Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26171 

limited access permit as specified in 

Amendment 5. In this case, some 

fishermen did not realize they needed 

both the open access permit and the 

limited access endorsement. 

In total, 73 vessels will or have been 

eliminated from the rock shrimp fishery 

under current regulations due to not 

meeting the 15,000–pound requirement, 

the renewal period, or both. Thus 47 

percent of the 155 endorsements 

originally issued may be eliminated if 

no changes are made to the current 

requirements and even more could be 

eliminated in the future for the same 

reasons. 

In the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, 

participants are selected each year to 

provide economic data to NMFS. 

Similar data for the South Atlantic 

shrimp fishery would allow NMFS to 

conduct analyses required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable law. These data would also 

allow the Council to fully understand 

how proposed management measures 

would impact shrimp fishermen and 

dealers. 

Amendment 7 proposes to rename the 

commercial vessel permit and the 

limited access endorsement; remove the 

requirement for a minimum level of 

landings for the renewal of a limited 

access endorsement; allow the reissue of 

a limited access endorsement that had 

been terminated because of failure to 

meet that minimum level; allow the 

reissue of an endorsement that had been 

terminated because of failure to renew 

it in a timely manner; and require the 

submission of economic data by 

participants in the fishery if selected. 

The Council has submitted 

Amendment 7 for Secretarial review, 

approval, and implementation. NMFS’ 

decision to approve, partially approve, 

or disapprove Amendment 7 will be 

based, in part, on consideration of 

comments, recommendations, and 

information received during the 

comment period on this notice of 

availability. After consideration of these 

factors, and consistency with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 

applicable laws, NMFS will publish a 

notice of agency action in the Federal 

Register announcing the Agency’s 

decision to approve, partially approve, 

or disapprove Amendment 7, and the 

associated rationale. 

Consideration of Public Comments 

Public comments received by 5 p.m. 

eastern time, on July 31, 2009, will be 

considered by NMFS in the approval/ 

disapproval decision regarding 

Amendment 7. 

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

Dated: May 26, 2009 

Kristen C. Koch, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–12640 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

RIN 0648–XN22 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Bottom 

Longline Petition 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Denial of a petition for 

emergency rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces its decision 

to deny a petition for emergency or 

interim rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). Several nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 

petitioned the U.S. Department of 

Commerce to immediately promulgate 

an emergency or interim rule under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act to address 

loggerhead sea turtle interactions in the 

bottom longline component of the 

commercial reef fish fishery in the Gulf 

of Mexico (Gulf). NMFS finds the 

emergency rulemaking is not warranted 

because of an emergency rule 

promulgated independently at the 

request of Gulf of Mexico Fishery 

Management Council (Council), which 

satisfies the legal mandates of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) for protecting 

hardshell sea turtles. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Hood, telephone 727–824–5305, 

fax 727–824–5308, e-mail 

Peter.Hood@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

published a notice of receipt of petition 

for rulemaking on February 25, 2009 (74 

FR 8494), and invited public comments 

for 30 days ending March 27, 2009. 

Summaries of and responses to 

comments are provided in the Response 

to Public Comments section below. 

The Petitions 

Oceana has petitioned the Council 

and NMFS to implement emergency 

regulations for the bottom longline 

component of the Gulf reef fish fishery 

to reduce the high levels of loggerhead 

sea turtle bycatch in the fishery and to 

implement appropriate long-term 

actions, through an amendment to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), 

to ensure adequate protection for the 

loggerhead sea turtle populations. The 

Oceana petition specifically requests 

NMFS prohibit the use of reef fish 

bottom longline gear in waters 

shallower than 55 fathoms (100m) in the 

Gulf to protect loggerhead sea turtles 

within the depths where all observed 

takes have occurred, and that NMFS 

prohibit the use of squid as bait when 

fishing with reef fish bottom longlines 

in waters deeper than 55 fathoms 

(100m) to further reduce the possibility 

of takes. 

