with each green-stick gear. J-hooks used 

with green-stick gear may be no smaller 

than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm) when measured 

in a straight line over the longest 

distance from the eye to any other part 

of the hook. If green-stick gear is 

onboard, artificial bait may be 

possessed, but may be used only with 

green-stick gear. 

(iv) Approval of sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation gear. NMFS will file with the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication an initial list of required sea 

turtle bycatch mitigation gear that 

NMFS has approved as meeting the 

minimum design standards specified 

under paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section. 

Other devices proposed for use as line 

clippers or cutters or dehookers, as 

specified under paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A), 

(B), (C), (G), (H), and (K) of this section, 

must be approved as meeting the 

minimum design standards before being 

used. NMFS will examine new devices, 

as they become available, to determine 

if they meet the minimum design 

standards, and will file with the Office 

of the Federal Register for publication 

notification of any new devices that are 

approved as meeting the standards. 

(d) Bottom longlines. (1) If bottom 

longline gear is onboard a vessel issued 

a permit under this part, persons aboard 

that vessel may not fish or deploy any 

type of fishing gear in the following 

areas: 

(i) The mid-Atlantic shark closed area 

from January 1 through July 31 each 

calendar year; 

(ii) The areas designated at 

§ 622.33(a)(1) through (3) of this 

chapter, year-round; and 

(iii) The areas described in paragraphs 

(d)(1)(iii)(A) through (H) of this section, 

year-round. 

(A) Snowy Grouper Wreck. Bounded 

by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 33°25′ N. lat., 

77°04.75′ W. long.; 33°34.75′ N. lat., 

76°51.3′ W. long.; 33°25.5′ N. lat., 

76°46.5′ W. long.; 33°15.75′ N. lat., 

77°00.0′ W. long.; 33°25′ N. lat., 

77°04.75′ W. long. 

(B) Northern South Carolina. 

Bounded on the north by 32°53.5′ N. 

lat.; on the south by 32°48.5′ N. lat.; on 

the east by 78°04.75′ W. long.; and on 

the west by 78°16.75′ W. long. 

(C) Edisto. Bounded on the north by 

32°24′ N. lat.; on the south by 32°18.5′ 

N. lat.; on the east by 78°54.0′ W. long.; 

and on the west by 79°06.0′ W. long. 

(D) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef. 

Bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 

order, the following points: 32°04′ N. 

lat., 79°12′ W. long.; 32°08.5′ N. lat., 

79°07.5′ W. long.; 32°06′ N. lat., 79°05′ 

W. long.; 32°01.5′ N. lat., 79°09.3′ W. 

long.; 32°04′ N. lat., 79°12′ W. long. 

(E) Georgia. Bounded by rhumb lines 

connecting, in order, the following 

points: 31°43′ N. lat., 79°31′ W. long.; 

31°43′ N. lat., 79°21′ W. long.; 31°34′ N. 

lat., 79°29′ W. long.; 31°34′ N. lat., 

79°39′ W. long; 31°43′ N. lat., 79°31′ W. 

long. 

(F) North Florida. Bounded on the 

north by 30°29′ N. lat.; on the south by 

30°19′ N. lat.; on the east by 80°02′ W. 

long.; and on the west by 80°14′ W. 

long. 

(G) St. Lucie Hump. Bounded on the 

north by 27°08′ N. lat.; on the south by 

27°04′ N. lat.; on the east by 79°58′ W. 

long.; and on the west by 80°00′ W. 

long. 

(H) East Hump. Bounded by rhumb 

lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 24°36.5′ N. lat., 80°45.5′ W. 

long.; 24°32′ N. lat., 80°36′ W. long; 

24°27.5′ N. lat., 80°38.5′ W. long; 

24°32.5′ N. lat., 80°48′ W. long.; 24°36.5′ 

N. lat., 80°45.5′ W. long. 

(2) The operator of a vessel required 

to be permitted under this part and that 

has bottom longline gear on board must 

undertake the following bycatch 

mitigation measures to release sea 

turtles, prohibited sharks, or smalltooth 

sawfish, as appropriate. 

(i) Possession and use of required 

mitigation gear. The equipment listed in 

paragraph (c)(5)(i) of this section must 

be carried on board and must be used 

to handle, release, and disentangle 

hooked or entangled sea turtles, 

prohibited sharks, or smalltooth sawfish 

in accordance with requirements 

specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(ii) Handling and release 

requirements. Sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation gear, as required by 

paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, must 

be used to disengage any hooked or 

entangled sea turtle as stated in 

paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section. This 

mitigation gear should also be employed 

to disengage any hooked or entangled 

species of prohibited sharks as listed 

under heading D of Table 1 of appendix 

A of this part, any hooked or entangled 

species of sharks that exceed the 

retention limits as specified in 

§ 635.24(a), and any hooked or 

entangled smalltooth sawfish. In 

addition, if a smalltooth sawfish is 

caught, the fish should be kept in the 

water while maintaining water flow 

over the gills and the fish should be 

examined for research tags. All 

smalltooth sawfish must be released in 

a manner that will ensure maximum 

probability of survival, but without 

removing the fish from the water or any 

research tags from the fish. 

(3) If a vessel issued or required to be 

issued a permit under this part is in a 

closed area designated under paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section and has pelagic 

longline gear onboard, the vessel may 

not, at any time, possess or land any 

demersal species listed in Table 3 of 

Appendix A to this part in excess of 5 

percent, by weight, of the total weight 

of pelagic and demersal species 

possessed or landed, that are listed in 

Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this 

part. 

(e) Purse seine—(1) Mesh size. A 

purse seine used in directed fishing for 

bluefin tuna must have a mesh size 

equal to or smaller than 4.5 inches (11.4 

cm) in the main body (stretched when 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71601 

wet) and must have at least 24-count 

thread throughout the net. 

(2) Inspection of purse seine vessels. 

Persons that own or operate an Atlantic 

Tunas purse seine vessel must have 

their fishing gear inspected for mesh 

size by an enforcement agent of NMFS 

prior to commencing fishing for the 

season in any fishery that may result in 

the harvest of Atlantic tunas. Such 

persons must request such inspection at 

least 24 hours before commencement of 

the first fishing trip of the season. If 

NMFS does not inspect the vessel 

within 24 hours of such notification, the 

inspection requirement is waived. In 

addition, at least 24 hours before 

commencement of offloading any 

bluefin tuna after a fishing trip, such 

persons must request an inspection of 

the vessel and catch by notifying NMFS. 

If, after notification by the vessel, NMFS 

does not arrange to inspect the vessel 

and catch at offloading, the inspection 

requirement is waived. 