Another petition from the Center for 

Biological Diversity, Defenders of 

Wildlife, Earthjustice, Caribbean 

Conservation Corporation, Gulf 

Restoration Network, and Turtle Island 

Restoration Network alleges NMFS has 

violated the ESA by allowing the bottom 

longline component of the reef fish 

fishery to continue to operate, given 

evidence it has exceeded its take based 

on the incidental take statement (ITS) 

from a 2005 biological opinion 

(opinion). This petition requests that 

NMFS close the bottom longline 

component of the Gulf reef fish fishery 

immediately until NMFS has put in 

place sufficient measures to protect 

loggerhead sea turtles consistent with 

the guidelines of the ESA. 

According to the petitions filed by the 

NGOs, the reasons sea turtle bycatch by 

reef fish bottom longlines requires 

emergency action are: (1) A NMFS 

report released in 2008 suggests 

hardshell sea turtle take has exceeded 

that allowed by the ITS from a 2005 

opinion. The opinion concluded 

continued authorization of the Gulf reef 

fish fishery managed under the FMP 

was not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of sea turtles and 

smalltooth sawfish. An ITS was issued 

with the opinion specifying anticipated 

sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish take 

on a 3-year basis. For hardshell sea 

turtles, the anticipated 3-year incidental 

take for the bottom longline component 

of the Gulf reef fish fishery was 113 

takes, of which 56 would be lethal. The 

2008 NMFS report using observer data 

estimated the level of take during an 18- 

month period was between 411 and 

1,983 hardshell sea turtles, primarily 

comprised of loggerhead sea turtles. 

This number has been revised in a 2009 

NMFS report using 2008 observer data 

to between 463 and 2,020 hardshell sea 

26172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

turtles for the 30-month time period. (2) 

Information from the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission 

shows declining trends in the number of 

nesting loggerhead sea turtles on Florida 

beaches. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting at 

Florida index nesting beaches has 

declined 40 percent between 1989 and 

2008. These declines have been 

interpreted as a possible decline in the 

sub-adult and adult population. (3) By 

not taking action, NMFS is in violation 

of the ESA. Specifically, the petitioners 

allege NMFS cannot ensure against 

jeopardy by continuing to authorize 

Gulf reef fish bottom longline fishing 

without having assessed the impacts of 

excessive take by the fishery in violation 

of ESA section 7(a)(2). They also allege 

that by allowing the fishery to continue, 

NMFS is allowing loggerhead sea turtle 

take to continue in violation of ESA 

sections 7(d) and 9. 

Response to Assertions and Proposed 

Management Measures Set Forth in the 

Petition 

NMFS agrees with the NGOs’ 

assertion that estimated hardshell sea 

turtle, in particular loggerhead sea turtle 

take, has exceeded the level prescribed 

in the 2005 biological opinion. As a 

result, management action was needed 

to provide protection for threatened 

loggerhead sea turtles in compliance 

with the ESA and to reduce sea turtle 

bycatch and bycatch mortality in 

compliance with national standard 9 

(NS 9) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

NMFS and the Council had already 

initiated efforts to address the issue 

prior to receipt of either petition. Thus, 

NMFS has promulgated an emergency 

rule at the request of the Council to 

reduce hardshell sea turtle takes while 

the Council develops long-term 

measures in Amendment 31 to the FMP. 

This emergency rule moves the bottom 

longline component of the eastern Gulf 

reef fish fishery seaward of a line 

approximating the 50–fathom (91–m) 

depth contour and prohibits the use of 

longlines in the eastern Gulf once the 

deepwater grouper and tilefish quotas 

are met. 