(f) Rod and reel. Persons who have 

been issued or are required to be issued 

a permit under this part and who are 

participating in a ‘‘tournament,’’ as 

defined in § 635.2, that bestows points, 

prizes, or awards for Atlantic billfish 

must deploy only non-offset circle 

hooks when using natural bait or natural 

bait/artificial lure combinations, and 

may not deploy a J-hook or an offset 

circle hook in combination with natural 

bait or a natural bait/artificial lure 

combination. 

(g) Gillnet. (1) Persons fishing with 

gillnet gear must comply with the 

provisions implementing the Atlantic 

Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, the 

Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction 

Plan, the Harbor Porpoise Take 

Reduction Plan, and any other relevant 

Take Reduction Plan set forth in 

§§ 229.32 through 229.35 of this title. If 

a listed whale is taken, the vessel 

operator must cease fishing operations 

immediately and contact NOAA 

Fisheries as required under part 229 of 

this title. 

(2) While fishing with a gillnet for or 

in possession of any of the large coastal, 

small coastal, and pelagic sharks listed 

in section A, B, and/or C of table 1 of 

appendix A of this part, the gillnet must 

remain attached to at least one vessel at 

one end, except during net checks. 

(3) Vessel operators fishing with 

gillnet for, or in possession of, any of 

the large coastal, small coastal, and 

pelagic sharks listed in sections A, B, 

and/or C of table 1 of appendix A of this 

part are required to conduct net checks 

every 0.5 to 2 hours to look for and 

remove any sea turtles, marine 

mammals, or smalltooth sawfish. 

Smalltooth sawfish should not be 

removed from the water while being 

removed from the net. 

(h) 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 

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. 

(i) Speargun fishing gear. Speargun 

fishing gear may only be utilized when 

recreational fishing for Atlantic BAYS 

tunas and only from vessels issued 

either a valid HMS Angling or valid 

HMS Charter/Headboat permit. Persons 

fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas using 

speargun gear, as specified in § 635.19, 

must be physically in the water when 

the speargun is fired or discharged, and 

may freedive, use SCUBA, or other 

underwater breathing devices. Only 

free-swimming BAYS tunas, not those 

restricted by fishing lines or other 

means, may be taken by speargun 

fishing gear. ‘‘Powerheads,’’ as defined 

at § 600.10 of this chapter, or any other 

explosive devices, may not be used to 

harvest or fish for BAYS tunas with 

speargun fishing gear. 

(j) Green-stick gear. Green-stick gear 

may only be utilized when fishing from 

vessels issued a valid Atlantic Tunas 

General, Swordfish General 

Commercial, HMS Charter/Headboat, or 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit. The gear must be attached to the 

vessel, actively trolled with the 

mainline at or above the water’s surface, 

and may not be deployed with more 

than 10 hooks or gangions attached. 

■ 13. In § 635.23, the section heading 

and paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.23 Retention limits for bluefin tuna. 

* * * * * 

(d) Harpoon category. Persons aboard 

a vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas 

Harpoon category may retain, possess, 

or land an unlimited number of giant 

bluefin tuna per day. An incidental 

catch of two large medium bluefin tuna 

per vessel per day may be retained, 

possessed, or landed, unless the 

retention limits is increased by NMFS 

through an inseason adjustment to 

three, or a maximum of four, large 

medium bluefin tuna per vessel per day, 

based upon the criteria under 

§ 635.27(a)(8). NMFS will implement an 

adjustment via publication in the 

Federal Register. If adjusted upwards to 

three or four large medium bluefin tuna 

per vessel per day, NMFS may 

subsequently decrease the retention 

limit down to the default level of two, 

based on the criteria under 

§ 635.27(a)(8). 

(e) Purse Seine category. Persons 

aboard a vessel permitted in the Atlantic 

Tunas Purse Seine category may retain 

giant bluefin tuna (81 inches and larger), 

and smaller bluefin, as restricted by 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, 

up to the amount of individual quota 

allocated under § 635.27(a)(4)(ii). Purse 

seine vessel owners who, through 

landing and/or leasing, have no 

remaining bluefin tuna quota allocation 

may not use their permitted vessels in 

any fishery in which Atlantic bluefin 

tuna might be caught, regardless of 

whether bluefin tuna are retained, 

unless such vessel owners lease 

additional allocation through the 

Individual Bluefin Quota Allocation 

Leasing Program, under § 635.15(c). 

Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 

Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category, 

(1) May retain, possess, land, or sell 

large medium bluefin in amounts not 

exceeding 15 percent, by weight, of the 

total amount of giant bluefin landed 

during that fishing year. 

(2) May retain, possess, or land 

bluefin smaller than the large medium 

size class that are taken incidentally 

when fishing for skipjack tuna in an 

amount not exceeding 1 percent, by 

weight, of the skipjack tuna and 

yellowfin tuna landed on that trip. 

Landings of bluefin smaller than the 

large medium size class may not be sold 

and are counted against the Purse Seine 

category bluefin quota allocated to that 

vessel. 

(3) May fish for yellowfin, bigeye, 

albacore, or skipjack tuna at any time; 

however, landings of bluefin tuna taken 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71602 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

incidental to fisheries targeting other 

Atlantic tunas or in any fishery in 

which bluefin tuna might be caught will 

be deducted from the individual vessel’s 

quota. 

(f) Longline category. Persons aboard 

a vessel permitted in the Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category are subject to the 

bluefin tuna retention restrictions in 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) A vessel fishing with pelagic 

longline gear may retain, possess, land 

and sell large medium and giant bluefin 

tuna taken incidentally when fishing for 

other species if in compliance with all 

the IBQ requirements of § 635.15, 

including the requirement that a vessel 

may not declare into or depart on a 

fishing trip with pelagic longline 

onboard unless it has the required 

minimum bluefin tuna IBQ allocation 

required for the region where fishing 

activity will occur. 

(2) A vessel with pelagic longline gear 

onboard must retain all dead bluefin 

tuna that are 73 inches or greater CFL. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. In § 635.27: 

■ a. Paragraphs (a) introductory text, 

(a)(1) through (3), and (a)(4)(i) through 

(iv) are revised; 

■ b. Paragraph (a)(4)(v) is added; 

■ c. Paragraphs (a)(5) and (6), (a)(7) 

heading, and (a)(7)(i) are revised; 

■ d. Paragraphs (a)(8)(x) through (xiv) 

are added; 

■ e. Paragraphs (a)(9), and (a)(10)(i) 

through (iii) are revised; and 

■ f. Paragraph (e) is added. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 635.27 Quotas. 

(a) Bluefin tuna. Consistent with 

ICCAT recommendations, and with 

paragraph (a)(10)(iv) of this section, 

NMFS may subtract the most recent, 

complete, and available estimate of dead 

discards from the annual U.S. bluefin 

tuna quota, and make the remainder 

available to be retained, possessed, or 

landed by persons and vessels subject to 

U.S. jurisdiction. The remaining 

baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota 

will be allocated among the General, 

Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, 

Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories, 

as described in this section. The 

baseline annual U.S. bluefin tuna quota 

is 923.7 mt ww, not including an 

additional annual 25 mt ww allocation 

provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section. The bluefin quota for the quota 

categories is calculated through the 

following process. First, 68 mt ww is 

subtracted from the baseline annual U.S. 

bluefin tuna quota and allocated to the 

Longline category quota. Second, the 

remaining quota is divided among the 

categories according to the following 

percentages: General—47.1 percent (403 

mt ww); Angling—19.7 percent (168.6 

mt ww), which includes the school 

bluefin tuna held in reserve as described 

under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; 

Harpoon—3.9 percent (33.4 mt ww); 

Purse Seine—18.6 percent (159.1 mt 

ww); Longline—8.1 percent (69.3 mt 

ww) plus the 68 mt ww allocation 

(137.3 mt ww total not including 25 mt 

ww allocation from paragraph (a)(3)); 

Trap—0.1 percent (0.9 mt ww); and 

Reserve—2.5 percent (21.4, mt ww). 

NMFS may make inseason and annual 

adjustments to quotas as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(9) and (10) of this 

section, including quota adjustments as 

a result of the annual reallocation of 

Purse Seine quota described under 

paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. 

Bluefin tuna quotas are specified in 

whole weight. 

(1) General category quota. (i) Catches 

from vessels for which General category 

Atlantic Tunas permits have been 

issued, catches from vessels issued an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline permit fishing 

under the provisions of 

§ 635.21(c)(3)(vi)(B), and certain catches 

from vessels for which an HMS Charter/ 

Headboat permit has been issued are 

counted against the General category 

quota in accordance with § 635.23(c)(3). 

Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, 

the amount of large medium and giant 

bluefin tuna that may be caught, 

retained, possessed, landed, or sold 

under the General category quota is 403 

mt ww, and is apportioned as follows, 

unless modified as described under 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section: 

(A) January 1 through the effective 

date of a closure notice filed by NMFS 

announcing that the January subquota is 

reached, or projected to be reached 

under § 635.28(a)(1), or until March 31, 

whichever comes first—5.3 percent 

(21.4 mt ww); 

(B) June 1 through August 31—50 

percent (201.5 mt ww); 

(C) September 1 through September 

30—26.5 percent (106.8 mt ww); 

(D) October 1 through November 30— 

13 percent (52.4 mt ww); and 

(E) December 1 through December 

31—5.2 percent (21 mt ww). 

(ii) NMFS may adjust each period’s 

apportionment based on overharvest or 

underharvest in the prior period, and 

may transfer subquota from one time 

period to another time period, earlier in 

the year, through inseason action or 

annual specifications. For example, 

subquota could be transferred from the 

December 1 through December 31 time 

period to the January time period; or 

from the October 1 through November 

30 time period to the September time 

period. This inseason adjustment may 

occur prior to the start of that year. In 

other words, although subject to the 

inseason criteria under paragraph (a)(8) 

of this section, the adjustment could 

occur prior to the start of the fishing 

year. For example, an inseason action 

transferring the 2016 December 1 

through December 31 time period 

subquota to the 2016 January 1 time 

period subquota could be filed in 2015. 

(iii) When the General category 

fishery has been closed in any quota 

period specified under paragraph 

(a)(1)(i) of this section, NMFS will 

publish a closure action as specified in 

§ 635.28. The subsequent time-period 

subquota will automatically open in 

accordance with the dates specified 

under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section. 

(2) Angling category quota. In 

accordance with the framework 

procedures of the Consolidated HMS 

FMP, prior to each fishing year, or as 

early as feasible, NMFS will establish 

the Angling category daily retention 

limits. In accordance with paragraph (a) 

of this section, the total amount of 

bluefin tuna that may be caught, 

retained, possessed, and landed by 

anglers aboard vessels for which an 

HMS Angling permit or an HMS 

Charter/Headboat permit has been 

issued is 168.6 mt ww. No more than 

2.3 percent (3.9 mt ww) of the annual 

Angling category quota may be large 

medium or giant bluefin tuna. In 

addition, over each 2-consecutive-year 

period (starting in 2011, inclusive), no 

more than 10 percent of the annual U.S. 

bluefin tuna quota, inclusive of the 

allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section, may be school bluefin 

tuna (i.e., 94.9 mt ww). The Angling 

category quota includes the amount of 

school bluefin tuna held in reserve 

under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section. 

The size class subquotas for bluefin tuna 

are further subdivided as follows: 

(i) After adjustment for the school 

bluefin tuna quota held in reserve 

(under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this 

section), 52.8 percent (40.8 mt ww) of 

the school bluefin tuna Angling category 

quota may be caught, retained, 

possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. 

lat. The remaining school bluefin tuna 

Angling category quota (36.5 mt ww) 

may be caught, retained, possessed or 

landed north of 39°18′ N. lat. 

(ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent 

(36.9 mt ww) of the large school/small 

medium bluefin tuna Angling category 

quota may be caught, retained, 

possessed, or landed south of 39°18′ N. 

lat. The remaining large school/small 

medium bluefin tuna Angling category 

quota (32.9 mt ww) may be caught, 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71603 

retained, possessed or landed north of 

39°18′ N. lat. 

(iii) One third (1.3 mt ww) of the large 

medium and giant bluefin tuna Angling 

category quota may be caught retained, 

possessed, or landed, in each of the 

three following geographic areas: North 

of 39°18′ N. lat.; south of 39°18′ N. lat., 

and outside of the Gulf of Mexico; and 

in the Gulf of Mexico. For the purposes 

of this section, the Gulf of Mexico 

region includes all waters of the U.S. 

EEZ west and north of the boundary 

stipulated at 50 CFR 600.105(c). 

(3) Longline category quota. Pursuant 

to paragraph (a) of this section, the total 

amount of large medium and giant 

bluefin tuna that may be caught, 

discarded dead, or retained, possessed, 

or landed by vessels that possess 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permits is 137.3 mt ww. In addition, 25 

mt ww shall be allocated for incidental 

catch by pelagic longline vessels fishing 

in the Northeast Distant gear restricted 

area, and subject to the restrictions 

under § 635.15(b)(8). 

(4) * * * 

(i) Baseline Purse Seine quota. 

Pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, 

the baseline amount of large medium 

and giant bluefin tuna that may be 

caught, retained, possessed, or landed 

by vessels that possess Atlantic Tunas 

Purse Seine category permits is 159.1 mt 

ww, unless adjusted as a result of 

inseason and/or annual adjustments to 

quotas as specified in paragraphs (a)(9) 

and (10) of this section; or adjusted 

(prior to allocation to individual 

participants) based on the previous 

year’s catch as described under 

paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. 