In developing the emergency rule, 

NMFS determined the selected 

measures were sufficient to meet the 

legal requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act and the ESA. All but one 

sea turtle observed taken were on sets in 

waters less than 50 fathoms (91 m) in 

the eastern Gulf. Restricting bottom 

longlines to waters greater than 50 

fathoms is consistent with regulations in 

the western Gulf. No sea turtle takes 

were observed in the western Gulf 

where reef fish bottom longline gear is 

restricted to the area seaward of a line 

approximating 50 fathoms (91 m). Thus, 

reductions in the potential for 

interactions between bottom longline 

gear and sea turtles would be achieved 

without unduly restricting fishing 

activity in deeper water where the 

deepwater grouper and tilefish fisheries 

are prosecuted. In addition, prohibiting 

squid as bait was not considered in the 

emergency rule because it is unclear 

how much reduction in take would 

result from such a measure and it is 

unclear what effect this would have on 

the bait industry if the Council did not 

adopt a similar long-term measure in 

Amendment 31. 

Response to Comments 

A total of 305 comments were 

received on the petitions for 

rulemaking. Of those comments, 232 

were in support of the petitions and the 

remaining comments were against it. 

One comment in support of the petition 

was from an NGO that included 49,320 

electronic signatories to their letter. 

Another series of comments in support 

of the petitions were conducted through 

a postcard campaign consisting of 220 

identical responses. A summary of the 

comments and NMFS’ responses 

follows. 

Comment 1: Several commenters 

indicated the information used to 

estimate the level of take by the bottom 

longline component of the commercial 

reef fish fishery is highly uncertain. 

They indicated more research is needed 

to determine the level of interactions 

between sea turtles and this gear before 

action is taken, particularly in light of 

the adverse economic impacts that 

would result to the bottom longline 

component of the fishery if it were 

closed or moved seaward of 50 fathoms 

(91 m) in the eastern Gulf. They 

believed that, in light of the poor 

national economy, affected fishermen 

would have a hard time finding 

alternative fisheries to operate in or 

other jobs if they were put out of 

business. 

Response: NS 9 of the MagnusonStevens Act requires that conservation 

and management measures shall, to the 

extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch 

and (B) to the extent bycatch cannot be 

avoided, minimize the mortality of such 

bycatch. The bycatch reduction and 

monitoring requirements in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act apply to a broad 

range of living marine species, 

including sea turtles. Additionally, the 

ESA requires that the Federal 

government protect and conserve 

species and populations that are 

endangered or threatened with 

extinction, and conserve the ecosystems 

on which these species depend. Section 

7 of the ESA requires all Federal 

agencies to use their authorities to carry 

out their programs for the conservation 

of endangered and threatened species 

and to ensure any action is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered or threatened species or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of their critical habitat. 

Both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 

ESA require NMFS to use the best 

available scientific information. In 

addition, ESA case law requires that 

when faced with data uncertainty, 

decisions should give the benefit of the 

doubt to the species (i.e., favor 

protection of the species). With respect 

to estimating bycatch, a 2004 NMFS 

national working group on bycatch 

reviewed regional issues related to 

fisheries and bycatch and discussed 

advantages and disadvantages of various 

methods for estimating bycatch, 

including fishery-independent surveys, 

self-reporting through logbooks, port 

sampling, recreational sampling, at-sea 

observation (observers and electronic 

monitoring), and stranding networks. 

Although all methods may contribute to 

useful information for estimating 

bycatch, the national working group 

concluded at-sea observation (observers 

or electronic monitoring) provides the 

best mechanism to obtain reliable and 

accurate bycatch estimates for many 

fisheries. 

Given the above, the Southeast 

Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) used 

observer data to estimate the number of 

loggerhead sea turtle takes for 

comparison with the anticipated takes 

specified in the 2005 biological 

opinion’s ITS. This estimate constitutes 

the best scientific information available 

and must be used to guide the agency’s 

decision. They found the anticipated 

take level had been exceeded by the 

bottom longline component of the reef 

fish fishery, and even the lower bounds 

of the 95–percent confidence intervals 

around the take estimates were above 

the anticipated takes specified in the 

ITS. 