Annually, NMFS will make a 

determination when the Purse Seine 

fishery will start, based on variations in 

seasonal distribution, abundance or 

migration patterns of bluefin tuna, 

cumulative and projected landings in 

other commercial fishing categories, the 

potential for gear conflicts on the fishing 

grounds, or market impacts due to 

oversupply. NMFS will start the bluefin 

tuna purse seine season between June 1 

and August 15, by filing an action with 

the Office of the Federal Register, and 

notifying the public. The Purse Seine 

category fishery closes on December 31 

of each year. 

(ii) Allocation of bluefin quota to 

Purse Seine category participants. 

Annually, NMFS will make equal 

allocations of the baseline Purse Seine 

category quota described under 

paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section to 

individual Purse Seine participants (i.e., 

38.1 mt each), then make further 

determinations regarding the allocations 

per paragraph (a)(4)(v) of this section. 

Allocations of individual bluefin quota 

to individual Purse Seine participants 

may only be transferred through leasing 

in accordance with procedures and 

requirements at § 635.15(c) and other 

requirements under this paragraph 

(a)(4). 

(iii) Duration. Bluefin tuna quota 

allocation issued under this section is 

valid for the relevant fishing year unless 

it is revoked, suspended, or modified or 

unless the Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 

category quota is closed per § 635.28(a). 

(iv) Unused bluefin allocation. Any 

quota allocation that is unused at the 

end of the fishing year may not be 

carried forward by a Purse Seine 

participant to the following year, but 

would remain associated with the Purse 

Seine category as a whole, and subject 

to the quota regulations under § 635.27, 

including annual quota adjustments. 

(v) Annual reallocation of Atlantic 

Tunas Purse Seine category quota. (A) 

By the end of each year, NMFS will 

determine the amount of quota available 

to each Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 

category participant for the upcoming 

fishing year, based on his/her bluefin 

catch (landings and dead discards). 

Specifically, NMFS will allocate each 

Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 

participant either 100 percent, 75 

percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent of his/ 

her individual baseline quota allocation, 

described in paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this 

section, according to the following 

criteria: if the Purse Seine participant’s 

catch in year one ranges from 0 to 20 

percent of his/her individual baseline 

quota allocation, as described under 

paragraph (a)(4)(ii) of this section, the 

Purse Seine category participant would 

be allocated 25 percent of his/her 

individual baseline quota allocation in 

year two, and 75 percent of his/her 

individual allocation would be 

reallocated to the Reserve category for 

that year. Similarly, if the Purse Seine 

participant’s catch in year one is from 

greater than 20 percent up to 45 percent 

of his/her individual baseline quota 

allocation, that Purse Seine category 

participant would be allocated 50 

percent of his/her individual baseline 

quota allocation in year two, and 50 

percent of his/her individual allocation 

would be reallocated to the Reserve 

category for that year. If the Purse Seine 

participant’s catch in year one is from 

greater than 45 percent up to 70 percent 

of his/her individual baseline quota 

allocation, that Purse Seine category 

participant would be allocated 75 

percent of his/her individual baseline 

quota allocation in year two, and 25 

percent of his/her individual allocation 

would be transferred to the Reserve 

category for that year. If the Purse Seine 

participant’s catch in year one is greater 

than 70 percent of his/her individual 

baseline quota allocation, that Purse 

Seine category participant would be 

allocated 100 percent of his/her 

individual baseline quota allocation in 

year two, and no quota would be 

transferred to the Reserve category for 

that year. These criteria would apply 

following the same pattern in years two 

and beyond. 

(B) Purse Seine category participants 

may only lease to eligible IBQ 

participants allocated quota available to 

them that year, consistent with the 

purse seine allocation availability 

provisions in this section. For example, 

if a Purse Seine category participant was 

allocated 50 percent of his/her baseline 

quota, he/she would be able to catch 

and/or lease that allocation to an 

eligible IBQ participant. The individual 

participant’s remaining baseline quota 

would not be available to lease but 

would be transferred to the Reserve 

category. Allocation of less than 100% 

of a participant’s baseline quota (i.e., 25 

percent, 50 percent, or 75 percent) does 

not preclude the participant from 

leasing additional quota, as needed, 

consistent with § 635.15(c). 

(C) NMFS will inform each Atlantic 

Tunas Purse Seine category participant 

annually of its determination regarding 

the amount of individual quota 

allocated for the subsequent year 

through the electronic IBQ system 

established under § 635.15 and in 

writing via a permit holder letter, when 

NMFS has the complete catch data for 

the Purse Seine fishery. 

(5) Harpoon category quota. The total 

amount of large medium and giant 

bluefin tuna that may be caught, 

retained, possessed, landed, or sold by 

vessels that possess Harpoon category 

Atlantic Tunas permits is 33.4 mt ww. 

The Harpoon category fishery 

commences on June 1 of each year, and 

closes on November 15 of each year. 

(6) Trap category quota. The total 

amount of large medium and giant 

bluefin tuna that may be caught, 

retained, possessed, or landed by 

vessels that possess Trap category 

Atlantic Tunas permits is 0.9 mt ww. 

(7) Reserve category quota. (i) The 

total amount of bluefin tuna that is held 

in reserve for inseason or annual 

adjustments and research using quota or 

subquotas is 21.4 mt ww, which may be 

augmented by allowable underharvest 

from the previous year, or annual 

reallocation of Purse Seine category 

quota as described under paragraph 

(a)(4)(v) of this section. Consistent with 

paragraphs (a)(8), (a)(9), and (a)(10) of 

this section, NMFS may allocate any 

portion of the Reserve category quota for 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71604 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

inseason or annual adjustments to any 

fishing category quota. 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(x) Optimize fishing opportunity. 

(xi) Account for dead discards. 

(xii) Facilitate quota accounting. 

(xiii) Support other fishing 

monitoring programs through quota 

allocations and/or generation of 

revenue. 

(xiv) Support research through quota 

allocations and/or generation of 

revenue. 

(9) Inseason adjustments. To be 

effective for all, or a part of a fishing 

year, NMFS may transfer quotas 

specified under this section, among 

fishing categories or, as appropriate, 

subcategories, based on the criteria in 

paragraph (a)(8) of this section. 

(10) Annual adjustments. (i) 

Adjustments to category quotas 

specified under paragraphs (a) (1) 

through (7) of this section may be made 

in accordance with the restrictions of 

this paragraph and ICCAT 

recommendations. Based on landing, 

catch statistics, other available 

information, and in consideration of the 

criteria in paragraph (a)(8) of this 

section, if NMFS determines that a 

bluefin quota for any category or, as 

appropriate, subcategory has been 

exceeded (overharvest), NMFS may 

subtract all or a portion of the 

overharvest from that quota category or 

subcategory for the following fishing 

year. If NMFS determines that a bluefin 

quota for any category or, as 

appropriate, subcategory has not been 

reached (underharvest), NMFS may add 

all or a portion of the underharvest to, 

that quota category or subcategory, and/ 

or the Reserve category for the following 

fishing year. The underharvest that is 

carried forward may not exceed 100 

percent of each category’s baseline 

allocation specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section, and the total of the adjusted 

fishing category quotas and the Reserve 

category quota are consistent with 

ICCAT recommendations. Although 

quota may be carried over for the 

Longline or Purse Seine categories as a 

whole (at the category level), individual 

fishery participants that have been 

allocated individual quota may not 

carry over such quota from one year to 

the next, as specified under 

§ 635.15(b)(6) and (7) for the pelagic 

longline fishery, and under paragraph 

(a)(4)(iv) of this section for the purse 

seine fishery. 

(ii) NMFS may allocate any quota 

remaining in the Reserve category at the 

end of a fishing year to any fishing 

category, provided such allocation is 

consistent with the determination 

criteria specified in paragraph (a)(8) of 

this section. 

(iii) Regardless of the estimated 

landings in any year, NMFS may adjust 

the annual school bluefin quota to 

ensure that the average take of school 

bluefin over each ICCAT-recommended 

balancing period does not exceed 10 

percent by weight of the total annual 

U.S. bluefin quota, inclusive of the 

allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) 

of this section (NED), for that period, 

consistent with ICCAT 

recommendations. 

* * * * * 

(e) Northern albacore tuna—(1) 

Annual quota. Consistent with ICCAT 

recommendations and domestic 

management objectives, the total 

baseline annual fishery quota is 527 mt 

ww. The total quota, after any 

adjustments made per paragraph (e)(2) 

of this section, is the fishing year’s total 

amount of northern albacore tuna that 

may be landed by persons and vessels 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 

(2) Annual adjustments. Consistent 

with ICCAT recommendations and 

domestic management objectives, and 

based on landings statistics and other 

information as appropriate, if for a 

particular year the total landings are 

above or below the annual quota for that 

year, the difference between the annual 

quota and the landings will be 

subtracted from, or added to, the 

following year’s quota, respectively, or 

subtracted or added through a delayed, 

or multi-year adjustment. Carryover 

adjustments shall be limited to 25 

percent of the baseline quota allocation 

for that year. NMFS will file with the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication any adjustment or 

apportionment made under this 

paragraph (e)(2). 

■ 15. In § 635.28, paragraph (a) is 

revised; and paragraphs (b)(6), (c)(3), 

and (d) are added to read as follows: 

§ 635.28 Fishery closures. 

(a) Bluefin tuna. (1) When a bluefin 

tuna quota specified in § 635.27(a), is 

reached, or is projected to be reached, 

NMFS will file a closure action with the 

Office of the Federal Register for 

publication. On and after the effective 

date and time of such action, for the 

remainder of the fishing year or for a 

specified period as indicated in the 

notice, fishing for, retaining, possessing, 

or landing bluefin tuna under that quota 

is prohibited until the opening of the 

subsequent quota period or until such 

date as specified in the notice. 

(2) If NMFS determines that variations 

in seasonal distribution, abundance, or 

migration patterns of bluefin, or the 

catch rate in one area, precludes 

participants in another area from a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest any 

allocated domestic category quota, as 

stated in § 635.27(a), NMFS may close 

all or part of the fishery under that 

category. NMFS may reopen the fishery 

at a later date if NMFS determines that 

reasonable fishing opportunities are 

available, e.g., bluefin have migrated 

into the area or weather is conducive for 

fishing. In determining the need for any 

such interim closure or area closure, 

NMFS will also take into consideration 

the criteria specified in § 635.27(a)(8). 

(3) When the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category quota is reached, projected to 

be reached, or exceeded, or when there 

is high uncertainty regarding the 

estimated or documented levels of 

bluefin tuna catch, NMFS will file a 

closure action with the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication. On and 

after the effective date and time of such 

action, for the remainder of the fishing 

year or for a specified period as 

indicated in the closure action, vessels 

that have been issued or are required to 

have a limited access permit under 

§ 635.4 and that have pelagic longline 

gear onboard are prohibited from 

leaving port, regardless of the amount of 

bluefin tuna quota allocation remaining 

to each vessel or the amount of fishery 

quota remaining for other species. In 

addition to providing notice in the 

Federal Register, NMFS will also notify 

vessels of any closures and their timing 

via VMS and may use other electronic 

methods, such as email. Vessels would 

be required to return to port prior to the 

closure date/time. When considering 

whether to close or reopen the Longline 

category quota, NMFS may consider the 

following factors: 

(i) Total estimated bluefin tuna catch 

(landings and dead discards) in relation 

to the quota; 

(ii) The estimated amount by which 

the bluefin tuna quota might be 

exceeded; 

(iii) The usefulness of data relevant to 

monitoring the quota; 

(iv) The uncertainty in the 

documented or estimated dead discards 

or landings of bluefin tuna; 

(v) The amount of bluefin tuna 

landings or dead discards within a short 

time; 

(vi) The effects of continued fishing 

on bluefin tuna rebuilding and 

overfishing; 

(vii) The provision of reasonable 

opportunity for pelagic longline vessels 

to pursue the target species; 

(viii) The variations in seasonal 

distribution, abundance or migration 

patterns of bluefin tuna; and 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71605 

(viii) Other relevant factors. 

(b) * * * 

(6) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category quota is closed as specified in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels 

that have pelagic longline gear on board 

cannot possess or land sharks. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Bluefin tuna Longline category 

closure. If the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category quota is closed as specified in 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels 

that have pelagic longline gear on board 

cannot possess or land any North 

Atlantic swordfish or bluefin tuna. 

(d) Northern albacore tuna—When 

the annual fishery quota specified in 

§ 635.27(e) is reached, or is projected to 

be reached, NMFS will file a closure 

action with the Office of the Federal 

Register for publication. When the 

fishery for northern albacore tuna is 

closed, northern albacore tuna may not 

be retained. If the Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category quota is closed as 

specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section, vessels that have pelagic 

longline gear on board cannot possess or 

land any northern albacore tuna. 

■ 16. In § 635.31, paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2), (c)(1) and (4), and (d)(1) and (2) are 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and 

purchase. 

(a) * * * 

(1) A person that owns or operates a 

vessel from which an Atlantic tuna is 

landed or offloaded may sell such 

Atlantic tuna only if that vessel has a 

valid HMS Charter/Headboat permit; a 

valid General, Harpoon, Longline, Purse 

Seine, or Trap category permit for 

Atlantic tunas; or a valid HMS 

Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

permit issued under this part and the 

appropriate category has not been 

closed, as specified at § 635.28(a). 