Comment 2: Some comments 

suggested factors other than bottom 

longline fishing are responsible for 

declines in sea turtle populations and 

that mortality from the fishery was a 

fraction of the total. These factors 

included coastal construction, coastal 

development, beach renourishment, and 

hurricanes. Therefore, it is unfair to 

single out the bottom longline 

component of the reef fish fishery to 

attain a reduced sea turtle mortality rate. 

Response: Although many factors 

contribute to hardshell sea turtle 

mortality, NMFS is obligated to address 

hardshell sea turtle bycatch in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26173 

fishery because of NS 9 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act and section 7 of 

the ESA (see above). NMFS has 

exercised this obligation to reduce take 

in other fisheries, such as the 

requirement of turtle excluder devices 

in Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp 

fisheries and the requirement of turtle 

release gear on federally permitted 

vessels in the Gulf reef fish fishery and 

the highly migratory species pelagic 

longline fishery. With respect to other 

hardshell sea turtle takes from other 

human activities such as coastal 

construction, coastal development, and 

beach renourishment, NMFS consults 

with other action agencies with respect 

to endangered and threatened species. 

Under the ESA, all action agencies are 

required to conserve endangered and 

threatened species, including hardshell 

sea turtles. 

Comment 3: Higher numbers of 

loggerhead sea turtle takes should be 

seen as an indicator that loggerhead sea 

turtle populations are increasing rather 

than decreasing. 

Response: Past and current estimates 

of hardshell sea turtle takes have been 

derived through different 

methodologies. Take estimates for the 

2005 biological opinion were based on 

catch and effort reported in the Coastal 

Fisheries Logbook Program and the 

Supplementary Discard Data Program. 

However, it is recognized that 

extrapolated bycatch estimates still may 

be inaccurate if there is less than 

complete compliance with the logbook 

requirement or if reporting significantly 

misrepresents actual fishing effort. The 

take estimates reported by the SEFSC 

from 2006 through 2008 were derived 

from observer data applied to effort 

estimates reported from logbook data for 

the bottom longline component of the 

reef fish fishery. Observer data are 

generally thought to be more reliable 

than self-reported data (see above), and 

logbooks are noted as more useful in 

providing estimates of total effort by 

area and season. Therefore, because the 

take estimates were derived through 

different methodologies, this may 

account for some of the differences in 

take estimates between studies. 

Other information implies loggerhead 

sea turtle populations may be declining. 

For the past 20 years, the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

coordinated a detailed sea turtle 

nesting-trend monitoring program, the 

Index Nesting Beach Survey (INBS). The 

INBS counts represent approximately 69 

percent of known loggerhead sea turtles 

nesting in Florida. In addition, Florida 

accounts for approximately 90 percent 

of loggerhead sea turtle nesting activity 

within the southeastern United States 

nesting population, which is considered 

the world’s second largest population. 

Loggerhead sea turtle nests were 

counted annually at core index nesting 

beaches in Florida from 1989 through 

2008 on both the Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts. Counts of nests indicated a 

declining trend in loggerhead sea turtle 

nesting. Many scientists have suggested 

the observed decline in the annual 

counts of loggerhead sea turtle nests on 

index and statewide beaches in 

peninsular Florida can best be 

explained by a decline in the number of 

adult female loggerhead sea turtles in 

the population. 

Comment 4: Comments received on 

banning squid for bait by the bottom 

longline component of the reef fish 

fishery were mixed. Some comments 

indicated the measure to ban squid 

should be considered in an emergency 

rule. Others indicated there is little 

evidence that using baits other than 

squid will reduce sea turtle takes, and 

so this measure should not be 

considered unless new information 

suggests otherwise. 

Response: Studies of loggerhead sea 

turtles caught by the pelagic longline 

fishery and in captive laboratory 

experiments found loggerhead sea 

turtles preferred dead squid over finfish. 

Researchers have suggested captive 

loggerhead sea turtles were more likely 

to swallow whole squid than finfish 

because squid has a more flexible and 

tough muscle texture. Finfish baits were 

bitten off in smaller pieces and 

loggerhead sea turtles were able to avoid 

the hook. Although these studies 

suggest prohibiting the use of squid or 

squid parts in the bottom longline 

component of the reef fish fishery could 

reduce loggerhead sea turtle interactions 

with gear, it is unknown by what 

percentage loggerhead sea turtle 

hooking incidents would be reduced. 

Therefore, further research is needed to 

predict the extent of take reduction from 

a prohibition of squid for bait for the 

bottom longline component of the reef 

fish fishery. 

Comment 5: One comment suggested 

that because the information on 

interactions between the reef fish 

bottom longline gear and sea turtles is 

uncertain, the fishery should be allowed 

to continue under an exempted fishing 

permit (EFP)to collect this information. 

Participants in the fishery would then 

be allowed to operate as long as they 

collected data for use in assessing 

interactions between sea turtles and 

longline gear. 

Response: For this information to be 

used to examine sea turtle interactions 

with bottom longline gear, the work 

would need to be performed within a 

scientific research program. NMFS and 

other agencies do sponsor research on 

fisheries and species listed under the 

ESA. For example, NMFS’ Cooperative 

Research Program specifically 

encourages fishermen be included in the 

data collection process. Should research 

be funded on the interaction of reef fish 

bottom longlines with sea turtles and 

the proposal includes the involvement 

of commercial reef fish vessels landing 

their catch, an EFP could be issued to 

participating vessel(s) subject to the 

requirements under 50 CFR 600.745. 

Comment 6: Some comments 

indicated if the bottom longline 

component of the reef fish fishery is to 

be closed, the closure be for as short of 

a time period as possible. They pointed 

out sea turtle takes appear to be highest 

in the late spring to summer, and 

suggested a closure be targeted for those 

seasons. 

Response: Immediate reductions in 

hardshell sea turtle takes are needed to 

reduce takes by the bottom longline 

component of the reef fish fishery. 

NMFS has taken short-term action to 

reduce this bycatch through an 

emergency rule. The rule, effective May 

18, 2009, expires on October 28, 2009, 

may be extended for up to another 186 

days. During this time, NMFS will be 

preparing a new biological opinion for 

the fishery, which will assess the 

impacts on listed species. NMFS will be 

monitoring sea turtle take to evaluate 

the reductions. While the rule is in 

effect, the Council is developing longterm measures to reduce bottom 

longline takes by the reef fish fishery. 

Alternatives being considered by the 

Council to reduce takes includes seasonarea closures. The Council will be 

taking public comment on these 

measures as it develops Amendment 31. 

Comments on closures, the timing of 

closures, and the duration of the 

closures should be submitted to the 

Council during appropriate comment 

periods. Additionally, should the 

Council approve and submit 

Amendment 31 for approval by the 

Secretary of Commerce, NMFS will 

provide additional opportunities for 

public comment. 

Agency Decision 

After considering the assertions and 

proposed management measures set 

forth in the petitions and all public 

comments, NMFS has determined the 

specific measures requested in the 

petitions should not be addressed via 

emergency rulemaking at this time. 

NMFS agrees that hardshell sea turtle 

takes need to be reduced and has taken 

action at the request of the Council to 

implement an emergency rule to achieve 

26174 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

short-term reductions. The emergency 

rule implemented by NMFS satisfies the 

legal mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and ESA for protecting sea turtles. 

Therefore, the specific actions requested 

in the petitions for rulemaking by the 

NGOs are denied. 

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

Dated: May 26, 2009 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–12656 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 090508897–9896–01] 

RIN 0648–AX85 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna and Swordfish 

Management Measures and HMS 

Permit Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this advance 

notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 

to request public comment on potential 

adjustments to the regulations governing 

the U.S. Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT), 

north Atlantic swordfish (SWO), and 

shark fisheries to enable more thorough 

utilization of the available U.S. quotas 

for BFT and SWO and to improve highly 

migratory species (HMS) permit 

structure. Potential action(s) taken may 

to increase opportunities for U.S. 

fisheries to fully harvest the U.S. quotas 

recommended by the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) while balancing 

continuing efforts to end BFT 

overfishing by 2010 and rebuild the 

stock by 2019; to continue efforts to 

revitalize the SWO fishery while 

minimizing bycatch to the extent 

practicable; and to clarify and simplify 

the current HMS permit structure. 

NMFS is also requesting public 

comment regarding the potential 

implementation of catch shares, limited 

access privilege programs (LAPPs), and 

individual bycatch caps (IBCs) in highly 

migratory species fisheries. This ANPR 

provides background information to 

inform the public on several actions that 

NMFS is considering to accomplish 

these objectives. 

DATES: Written comments regarding the 

potential BFT management measures 

discussed in Section II of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this ANPR must be received no later 

than June 30, 2009. 

Written comments regarding pelagic 

longline (PLL) incidental catch 

requirements, HMS permits, LAPPs, and 

IBCs as discussed in Sections III and IV 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this ANPR must be received 

no later than August 31, 2009. 

Public meetings to obtain additional 

comments on the items discussed in this 

ANPR will be held in June and July 

2009. Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this ANPR for 

specific dates, times, and locations. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘0648–AX85’’, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 301–713–1917, Attn: Margo 

Schulze-Haugen. 

• Mail: NMFS SF1, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments. 

Attachments to electronic comments 

will be accepted in Microsoft Word, 

Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file 

formats only. 

Related documents, including the 

2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery 

Management Plan (Consolidated HMS 

FMP) and the 2008 Stock Assessment 

and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report 

are available upon request at the mailing 

address noted above or on the HMS 

Management Division’s webpage at: 

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

addition, the primary resource 

legislation that guides NMFS can be 

found at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ 

legislation.htm. 

Public meetings to obtain additional 

comments on the items discussed in this 

ANPR will be held in North Carolina, 

New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, and 

Louisiana. Please see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this ANPR for specific dates, times, and 

locations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah McLaughlin at 978–281–9260 or 

Randy Blankinship at 727–824–5399. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. 

Atlantic tunas, SWO, and billfish 

fisheries are managed under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 

and implemented through the 

Consolidated HMS FMP. Atlantic sharks 

are managed under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. ATCA 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as 

may be necessary and appropriate, to 

implement recommendations by ICCAT. 

The authority to issue regulations under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA 

has been delegated from the Secretary to 

the Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA. The implementing 

regulations for Atlantic HMS are at 50 

CFR part 635. Atlantic HMS fisheries 

are also subject to the requirements of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), Administrative 

Procedures Act (APA), Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA), and other 

domestic regulations. 

I. Background 

A. Need for Action 

In recent years, a combination of 

factors has contributed to a decline in 

domestic landings of north Atlantic 

SWO and western Atlantic BFT, to the 

point where U.S. landings are now 

below their respective ICCATrecommended quotas. NMFS has 

implemented several management 

measures in the U.S. PLL fishery to meet 

legal mandates to reduce the bycatch 

and bycatch mortality of sea turtles, 

marine mammals, undersized and 

spawning fish, Atlantic billfish, and 

some shark species. These include time 

and area closures, a requirement to use 

only large circle hooks with specific 

baits, a prohibition on the use of live 

bait in the Gulf of Mexico, incidental 

catch limits, and a reduction in large 

coastal shark quotas and retention 

limits. Some of these measures have 

also contributed to lower catches of 

north Atlantic SWO and western 

Atlantic BFT in the PLL fishery. In 

addition to regulatory factors, increased 

fuel prices, low ex-vessel prices, and 

less expensive imports of SWO may 

have contributed to reduced landings in 

the SWO fishery. Factors that may have 

played a role in the underharvest of the