However, no person may sell a bluefin 

tuna smaller than the large medium size 

class. Also, no large medium or giant 

bluefin tuna 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) Dealers may purchase Atlantic 

tunas only from a vessel that has a valid 

commercial permit for Atlantic tunas 

issued under this part in the appropriate 

category and the appropriate category 

has not been closed, as specified at 

§ 635.28(a). 

(i) Dealers may purchase Atlantic 

bluefin tuna only from a vessel that has 

a valid Federal commercial permit for 

Atlantic tunas issued under this part in 

the appropriate category. Vessel owners 

and operators of vessels that have been 

issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit can sell bluefin tuna 

and dealers can purchase bluefin tuna 

from such vessels only if the Longline 

category is open, per § 635.28(a) and if: 

(A) The vessel has met the minimum 

quota allocation and accounting 

requirements at § 635.15(b)(4) and (5) 

for vessels departing on a trip with 

pelagic longline gear aboard, and 

(B) The dealer and vessel have met 

the IBQ program participant 

requirements at § 635.15(a)(2). 

(ii) Dealers may first receive BAYS 

tunas only if they have submitted 

reports to NMFS according to reporting 

requirements at § 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. Vessel owners and 

operators of vessels that have been 

issued an Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit can sell BAYS tunas 

and dealers can purchase BAYS tunas 

from such vessels only if the Longline 

category is open per § 635.28(a). 

Individuals issued a valid HMS 

Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

permit, and operating in the U.S. 

Caribbean as defined at § 622.2 of this 

chapter, may sell their trip limits of 

BAYS tunas, codified at § 635.24(c), to 

dealers and non-dealers. Persons may 

only sell albacore tuna and dealers may 

only first receive albacore tuna if the 

northern albacore tuna fishery has not 

been closed as specified at § 635.28 (d). 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Persons that own or operate a 

vessel that possesses a shark from the 

management unit may sell such shark 

only if the vessel has a valid commercial 

shark permit issued under this part. 

Persons may possess and sell a shark 

only to a federally-permitted dealer and 

only when the fishery for that species, 

management group, and/or region has 

not been closed, as specified in 

§ 635.28(b). Persons that own or operate 

a vessel that has pelagic longline gear 

onboard can only possess and sell a 

shark if the Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category has not been closed, as 

specified in § 635.28(a). 

* * * * * 

(4) Only dealers who have a valid a 

Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit and 

who have submitted reports to NMFS 

according to reporting requirements at 

§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark 

from an owner or operator of a vessel 

that has, or is required to have, a valid 

federal Atlantic commercial shark 

permit issued under this part. Atlantic 

shark dealers may purchase, trade for, 

barter for, or receive a shark from an 

owner or operator of a vessel who does 

not have a federal Atlantic commercial 

shark permit if that vessel fishes 

exclusively in state waters. Atlantic 

shark dealers may first receive a sandbar 

shark only from an owner or operator of 

a vessel who has a valid shark research 

permit and who had a NMFS-approved 

observer on board the vessel for the trip 

in which the sandbar shark was 

collected. Atlantic shark dealers may 

first receive a shark from an owner or 

operator of a fishing vessel who has a 

valid commercial shark permit issued 

under this part only when the fishery 

for that species, management group, 

and/or region has not been closed, as 

specified in § 635.28(b). Atlantic shark 

dealers may first receive a shark from a 

vessel that has pelagic longline gear 

onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category has not been closed, 

as specified in § 635.28(a). 

* * * * * 

(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 

Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

permit, and operating in the U.S. 

Caribbean as defined at § 622.2 of this 

chapter, may sell swordfish, as specified 

at § 635.24(b)(3), to non-dealers. Persons 

that own or operate a vessel that has 

pelagic longline gear onboard can only 

possess and sell a swordfish if the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category has 

not been closed, as specified in 

§ 635.28(a)(4). 

(2) Atlantic swordfish dealers may 

first receive a swordfish harvested from 

the Atlantic Ocean only from an owner 

or operator of a fishing vessel that has 

a valid commercial permit for swordfish 

issued under this part, and only if the 

dealer has submitted reports to NMFS 

according to reporting requirements of 

§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii). Atlantic swordfish 

dealers may first receive a swordfish 

from a vessel that has pelagic longline 

gear onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71606 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Longline category has not been closed, 

as specified in § 635.28(a)(4). 

■ 17. In § 635.34, paragraphs (a), (b) and 

(d) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 635.34 Adjustment of management 

measures. 

(a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares 

or resultant allocations for bluefin tuna, 

as specified in § 635.15; catch limits for 

bluefin tuna, as specified in § 635.23; 

the quotas for bluefin tuna, shark, 

swordfish, and northern albacore tuna, 

as specified in § 635.27; the regional 

retention limits for Swordfish General 

Commercial permit holders, as specified 

at § 635.24; the marlin landing limit, as 

specified in § 635.27(d); and the 

minimum sizes for Atlantic blue marlin, 

white marlin, and roundscale spearfish, 

as specified in § 635.20. 

(b) In accordance with the framework 

procedures in the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or 

modify for species or species groups of 

Atlantic HMS the following 

management measures: Maximum 

sustainable yield or optimum yield 

based on the latest stock assessment or 

updates in the SAFE report; domestic 

quotas; recreational and commercial 

retention limits, including target catch 

requirements; size limits; fishing years 

or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions 

or regional quotas; species in the 

management unit and the specification 

of the species groups to which they 

belong; species in the prohibited shark 

species group; classification system 

within shark species groups; permitting 

and reporting requirements; workshop 

requirements; the IBQ shares or 

resultant allocations for bluefin tuna; 

administration of the IBQ Program 

(including but not limited to 

requirements pertaining to leasing of 

IBQ allocations, regional or minimum 

IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps 

(individual or by category), permanent 

sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); 

time/area restrictions; allocations among 

user groups; gear prohibitions, 

modifications, or use restriction; effort 

restrictions; observer coverage 

requirements; EM requirements; 

essential fish habitat; and actions to 

implement ICCAT recommendations, as 

appropriate. 

* * * * * 

(d) When considering a framework 

adjustment to add, change, or modify 

time/area closures and/or gear restricted 

areas, NMFS will consider, consistent 

with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable law, but is not 

limited to the following criteria: Any 

Endangered Species Act related issues, 

concerns, or requirements, including 

applicable BiOps; bycatch rates of 

protected species, prohibited HMS, or 

non-target species both within the 

specified or potential closure area(s) and 

throughout the fishery; bycatch rates 

and post-release mortality rates of 

bycatch species associated with 

different gear types; new or updated 

landings, bycatch, and fishing effort 

data; evidence or research indicating 

that changes to fishing gear and/or 

fishing practices can significantly 

reduce bycatch; social and economic 

impacts; and the practicability of 

implementing new or modified closures 

compared to other bycatch reduction 

options. If the species is an ICCAT 

managed species, NMFS will also 

consider the overall effect of the U.S.’s 

catch on that species before 

implementing time/area closures, gear 

restricted areas, or access to closed 

areas. 

■ 18. In § 635.69, paragraph (a) 

introductory text and paragraphs (a)(1) 

and (4) are revised; and paragraph (e)(4) 

is added to read as follows: 

§ 635.69 Vessel monitoring systems. 

(a) Applicability. To facilitate 

enforcement of time/area and fishery 

closures, enhance reporting, and 

support the IBQ Program (§ 635.15), an 

owner or operator of a commercial 

vessel permitted, or required to be 

permitted, to fish for Atlantic HMS 

under § 635.4 and that fishes with 

pelagic or bottom longline, gillnet, or 

purse seine gear, is required to install a 

NMFS-approved enhanced mobile 

transmitting unit (E–MTU) vessel 

monitoring system (VMS) on board the 

vessel and operate the VMS unit under 

the circumstances listed in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section. For 

purposes of this section, a NMFSapproved E–MTU VMS is one that has 

been approved by NMFS as satisfying its 

type approval listing for E–MTU VMS 

units. Those requirements are published 

in the Federal Register and may be 

updated periodically. 

(1) Whenever the vessel has pelagic 

longline or purse seine gear on board; 

* * * * * 

(4) A vessel is considered to have 

pelagic or bottom longline gear on 

board, for the purposes of this section, 

when the gear components as specified 

at § 635.2 are on board. A vessel is 

considered to have gillnet gear on board, 

for the purposes of this section, when 

gillnet, as defined in § 600.10 of this 

chapter, is on board a vessel that has 

been issued a shark LAP. A vessel is 

considered to have purse seine gear on 

board, for the purposes of this section, 

when the gear as defined at § 600.10 is 

onboard a vessel that has been issued an 

Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine category 

permit. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) Bluefin tuna and fishing effort 

reporting requirements for vessels 

fishing either with pelagic longline gear 

or purse seine gear—(i) Pelagic longline 

gear. The vessel owner or operator of a 

vessel that has pelagic longline gear on 

board must report to NMFS using the 

attached VMS terminal, or using an 

alternative method specified by NMFS 

as follows: For each set, as instructed by 

NMFS, the date and area of the set, the 

number of hooks and the length of all 

bluefin retained (actual), and the length 

of all bluefin tuna discarded dead or 

alive (approximate), must be reported 

within 12 hours of the completion each 

pelagic longline haul-back. 

(ii) Purse Seine gear. The vessel 

owner or operator of a vessel that has 

purse seine gear on board must report to 

NMFS using the attached VMS terminal, 

or using an alternative method specified 

by NMFS as follows: For each purse 

seine set, as instructed by NMFS, the 

date and area of the set, and the length 

of all bluefin retained (actual), and the 

length of all bluefin tuna discarded dead 

or alive (approximate), must be reported 

within 12 hours of the completion of the 

retrieval of each set. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. In § 635.71: 

■ a. Paragraphs (a)(14), (a)(19), (a)(23), 

(a)(31), (a)(33), (a)(34), and (a)(40) are 

revised; 

■ b. Paragraphs (a)(57) through (60) are 

added; 

■ c. Paragraphs (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(8), 

(b)(13), (b)(17), (b)(23), (b)(36), and 

(b)(38) are revised; 

■ d. Paragraphs (b)(41) through (59) are 

added; and 

■ e. Paragraphs (c)(1) and (7), (d)(12) 

and (13), and (e)(8), (e)(11), (e)(16) and 

(e)(18) are revised. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 635.71 Prohibitions 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(14) Fail to install, activate, repair, or 

replace a NMFS-approved E–MTU 

vessel monitoring system prior to 

leaving port with pelagic longline gear, 

bottom longline gear, gillnet gear, or 

purse seine gear on board the vessel as 

specified in § 635.69. 

* * * * * 

(19) Utilize secondary gears as 

specified in § 635.19(a) to capture, or 

attempt to capture, any undersized or 

free swimming Atlantic HMS, or fail to 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 71607 

release a captured Atlantic HMS in the 

manner specified in § 635.21(a). 

* * * * * 

(23) Fail to comply with the 

restrictions on use of pelagic longline, 

bottom longline, gillnet, buoy gear, 

speargun gear, or green-stick gear as 

specified in § 635.21. 

* * * * * 

(31) Deploy or fish with any fishing 

gear from a vessel with a pelagic 

longline on board in any closed or gear 

restricted areas during the time period 

specified at § 635.21(c), except under 

the conditions listed at § 635.21 (c)(3). 

* * * * * 

(33) Deploy or fish with any fishing 

gear from a vessel with pelagic or 

bottom longline gear on board without 

carrying the required sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation gear, as specified at 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i) for pelagic longline gear 

and § 635.21(d)(2) for bottom longline 

gear. This equipment must be utilized in 

accordance with § 635.21(c)(5)(ii) and 

(d)(2) for pelagic and bottom longline 

gear, respectively. 

(34) Fail to disengage any hooked or 

entangled sea turtle with the least harm 

possible to the sea turtle as specified at 

§ 635.21 (c)(5) or (d)(2). 

* * * * * 

(40) Deploy or fish with any fishing 

gear, from a vessel with bottom longline 

gear on board, without carrying a 

dipnet, line clipper, and dehooking 

device as specified at § 635.21(d)(2). 

* * * * * 

(57) Fail to appropriately stow 

longline gear when transiting a closed or 

gear restricted area, as specified in 

§ 635.21(b)(2). 

(58) Fish with pelagic longline gear in 

the Cape Hatteras Gear Restricted area if 

not determined by NMFS to be 

‘‘qualified’’ under § 635.21(c)(3). 

(59) Fish for, retain, possess, or land 

any HMS from a vessel with a pelagic 

longline on board when the Atlantic 

Tunas Longline category fishery is 

closed, as specified in § 635.28(a)(3), 

(b)(6), (c)(3), and (d). 

(60) Buy, trade, or barter for any HMS 

from a vessel with pelagic longline gear 

is on board when the Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category fishery is closed, as 

specified in § 635.31(a)(2), (c), and (d). 

(b) * * * 

(5) Fail to report a large medium or 

giant bluefin tuna that is not sold, as 

specified in § 635.5(a)(3), or fail to 

report a bluefin tuna that is sold, as 

specified in § 635.5(a)(4). 

* * * * * 

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

a bluefin tuna with gear not authorized 

for the category permit issued to the 

vessel or to have such gear on board 

when in possession of a bluefin tuna, as 

specified in § 635.19(b). 

(8) Fail to request an inspection of a 

purse seine vessel, as specified in 

§ 635.21(e)(2). 

* * * * * 

(13) As a vessel with an Atlantic 

Tunas General category permit, fail to 

immediately cease fishing and 

immediately return to port after 

catching the applicable limit of large 

medium or giant bluefin tuna on a 

commercial fishing day, as specified in 

§ 635.23(a)(3). 

* * * * * 

(17) As a vessel with an Atlantic 

Tunas Purse Seine category permit, 

catch, possess, retain, or land bluefin in 

excess of its allocation of the Purse 

Seine category quota as specified in 

§ 635.23(e), or fish for bluefin under that 

allocation prior to the commencement 

date of the directed bluefin purse seine 

fishery as specified in § 635.27(a)(4). 

* * * * * 

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

a bluefin tuna, except as specified under 

§ 635.23(f), or if taken incidental to 

recreational fishing for other species 

and retained in accordance with 

§ 635.23(b) and (c). 

* * * * * 

(36) Possess J-hooks onboard a vessel 

that has pelagic longline gear onboard, 

and that has been issued, or is required 

to have, a limited access swordfish, 

shark, or Atlantic Tunas Longline 

category permit for use in the Atlantic 

Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and 

the Gulf of Mexico, except when greenstick gear is onboard, as specified at 

§ 635.21(c)(2)(vii)(A) and (c)(5)(iii)(C)(3). 

* * * * * 

(38) Possess more than 20 J-hooks 

onboard a vessel that has been issued, 

or is required to have, a limited access 

swordfish, shark, or tuna Longline 

category permit for use in the Atlantic 

Ocean, including the Caribbean Sea and 

the Gulf of Mexico, when possessing 

onboard both pelagic longline gear and 

green-stick gear as defined at § 635.2. 

* * * * * 

(41) Fail to report bluefin catch by 

pelagic longline or purse seine gear, 

through VMS as specified at 

§ 635.69(e)(4). 

(42) Fail to report all dead discards or 

landings of bluefin through the NMFS 

electronic catch reporting system within 

24 hours of landing or the end of the 

trip as specified at § 635.5(a)(4). 

(43) Fish for, retain, possess, or land 

albacore tuna when the fishery is 

closed, as specified in § 635.28(d). 

(44) Buy, purchase, trade, or barter for 

albacore tuna when the fishery is 

closed, as specified in § 635.31(a)(2)(ii). 

(45) Fail to comply with landing 

report requirements, as specified under 

§ 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A). 

(46) Deploy or fish with any fishing 

gear from a vessel with a pelagic 

longline on board that does not have an 

approved and working EM system as 

specified in § 635.9; tamper with, or fail 

to install, operate or maintain one or 

more components of the EM system; 

obstruct the view of the camera(s); or 

fail to handle bluefin tuna in a manner 

that allows the camera to record the 

fish; as specified in § 635.9. 

(47) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy 

or fish with any fishing gear from a 

vessel with a pelagic longline on board 

without a minimum amount of IBQ 

allocation available for that vessel, as 

specified in § 635.15(b)(3), as 

applicable. 

(48) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy 

or fish with any fishing gear from a 

vessel with a pelagic longline on board 

without accounting for bluefin caught 

on a previous trip as specified in 

§ 635.15(b)(4)(ii). 

(49) Lease bluefin quota allocation to 

or from the owner of a vessel not issued 

a valid Atlantic Tunas Longline permit 

or not an Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine 

participant as specified under 

§ 635.15(c)(1). 

(50) Fish in the Gulf of Mexico with 

pelagic longline gear on board if the 

vessel has only designated Atlantic IBQ 

allocation, as specified under 

§ 635.15(b)(2). 

(51) Depart on a fishing trip or deploy 

or fish with any fishing gear from a 

vessel with a pelagic longline on board 

in the Gulf of Mexico, without a 

minimum amount of designated GOM 

IBQ allocation available for that vessel, 

as specified in § 635.15(b)(3). 

(52) If leasing IBQ allocation, fail to 

provide all required information on the 

application, as specified under 

§ 635.15(c)(2). 

(53) Lease IBQ allocation in an 

amount that exceeds the amount of IBQ 

allocation associated with the lessor, as 

specified under § 635.15(c)(2). 

(54) Sell quota share, as specified 

under § 635.15(d). 

(55) Fail to provide bluefin tuna 

landings and dead discard information 

as specified at § 635.15(b)(4)(iii). 

(56) Fish with or have pelagic 

longline gear on board if any trip level 

quota debt associated with the vessel 

from a preceding trip has not been 

settled, as specified at § 635.15(b)(5)(i). 

(57) Lease IBQ allocation during the 

period from 6 p.m. December 31 to 2 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
71608 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

p.m. January 1 (Eastern Time) as 

specified at § 635.15(c)(3)(iv). 

(58) Lease IBQ allocation if the 

conditions of paragraph § 635.15(c)(2) 

are not met. 

(59) Fish with or have pelagic 

longline gear on board if any annual 

level quota debt associated with the 

vessel from a preceding year has not 

been settled, as specified at 

§ 635.15(b)(5)(ii). 

(c) * * * 

(1) As specified in § 635.19(c), retain 

a billfish harvested by gear other than 

rod and reel, or retain a billfish on board 

a vessel unless that vessel has been 

issued an Atlantic HMS Angling or 

Charter/Headboat permit or has been 

issued an Atlantic Tunas General 

category permit and is participating in 

a tournament in compliance with 

§ 635.4(c). 

* * * * * 

(7) Deploy a J-hook or an offset circle 

hook in combination with natural bait 

or a natural bait/artificial lure 

combination when participating in a 

tournament for, or including, Atlantic 

billfish, as specified in § 635.21(f). 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(12) Fish for Atlantic sharks with 

unauthorized gear or possess Atlantic 

sharks on board a vessel with 

unauthorized gear on board as specified 

in § 635.19(d). 

(13) Fish for Atlantic sharks with a 

gillnet or possess Atlantic sharks on 

board a vessel with a gillnet on board, 

except as specified in § 635.21(g). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(8) Fish for North Atlantic swordfish 

from, possess North Atlantic swordfish 

on board, or land North Atlantic 

swordfish from a vessel using or having 

on board gear other than pelagic 

longline, green-stick gear, or handgear, 

except as specified at § 635.19(e). 

* * * * * 

(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 

Commercial Caribbean Small Boat 

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(h). 

* * * * * 

(16) Possess any HMS, other than 

Atlantic swordfish, harvested with buoy 

gear as specified at § 635.19 unless 

issued a valid HMS Commercial 

Caribbean Small Boat permit and 

operating within the U.S. Caribbean as 

defined at § 622.2 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(18) As the owner of a vessel 

permitted, or required to be permitted, 

in the Swordfish General Commercial 

permit category, possess North Atlantic 

swordfish taken from its management 

unit by any gear other than rod and reel, 

handline, bandit gear, green-stick, or 

harpoon gear, as specified in § 635.19(e). 

[FR Doc. 2014–28064 Filed 12–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES2