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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26175 

domestic BFT fishery since 2004 

include reduced availability of BFT for 

harvest, possibly due to recent changes 

in BFT regional availability and/or a 

reduced BFT population level. 

The reduction of bycatch and bycatch 

mortality, and the continuing need to 

rebuild overfished stocks in Atlantic 

HMS fisheries, remain important 

management priorities for NMFS as 

mandated under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. However, because domestic 

landings of north Atlantic SWO and 

western Atlantic BFT have been below 

ICCAT-recommended U.S. quotas, there 

is an ongoing concern among many 

HMS constituents that a portion of the 

U.S. quota for these species could be 

reallocated to other countries during 

future ICCAT negotiations. 

In 2007, NMFS addressed persistent 

underharvests of the domestic SWO 

quota by increasing SWO retention 

limits for incidental SWO permit 

holders, modifying recreational SWO 

retention limits for HMS Charter/ 

Headboat and Angling category permit 

holders, and modifying HMS limited 

access vessel upgrading restrictions for 

PLL vessels (72 FR 31688; June 7, 2007). 

Since then, NMFS has continued to 

receive comments suggesting changes 

that could increase domestic BFT and 

SWO landings, as well as public input 

regarding HMS permitting issues. These 

suggestions were received by NMFS 

during HMS Advisory Panel (AP) 

meetings in 2008 and 2009, during the 

2009 BFT quota specifications public 

hearings, and in recent constituent and 

congressional correspondence. 

NMFS prepared this ANPR in 

response to suggestions that have been 

received from the public regarding the 

underharvest of domestic SWO and BFT 

quotas. Additionally, this ANPR 

outlines some management strategies 

that NMFS is considering to improve 

HMS management, particularly 

regarding permitting issues, and 

enforcement of HMS regulations. In 

light of the recent underharvest of 

domestic BFT and SWO fisheries, the 

current status of HMS stocks, 

continuing bycatch and bycatch 

mortality concerns, market factors that 

may affect fishery performance and 

Agency efforts to address HMS 

permitting issues, NMFS formally 

requests comments on the potential 

regulatory changes described in this 

ANPR. All comments received in 

response to this ANPR will be 

considered in any potential future 

rulemakings. 

B. Stock Status 

1. Western Atlantic BFT 

The most recent stock assessment 

conducted by ICCAT’s Standing 

Committee on Research and Statistics 

(SCRS) for western Atlantic BFT (2008) 

indicated that the 2007 spawning stock 

biomass was between 14 percent and 57 

percent of the biomass required to 

support maximum sustainable yield 

(MSY) and that fishing mortality was 

between 1.27 and 2.18 of that that 

would produce MSY, depending upon 

the recruitment scenario assumed 

within the assessment. The western 

Atlantic BFT stock is considered to be 

overfished with overfishing occurring. 

2. North Atlantic SWO 

The SCRS stock assessment in 2006 

indicated that the north Atlantic SWO 

biomass had improved (B2006 = 0.99 

Bmsy, F2006 = 0.86 Fmsy). It is currently 

considered to be rebuilding with no 

overfishing occurring. The SCRS will be 

conducting a new stock assessment from 

September 7–11, 2009, and considering 

the 2006 results, NMFS expects the 

2009 stock assessment to indicate that 

north Atlantic SWO is fully rebuilt. 

3. Atlantic Sharks 

The stock status of Atlantic sharks 

varies by species. Several species of 

sharks are considered to be overfished 

with overfishing occurring, including 

sandbar sharks, dusky sharks, and 

blacknose sharks. Conversely, some 

shark species are not overfished and 

overfishing is not occurring, including 

Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks, Atlantic 

sharpnose sharks, and bonnethead 

sharks. The current status of the 

blacktip shark population in the South 

Atlantic region as well as several other 

shark species is unknown. 

II. Underharvest of Atlantic BFT Quota 

As noted in ‘‘DATES’’ section, the 

comment period on issues in this 

section is open through June 30, 2009. 

A. General Category 

To provide background information, 

this section describes some of the 

current HMS regulatory requirements 

for the General category. 

The current default General category 

daily retention limit is one large 

medium or giant BFT (measuring 73 

inches (185 cm) or greater). To provide 

for maximum utilization of the quota for 

BFT, NMFS may increase or decrease 

the daily retention limit of large 

medium and giant BFT over a range 

from zero to a maximum of three per 

vessel, based on the consideration of 

several criteria. Regardless of the length 

of a trip, no more than a single day’s 

retention limit of large medium or giant 

BFT may be possessed or retained 

aboard a vessel that has a General 

category Atlantic Tunas permit. When 

the General category is open, no person 

aboard such vessel may continue to fish, 

and the vessel must immediately 

proceed to port once the applicable 

limit for large medium or giant BFT has 

been attained. For the last several 

fishing seasons, NMFS has maintained a 

three-fish General category daily 

retention limit, with the exception of 

the January 2009 fishery, for which 

NMFS set a two-fish limit given the 

available January subquota. 

The BFT General category season 

currently is open from January 1 

through January 31, and from June 1 

through December 31. The current time 

period quota allocations are as follows: 

5.3% for January; 50% for June-August; 

26.5% for September; 13% for OctoberNovember; and 5.2% for December. 

Through in-season authority, NMFS 

takes action to close the coastwide 

General category fishery when it 

determines that the subquota for a given 

time period is reached, or is projected 

to be reached. NMFS may also adjust 

each time period’s quota based on 

overharvest or underharvest in the prior 

time period. NMFS may reopen the 

fishery at a later date if it determines 

that reasonable fishing opportunities are 

available, e.g., BFT have migrated into 

the area or weather is conducive for 

fishing. 

From 2000 through 2007, the BFT 

fishery was managed on a June through 

May fishing year basis versus a calendar 

year basis (January through December), 

and in 2003, NMFS extended the 

General category season to include the 

month of January (68 FR 74504, 

December 24, 2003). However, since 

January 2004, NMFS has not needed to 

close the January fishery (i.e., the 

available General category quota has not 

been fully exhausted). In 2008, the BFT 

fishery returned to a calendar year 

fishery, such that the January sub-period 

is now the first period of the January 

through December fishing year. 

Under current regulations, NMFS 

considers several criteria when applying 

underharvest of BFT from one fishing 

year to the next. These criteria include 

the usefulness of information obtained 

from catches in the particular category 

for biological sampling and monitoring 

of the status of the stock, the effects of 

the adjustment on BFT rebuilding and 

overfishing, and the effects of the 

adjustment on accomplishing the 

objectives of the fishery management 

plan. 

26176 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Daily Retention Limit. NMFS has 

received comments requesting that the 

maximum daily retention limit for the 

BFT General category be increased or 

eliminated. A related suggestion is for 

NMFS to allow the daily retention limit 

to apply for each day of a multi-day trip 

so that it is more economical for vessels 

to make trips to offshore BFT fishing 

grounds (e.g., the northern edge of 

Georges Bank) since they would not be 

limited to the maximum daily limit. 

A change to, or the elimination of, the 

daily retention limit could potentially 

be implemented via a regulatory 

amendment. If NMFS were to change or 

eliminate the maximum daily retention 

limit, it would still maintain the 

authority to establish the daily retention 

limit using an in-season action by filing 

an adjustment with the Office of the 

Federal Register. 

The potential advantages of 

eliminating the maximum limit (three 

BFT/vessel/day) include: (1) positive 

socio-economic impacts for General 

category and HMS Charter/Headboat 

category vessels due to the ability to 

retain and sell more commercial-sized 

BFT per day/trip; (2) related positive 

impacts for dealers; (3) greater incentive 

for vessels to take offshore, multi-day 

trips, which could increase fishing 

opportunities and revenues on for-hire 

trips by Charter/Headboats; (4) 

decreased discard mortality of 

commercial sized BFT (that previously 

would have been in excess of daily 

retention limit); and, (5) fuller use of the 

U.S. BFT quota through increased 

General (quota) category landings. 

The potential disadvantages of 

eliminating the maximum limit include: 

(1) increased discard mortality of 

undersized BFT (by General category 

vessels) due to potential increased 

fishing effort; and, (2) increased bycatch 

of non-target species, including 

protected species, and/or other 

biological and ecological impacts. 

Fishing Season. NMFS has received 

comments suggesting that the General 

category fishing season should be 

extended to increase fishing 

opportunities, particularly during the 

winter fishery that has developed off 

North and South Carolina in the last 

several years. Two different options 

have been suggested: extend the General 

category season year-round, from 

January 1–December 31; and, extend the 

General category season until the 

adjusted January subquota is filled. 

Either of these options could potentially 

be implemented through a regulatory 

amendment. 

The potential advantages of extending 

the General category season include: (1) 

increased use of the U.S. BFT quota 

through increased General (quota) 

category landings; (2) positive socioeconomic impacts for General category 

and HMS Charter/Headboat category 

vessels and dealers able to participate in 

the winter/spring fishery due to 

extended opportunities to make trips 

and land commercial-sized BFT; and , 

(3) positive socio-economic impacts for 

coastal communities in which winter/ 

spring fishing opportunities exist. 

The potential disadvantages of 

extending the General category season 

could include: (1) negative socioeconomic impacts on General category 

vessels that traditionally have fished 

during June through December (e.g., in 

more northern waters) if allocations or 

fishing opportunities for those periods 

are reduced; (2) increased discard 

mortality of undersized BFT (by General 

category vessels) and BFT in excess of 

daily retention limit (by General 

category and HMS Charter/Headboat 

category vessels) during open seasons 

and during periods when the fishery has 

traditionally been closed; and, (3) 

increased bycatch of non-target species, 

including protected species. 

2. Request for Comments 

NMFS requests comments on the 

potential adjustment of regulations 

governing the BFT General category 

daily retention limits and fishing 

season. The preceding section provided 

background information regarding these 

topics. The public is encouraged to 

submit comments related to any aspect 

of these topics. NMFS is also 

specifically seeking comments to the 

following questions. 

Daily Retention Limit. What, if any, 

maximum daily retention limit should 

be established? What bycatch concerns 

or other biological and ecological 

impacts might there be (i.e., due to a 

potential increase in fishing effort)? If 

Harpoon category participants switch 

into the General category due to the lack 

of maximum daily retention limit, 

would there be negative impacts on 

General category participants? 

Fishing Season. Should the BFT 

General category fishery be extended 

until available quota for January is 

reached, to some other date beyond 

January 31, or year-round? If the fishery 

is extended beyond January 31, should 

the existing time period quota 

allocations change? 

How should NMFS distribute General 

category underharvest to the time 

periods for the following year (e.g., by 

FMP allocation—50 percent for JuneAugust; by applying all of any 

underharvest available for the General 

category to the first time period and 

rolling the unused portion forward 

throughout the calendar year; or by 

another method)? 

Given that the underharvest carried 

forward from one year to the next 

cannot exceed 50 percent of the initial 

U.S. quota (10 percent beginning in 

2011 per ICCAT recommendations), 

NMFS may not be able to apply the 

exact amount of General category 

underharvest to the following year’s 

General category quota. Additionally, in 

the last few years, NMFS has applied 

underharvest to the subsequent year to 

meet several management needs 

(particularly ensuring that the Longline 

category has sufficient quota to operate 

during the fishing year while also 

accounting for BFT discards) rather than 

distributing the allowable amount of 

underharvest according to the FMP 

percentages. Should NMFS revise over/ 

underharvest adjustment criteria for the 

General category or all categories in the 

future? 

The closed season (February through 

May) has, in effect, served as a time/area 

closure both for BFT and potential 

bycatch species. What bycatch concerns 

or other biological/ecological impacts 

might there be? 

B. Harpoon Category—Daily Retention 

Limit 

Under current HMS regulations, 

persons aboard a Harpoon category 

permitted vessel may retain, possess, or 

land an unlimited number of giant BFT 

(81 inches (206 cm) or greater), but may 

retain, possess, or land only two large 

medium BFT (73 to less than 81 inches) 

per vessel per day (i.e., there is an 

incidental limit of two large medium 

BFT while targeting giant BFT). 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Daily Retention Limit. NMFS has 

received comments requesting to 

eliminate the incidental retention limit 

on large medium BFT, so that Harpoon 

category permitted vessels may keep an 

unlimited number of large medium and 

giant BFT. This regulation could 

potentially be changed through a 

regulatory amendment. 

The potential advantages of 

eliminating the large medium incidental 

daily retention limit for the Harpoon 

category include: (1) positive socioeconomic impacts for Harpoon category 

vessels due to the ability to retain and 

sell more commercial-sized BFT per 

day/trip; (2) related positive impacts for 

dealers; (3) decreased discard mortality 

of large medium BFT that previously 

would have been in excess of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26177 

incidental daily retention limit; and, (4) 

increased use of the U.S. BFT quota 

through increased Harpoon category 

landings. 

The potential disadvantages of 

eliminating the large medium incidental 

daily retention limit for the Harpoon 

category include increased potential 

discard mortality of BFT under 73 

inches due to increased fishing effort on 

smaller commercial-sized BFT and the 

low likelihood of survival after a 

harpoon strike. 

2. Request for Comments 

NMFS requests comments on the 

potential adjustment of the daily 

retention limit for BFT Harpoon 

category permitted vessels. The public 

may submit comments related to any 

aspect of this topic. NMFS is also 

specifically seeking comments 

addressing the following questions. 

Daily Retention Limit. Would the 

Harpoon category still be needed if the 

General category maximum daily 

retention limit is eliminated (i.e., would 

Harpoon category participants choose to 

obtain a General category permit instead 

of a Harpoon category permit if 

retention of BFT measuring 73 inches or 

greater is unlimited)? What other 

potential advantages and/or 

disadvantages could result from 

eliminating the incidental restriction on 

large medium BFT for the Harpoon 

category? Should NMFS consider this or 

other potential actions for the Harpoon 

category? 

C. General and Harpoon Category— 

Commercial Minimum Size 

Current HMS regulations specify that 

both General category and Harpoon 

category vessels may retain, possess, or 

land only large medium and giant BFT 

(73 inches or greater), under the 

retention limits described above. The 

current regulations do not specify a 

general ‘‘commercial minimum size’’ in 

inches but instead manage allowable 

commercial retention by specifying 

allowed size classes for retention by the 

various commercial permit categories. 

These allowed size classes are based on 

the best available information regarding 

the size associated with the age at first 

maturity for western Atlantic BFT (73 

inches or greater), and on the type of 

authorized gear. For example, harpoon 

gear is more selective than rod and reel 

and can be used to target larger BFT. 

BFT stock assessments, conducted by 

ICCAT’s SCRS, assume 8 years as the 

age at 50 percent maturity (i.e., age at 

which 50 percent of all individuals are 

sexually mature). 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Commercial Minimum Fish Size. 

NMFS has received comments 

requesting a decrease in the 

‘‘commercial minimum size’’ for BFT. 

Most of the comments have suggested a 

65-inch (165-cm) minimum size, 

although others have suggested a size 

between 65 and 73 inches (e.g., 66 

inches (168 cm) or 68 inches (173 cm)). 

Commenters have also suggested that 

only one BFT smaller than 73-inches 

should be allowed per day, in addition 

to some amount of BFT greater than 73 

inches (for example, one fish 65 to less 

than 73 inches plus unlimited (or 

maximum allowed under inseason daily 

retention limit) BFT greater than 73 

inches per day). In combination with a 

requested decrease in commercial 

minimum fish size, some commenters 

suggested that NMFS should also 

reallocate quota within the applicable 

category in a ‘‘conservation neutral’’ 

way so as not to impact stock 

rebuilding. This would involve the 

conversion of a portion of the existing 

General and Harpoon category 

subquotas to an amount of quota that 

would be specifically for the retention 

of BFT that measure between the new 

‘‘minimum size’’ and less than 73 

inches. According to the current 

regulations, these BFT would fall within 

the current small medium BFT size 

class (i.e., 59 inches (149 cm) to less 

than 73 inches). 

NMFS believes that reducing the BFT 

size that commercial vessels may retain 

would likely change future patterns of 

fishing mortality (e.g., fish caught at 

each age). This could potentially impact 

the projected stock recovery trajectory 

due to changes in assumptions used in 

stock status projections (i.e., regarding 

the reproductive potential of the stock). 

Increased landings of smaller BFT could 

reduce projected spawning stock 

biomass and slow the rate of stock 

rebuilding. 

A reduction in the ‘‘commercial 

minimum size’’ would result in both 

recreational and commercial handgear 

vessels pursuing the same size class of 

fish (small medium BFT). As described 

below, NMFS has noted some recent 

changes in the pattern of BFT catches 

and landings that merit further 

consideration when making 

management decisions regarding this 

issue. Prior to 2007, recreational BFT 

fishing activity largely revolved around 

fishing opportunities for school BFT (27 

to less than 47 inches (69 to less than 

119 cm)) and resulted in substantial 

school BFT landings. Large Pelagic 

Survey size frequency data reveal a 

trend in the last several years toward 

larger recreational-size fish, particularly 

within the large school (47 to less than 

59 inches) and small medium size 

classes (59 to less than 73 inches). 

Availability and landings of the 

recreational size classes have been high, 

and the 2007 and 2008 Angling category 

quotas were estimated to have been 

exceeded. In reviewing the available 

data, NMFS notes that the availability of 

recreational size fish is now limited to 

a narrow size range (or cohort), 

approximately age 4 in 2007 and age 5 

in 2008. Thus, last year, the majority of 

recreationally caught BFT last year were 

in the large school size range. However, 

in 2009, NMFS anticipates that these 

BFT will be approximately age 6 and 

will enter the small medium size class. 

NMFS manages the recreational BFT 

quota by size class, so as this cohort of 

fish grows in weight but remains under 

73 inches, NMFS expects the large 

school/small medium subquota to be 

attained with fewer, but larger, fish 

landed. Potentially allowing increased 

commercial effort by General and 

Harpoon fishermen to harvest small 

medium BFT would put additional 

pressure on these age 6 fish. For these 

reasons, NMFS believes that 

modification of the size of BFT allowed 

for commercial retention likely would 

need to be made via an FMP 

amendment that would include a 

thorough environmental impact 

assessment. 

The potential advantages of reducing 

the ‘‘commercial minimum size’’ for 

retention by General and Harpoon 

category vessels (and HMS Charter/ 

Headboat category vessels when fishing 

commercially) include: (1) increased use 

of the U.S. BFT quota through increased 

General and Harpoon (quota) category 

landings; (2) positive socio-economic 

impacts for General category, Harpoon 

category, and HMS Charter/Headboat 

category vessels due to the ability to 

retain and sell more commercial-sized 

BFT per day/trip; (3) related positive 

impacts for dealers; and , (4) decreased 

discard mortality of small medium BFT 

above a new ‘‘commercial minimum 

size’’ (that previously would have been 

caught incidentally to directed fishing 

for BFT 73 inches or greater). 

The potential disadvantages of 

reducing the ‘‘commercial minimum 

size’’ for retention by General and 

Harpoon category vessels (and HMS 

Charter/Headboat category vessels when 

fishing commercially) include: (1) 

negative socio-economic impacts for 

recreational BFT fishermen due to 

increased competition and gear conflicts 

with the commercial handgear 

categories; (2) negative biological and 

26178 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

ecological impacts on BFT due to 

increased fishing effort and landings of 

small medium BFT (with potential 

impacts on the spawning stock and 

stock rebuilding); (3) increased discard 

mortality of BFT under the new 

‘‘commercial minimum size’’ due to 

increased effort on smaller commercialsized BFT and the low likelihood of 

survival after a harpoon strike if 

harpoon gear is used; and, (4) 

implications for data collection 

regarding BFT caught and landed by 

both commercial and recreational 

vessels (e.g., BFT measuring 65 to 73 

inches, landings of which previously 

would have been recreational only). 

2. Request for Comments 

NMFS requests comments related to 

any aspect of this topic, and is 

specifically seeking comments that 

address the following questions. 

Commercial Minimum Fish Size. 

Would user conflicts result from the 

recreational and commercial handgear 

fisheries pursuing the same size BFT? 

For the sustainability of the fishery, 

what should NMFS do to protect certain 

BFT year classes? Should NMFS 

implement slot limits (i.e., establish 

both a minimum and a maximum size 

limit)? Should NMFS make a change to 

the commercial minimum size, but 

revert to the 73 inch minimum size 

when a certain percentage of the 

General and Harpoon category is 

reached (e.g., 75 percent) by in-season 

action? How should NMFS manage the 

Angling, General, and Harpoon 

categories as the availability and 

distribution of size classes changes and 

particularly as the current cohort 

reaches maturity? How would a 

potential change in commercial 

minimum size alter market demand for 

imported BFT? 

D. Charter/Headboat Category 

Under current regulations, persons 

aboard a vessel issued an HMS Charter/ 

Headboat category permit may retain 

and land BFT under the daily limits and 

quotas applicable to the Angling 

category or the General category, except 

when fishing in the Gulf of Mexico (in 

which case only the annual limit of one 

(recreational ‘‘trophy’’) large medium or 

giant BFT may be retained, possessed, 

and landed). Specifically regarding 

retention limits, the size category of the 

first BFT retained determines the fishing 

category applicable to the vessel that 

day. For instance, if the first BFT 

retained is a large school BFT, the vessel 

may fish only under the Angling 

category daily retention limit that day 

and may not retain a commercial-sized 

BFT on that same day. Gear currently 

authorized for use on Charter/Headboat 

category vessels includes rod and reel, 

bandit gear, handline, and green-stick 

gear, as well speargun when 

recreationally fishing for non-bluefin 

Atlantic tunas. The current FMP quota 

allocations are as follows: 19.7 percent 

for the Angling category; 47.1 percent 

for the General category; 3.9 percent for 

the Harpoon category; 18.6 percent for 

the Purse Seine category; 8.1 percent for 

the Longline category; 0.1 percent for 

the Trap category; and 2.5 percent for 

the Reserve. 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Counting of Landings and Quota 

Allocations. NMFS received two 

suggestions regarding landings and 

quota allocation in the HMS Charter/ 

Headboat category. These include: (1) 

allow persons aboard HMS Charter/ 

Headboat category vessels to fill both 

the commercial and recreational daily 

retention limit on the same day (i.e., fish 

commercially and recreationally on the 

same day); and, (2) reallocate BFT 

subquotas to create a separate BFT 

Charter/Headboat category quota. 

The suggested change to the daily 

retention limit could be implemented 

via a regulatory amendment, but 

changes to FMP quota allocations of 

BFT would require an FMP amendment. 

The potential advantages of allowing 

commercial and recreational BFT 

fishing on the same day include: (1) 

increased use of the U.S. BFT quota 

through increased landings, particularly 

of commercial BFT counted against the 

underharvested General category quota; 

(2) positive socio-economic impacts for 

HMS Charter/Headboat category vessels 

due to the ability to retain and sell 

commercial-sized BFT on the same day 

as making a trip with paying passengers 

for recreational-sized BFT; (3) related 

positive impacts for dealers; and, (4) 

decreased discard mortality of BFT if 

fish were retained that previously 

would have exceeded the daily 

retention limit. 

The potential disadvantages of 

allowing commercial and recreational 

BFT fishing on the same day include: (1) 

the removal of clear distinction between 

commercially and recreationally caught 

BFT; (2) increased difficulty of 

monitoring recreational BFT catch and 

landings through the Large Pelagics 

Survey; (3) increased difficulty 

enforcing the daily retention limits and 

reporting requirements; and (4) 

increased discard mortality of 

undersized BFT (in excess of 

recreational daily retention limit) due to 

potential increased effort on 

commercial-sized fish, particularly if 

implemented in conjunction with 

raising or eliminating the commercial 

retention limit. 

The potential advantages of creating a 

separate Charter/Headboat quota would 

include positive socio-economic 

impacts for HMS Charter/Headboat 

vessels associated with a dedicated 

quota for that permit category. 

Conversely, potential disadvantages 

would include negative socio-economic 

impacts for vessels in other existing 

quota categories, due to reallocation. 

Authorized Gears. NMFS received a 

suggestion to allow the use of harpoon 

gear on HMS Charter/Headboat category 

vessels. This potential change to the 

allowable gear regulations could be 

implemented using a regulatory 

amendment. 

NMFS proposed to authorize harpoon 

gear for the harvest of Atlantic tunas, 

including BFT, in the HMS Charter/ 

Headboat category on May 6, 2008 (73 

FR 24922), but did not finalize the 

change in the final rule (73 FR 54721, 

September 23, 2008). At that time, 

NMFS decided to maintain the status 

quo regarding authorized harpoon use, 

(i.e., by the General and Harpoon 

categories only), after noting a relative 

lack of support for this issue, and 

because of concerns about bycatch, 

enforcement, safety at sea, and BFT 

stock status. 

The potential advantages of 

authorizing harpoon gear use on 

Charter/Headboat category vessels 

would include increased opportunities 

to retain and land commercial sized 

BFT, thus making increased use of the 

U.S. BFT quota through increased 

General category landings. 

The potential disadvantages of 

authorizing harpoon gear include: (1) 

increased discard mortality from 

inadvertent harpoon strikes on 

undersized BFT; and, (2) difficulty with 

enforcement if harpoons are authorized 

on non-for-hire trips only. 

2. Request for Comments 

NMFS requests comments related to 

any aspect of this topic, and is 

specifically seeking comments that 

address the following questions. 

Counting of Landings and Quota 

Allocations. Should HMS Charter/ 

Headboat category vessels be allowed to 

fish commercially and recreationally on 

the same day? How should NMFS 

monitor HMS Charter/Headboat effort, 

landings, and bycatch? Should these 

vessels be required to maintain and 

submit logbooks? 

Authorized Gears. Should harpoon 

gear be authorized for use on HMS 

Charter/Headboat category vessels? If so, 

should harpoon gear be authorized on 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26179 

both for-hire and non-for-hire trips or 

only on non-for-hire trips? 

E. All Categories—Landing Form 

Under current HMS regulations, 

persons that own or operate a fishing 

vessel that possesses or lands an 

Atlantic tuna (bigeye, albacore, 

yellowfin, and skipjack tunas) must 

maintain such tuna through offloading 

either in round form or eviscerated with 

the head and fins removed, provided 

one pectoral fin and the tail remain 

attached. For a whole or round tuna 

(head on), the sole criterion for 

determining the size and/or size class of 

a whole or round (head on) Atlantic 

tunas is a curved fork length 

measurement (CFL). The CFL 

measurement is determined by the 

length of a fish measured from the tip 

of the upper jaw to the fork of the tail 

along the contour of the body in a line 

that runs along the top of the pectoral 

fin and the top of the caudal keel. When 

the head of an Atlantic tuna is removed, 

a pectoral fin curved fork length 

(PFCFL) is the legal means of measuring 

the fish. The PFCFL is determined by 

the length of a fish with the head 

removed from the dorsal insertion of the 

pectoral fin to the fork of the tail 

measured along the contour of the body 

in a line that runs along the top of the 

pectoral fin and the top of the caudal 

keel. Both of these measurements 

require the tail to be naturally attached 

to attain a proper measurement. 

The PFCFL is converted to CFL using 

a conversion factor of 1.35. The 

resulting CFL is the sole criterion for 

determining the size class of a BFT with 

the head removed. Applying the 

conversion factor from PFCFL to CFL for 

a BFT with the head removed currently 

means that no person shall retain or 

possess a BFT, with the head removed, 

measuring less than 20 inches (51 cm) 

PFCFL. For yellowfin and bigeye tuna, 

both of which have a minimum size of 

27 inches CFL, the regulations state that 

no person shall remove the head of the 

fish if the remaining portion would be 

less than 27 inches from the fork of the 

tail to the forward edge of the cut. 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Atlantic Tunas Landing Form. NMFS 

has been requested to allow the tail of 

Atlantic tunas to be removed at sea, 

provided that the remaining carcass 

length exceeds the minimum CFL 

measurement that is applicable to the 

species and permit category of the 

vessel. Although this request stems 

primarily from a desire to make storage 

of Atlantic tunas more efficient on PLL 

vessels, the issue is applicable to all 

vessels fishing for and retaining Atlantic 

tunas. The regulations regarding 

Atlantic tunas landing form could be 

changed via a regulatory amendment. 

The potential advantages of allowing 

the removal of Atlantic tuna tails 

include: (1) allowing for more efficient 

storage of harvested Atlantic tunas; (2) 

increased options for preserving the 

quality of harvested Atlantic tunas; and, 

(3) harmonization of Atlantic tunas 

minimum size limits, carcass condition 

regulations, and preferred fishery 

practices. 

The potential disadvantages of 

allowing the removal of Atlantic tuna 

tails include: (1) may indirectly change 

the allowable minimum size of an 

Atlantic tuna; (2) may complicate 

analyses and require the generation of a 

conversion factor for comparison to 

historical fish length data; (3) may 

necessitate changes to reporting forms 

and reporting requirements; and (4) 

would likely necessitate changes to 

current terms and definitions in the 

regulations. 

2. Request for Comments 

NMFS requests comments related to 

any aspect of this topic, and is 

specifically seeking comments that 

address the following questions. 

Atlantic Tunas Landing Form. Should 

this potential change in landing form be 

considered for all regulated Atlantic 

tuna species? Should this potential 

change be considered for all permit 

categories? Should NMFS standardize 

where the tail is cut for analytical 

purposes? How would this potential 

change affect current fishing practices? 

Are there other means of allowing more 

efficient storage of Atlantic tunas 

without removing the tail? 

III. North Atlantic SWO, Atlantic 

Shark, and Atlantic BFT Fishery Issues 

As noted in the ‘‘DATES’’ section, the 

comment period on issues in this 

section is open through August 31, 

2009. 

This section of the ANPR addresses 

issues which may overlap several HMS 

fishery sectors. 

A. Modification of PLL BFT Incidental 

Catch Requirements 

Under current HMS regulations, 

persons aboard a vessel permitted in the 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category may 

retain, possess, land, and sell large 

medium and giant BFT taken 

incidentally when fishing for other 

species, as follows: One large medium 

or giant BFT per vessel per trip may be 

landed, provided that at least 2,000 lb 

(907 kg) of species other than BFT are 

legally caught, retained, and offloaded 

from the same trip and are recorded on 

the dealer weighout slip as sold; two 

large medium or giant BFT may be 

landed incidentally to at least 6,000 lb 

(2,727 kg) of species other than BFT; 

and three large medium or giant BFT 

may be landed incidentally to at least 

30,000 lb (13,620 kg) of species other 

than BFT. 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Commenters have suggested that 

NMFS should increase the incidental 

BFT retention limits for the PLL fishery 

in order to reduce regulatory discards of 

commercial-sized BFT and thus, 

increase profitability of PLL trips, which 

may result in increased SWO fishing 

effort and potentially increase landings 

of SWO.. Specifically, NMFS has 

received the suggestion to allow two 

large medium or giant BFT for 3,000 lb 

(1,361 kg) of target catch; 3 BFT for 

6,000 lb (2,722 kg); 4 BFT for 9,000 lb 

(4,082 kg); and 5 BFT for 12,000 lb 

(5,443 kg). 

Modifications to BFT incidental catch 

limits would need to be thoroughly 

analyzed and could potentially be made 

via a regulatory amendment assuming 

Longline landings remain consistent 

with the baseline allocation. If 

modifications were to result in Longline 

landings inconsistent with the baseline 

allocation, an FMP amendment may be 

required. 

The potential advantages of increasing 

the PLL incidental retention limit 

include: (1) decreased regulatory 

discards of BFT caught incidentally 

while targeting other species; and, (2) 

increased profitability of PLL trips, 

which may result in increased SWO 

fishing effort, contributing to the 

revitalization of the SWO fishery and 

the increased utilization of the U.S. 

SWO quota. 

Potential disadvantages associated 

with increasing the PLL incidental 

retention limit include: 1) Pursuant to 

the 2006 ICCAT BFT Recommendation, 

the United States must count BFT dead 

discards along with landings against the 

U.S. BFT quota. As a result, the 

Longline category BFT quota has been 

fully utilized. It is possible that 

increasing the incidental retention 

limits could result in increased PLL 

effort, which may necessitate NMFS 

closing the PLL fishery prior to the end 

of the fishing year. Such a closure 

would be disruptive to PLL fishing 

activities for target species and have 

negative economic impacts. 2) Second, 

there is a possibility of increased 

bycatch of undersized BFT and nontarget species, including protected 

species, due to increased PLL fishing 

26180 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

effort, particularly on trips targeting 

other HMS which have high bycatch 

rates. 3) Changes in fishing behavior 

(fishing location and effort) could occur, 

including the potential targeting of BFT 

which is in contravention to the 

Longline category’s incidental nature 

and of ICCAT prohibitions on directed 

fishing for BFT on their spawning 

grounds. 

2. Request for Comments 

NMFS requests comments related to 

any aspect of this topic, and is 

specifically seeking comments that 

address the following questions. What 

factors should NMFS consider in any 

potential PLL incidental retention limit 

analyses to prevent potential targeting of 

BFT? Should NMFS consider 

adjustments in the PLL incidental 

retention limits in the Atlantic Ocean 

only and not include the Gulf of Mexico 

because it is the spawning ground or 

should NMFS consider adjustments in 

all areas where BFT are bycatch in the 

PLL fishery? Should NMFS consider 

revisions to the Longline category’s 

incidental nature and/or baseline 

allocation? 

B. Establishment of a HMS General 

Commercial Handgear Permit 

NMFS, with input from the HMS AP, 

evaluated the HMS permit structure 

over the past couple of years to 

determine if changes could be made that 

would add flexibility for fishermen and 

fishery managers, address existing HMS 

management needs, and simplify the 

permit structure for the public and for 

NMFS. Current HMS limited access 

permits include: SWO Directed, 

Incidental, and Handgear permits; Shark 

Directed and Incidental permits; and, 

the Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit. In general, the current HMS 

permit structure is complicated and 

sometimes burdensome on the public, 

especially with regard to obtaining and 

transferring limited access permits. For 

example, in order to retain tunas and 

SWO caught with PLL gear, a vessel 

must be issued an Atlantic Tunas 

Longline category permit, a shark 

limited access permit, and a SWO 

limited access permit (except 

Handgear). 

Limited access permits were 

implemented in 1999 to rationalize 

harvesting capacity with available 

quotas, and to reduce latent effort in 

SWO and shark fisheries. A 

consequence of having limited access 

and not issuing new permits is that 

some of these permits are now valued at 

tens of thousands of dollars. Limitations 

on vessel size and horsepower upgrades 

have further affected their value and 

use. 

The primary commercial gear 

currently used to catch SWO and tunas 

is PLL. Bottom longline (BLL) gear is 

primarily used to catch sharks. These 

gears generally catch larger numbers of 

target and non-target species than does 

handgear. The potential to issue new or 

lapsed/expired limited access permits to 

use PLL gear to harvest SWO has been 

restricted by bycatch concerns 

(including protected resources), gear 

conflict issues, and the poor condition 

of several Atlantic shark stocks, several 

of which are also caught on PLL gear. 

Given these restrictions on increasing 

effort of fishermen using longline gears, 

a potential option is the expansion of 

the Atlantic Tunas General category 

permit to allow for the retention of SWO 

and possibly the retention of sharks. 

Currently, the Atlantic Tunas General 

category permit is an open access permit 

which authorizes the commercial 

harvest of Atlantic tunas with handgear. 

Potentially expanding the permit to 

allow for the retention of SWO and 

sharks would add flexibility for fishery 

managers and fishermen by allowing for 

the harvest of these species according to 

size and retention limits that are 

commensurate with the health of fish 

stocks. Potentially allowing for the 

commercial harvest of north Atlantic 

SWO with handgear by Atlantic Tunas 

General category permit holders could 

benefit fishermen, and address HMS 

management needs by providing 

additional opportunities to harvest SWO 

and achieve the domestic north Atlantic 

SWO quota by using a gear with 

generally low bycatch. The following 

sections describe some of the options 

and issues associated with potentially 

expanding the species allowed to be 

retained by Atlantic Tunas General 

category permit holders to include 

Atlantic SWO and sharks, thus 

converting the permit to an Atlantic 

HMS General commercial handgear 

permit, and establish size and retention 

limits for those species under the permit 

commensurate with the health of fish 

stocks. 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Expand the Species Allowed to be 

Retained by Atlantic Tunas General 

Category Permit Holders and Convert 

the Permit to an Atlantic HMS General 

Commercial Handgear Permit. This 

potential modification would expand 

the species allowed to be retained by 

Atlantic Tunas General category permit 

holders to include Atlantic SWO and 

sharks, thus converting the permit to an 

Atlantic HMS General commercial 

handgear permit, and establish size and 

retention limits for those species under 

the permit commensurate with the 

health of fish stocks. As of May 2008, 

there were 4,031 Atlantic Tunas General 

category permit holders. Since these 

permits were purchased to 

commercially harvest Atlantic tunas, it 

is unknown how many would be used 

to commercially harvest SWO or sharks; 

however, NMFS does not anticipate that 

all Atlantic Tunas General category 

permits would be used in this manner. 

The options described below discuss 

various other aspects that would need to 

be considered in potentially expanding 

the species allowed and changing the 

permit name. 

Open Access or Limited Access. The 

existing Atlantic Tunas General category 

permit is an open access permit. A 

potentially expanded Atlantic HMS 

General Commercial Handgear permit 

could either remain under the existing 

open access regulations (as per the 

Atlantic Tunas General category permit) 

or become a limited access permit. 

North Atlantic SWO are almost fully 

rebuilt, overfishing is not occurring, and 

the U.S. SWO quota is underharvested; 

therefore, an open access HMS General 

Commercial Handgear permit may be a 

possibility. The limited access permit 

system for SWO was established in 1999 

(when SWO were overfished with 

overfishing occurring) and, if proposed 

and adopted, an HMS General 

Commercial Handgear permit— 

potentially with low retention limits 

(see below)—would be the first time 

open access is allowed commercially in 

the domestic SWO fishery since the 

stock has improved. Implementing 

either an open access or a limited access 

HMS General Commercial Handgear 

permit would have important 

implications on permit availability, 

fishing effort, commercial landings, exvessel prices, and the value of existing 

permits, among others. 

The implications of a potential open 

access HMS General Commercial 

Handgear permit for sharks is not the 

same as for SWO. Several shark 

populations are overfished with 

overfishing occurring, thus if shark 

harvest with the HMS General 

Commercial Handgear permit were 

allowed, retention limits and other 

harvest restrictions may be necessary to 

facilitate continued rebuilding of 

overfished shark populations. 

Authorized Species. Many shark 

species are overfished, subject to 

overfishing, or have an unknown stock 

status. Recent and proposed actions by 

NMFS have addressed or may address 

overfishing in shark fisheries. Sharks are 

caught incidentally by hook and line 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26181 

gear used by Atlantic Tunas General 

category permitted vessels, but sharks 

are currently not authorized to be 

retained by these permit holders unless 

they also hold a directed or incidental 

shark limited access permit. The 

authorization of shark harvest under 

this potential modification could allow 

for retention of some sharks to account 

for incidental catch; however, allowing 

shark harvest could also result in 

targeting of sharks. 

Retention Limits. If the harvest of 

sharks were authorized, a possible 

option to prevent targeted fishing would 

be to establish a retention limit 

equivalent to or less than recreational 

retention limits. Depending on the 

status of specific shark species and the 

ability of permit holders to correctly 

identify species and release species with 

minimal injury, retention limits could 

be modified over time to allow retention 

of incidental catches of sharks 

commensurate with stock status. This 

option may provide desired flexibility 

for fishery managers while continuing to 

allow rebuilding of shark stocks and 

increasing the knowledge of shark 

incidental catches in this fishery. If the 

harvest of SWO were authorized for a 

potential HMS General Commercial 

Handgear permit, it could potentially 

impact current limited access permit 

holders by increasing the volume of 

SWO on the market and decreasing the 

demand (and therefore price) of the 

current permits. This potential 

modification to the Atlantic Tunas 

General Category permit could also 

impact recreational anglers by 

increasing the overall amount of 

commercial fishing effort in some areas. 

However, a relatively low SWO 

retention limit could mitigate these 

impacts by tempering the amount of 

swordfish that enters the market and the 

commercial benefit of the permit. Also 

a relatively low SWO retention limit 

could mitigate concerns about impacts 

to the values of SWO limited access 

permits. 

Tournament Participation. Currently, 

Atlantic Tunas General category permit 

holders may participate in Atlantic 

HMS registered tournaments and, when 

fishing in an HMS tournament, may 

land Atlantic billfish. Under a potential 

Atlantic HMS General Commercial 

Handgear permit, participation in HMS 

tournaments and landing of billfish in 

those tournaments could be modified. 

The provision that allows Atlantic 

Tunas General category permit holders 

to participate in a registered HMS 

tournament and land billfish could be 

maintained or that provision could be 

eliminated. If it were eliminated, 

existing Atlantic Tunas General category 

permit holders would potentially lose 

the ability to participate in registered 

HMS tournaments. It is possible that 

some current HMS Angling category 

permit holders may want to change 

permit types and purchase the 

expanded HMS General Commercial 

Handgear permit. If permit holders of 

the expanded HMS General Commercial 

Handgear permit could not participate 

in tournaments, historical HMS Angling 

category permit holders that obtain the 

expanded HMS General Commercial 

Handgear permit could potentially lose 

the ability to participate in tournaments 

and land billfish if this provision were 

eliminated. 

Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality. FMPs 

and regulations promulgated under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act must be 

consistent with National Standard 9 

which states that conservation and 

management measures shall, to the 

extent practicable, minimize bycatch 

and to the extent bycatch cannot be 

avoided, minimize the mortality of such 

bycatch. NMFS has implemented 

numerous management measures to 

reduce the bycatch of undersized SWO, 

non-target species, and protected 

species in the PLL fishery, and 

prohibited some sharks, non-target 

species, and protected species in the 

BLL fishery. For instance, in accordance 

with National Standard 9 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, time/area 

closures were implemented in the PLL 

fishery in 1999, 2001, and 2002. 

Management measures to reduce 

interactions of HMS fishing gears with 

protected resources are prescribed by 

the Biological Opinions (BiOps) for 

HMS fisheries, PLL fishery, and shark 

fisheries in 2001, 2004, and 2008 

respectively, under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act. The 2001 BiOp 

on HMS fisheries concluded that 

continued operation of handgear 

fisheries in the Atlantic may adversely 

affect, but are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of protected 

species. Under the authority of the 

MMPA, the Pelagic Longline Take 

Reduction Team (PLTRT) was formed 

and the final rule implementing the 

Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan 

(PLTRP) published on May 19, 2009 (74 

FR 23349). Any potential expansion of 

fishing effort in HMS fisheries, 

including handgear fisheries, must 

consider the continuing need to 

minimize bycatch and bycatch 

mortality. 

HMS Reporting Requirements. 

Commercially landed HMS may only be 

sold to HMS permitted dealers, and 

HMS permitted dealers are required to 

report their purchases to NMFS. 

Reporting mechanisms are also in place 

via state trip ticket programs in the 

South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, 

dealer reporting to the NMFS Northeast 

Regional Office, and through 

cooperation with the Commonwealths 

of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. NMFS has the authority to 

require logbook reporting of Atlantic 

tunas, shark, or SWO permitted vessels 

and the authority to require Atlantic 

HMS, tunas, shark, or SWO permitted 

vessels to carry observers; however, 

these mechanisms are currently not 

exercised in all categories. This is due, 

in part, to the difficulty in handling 

large numbers of logbook reports and 

the cost of observer programs. NMFS is 

interested in improving data collection 

capabilities in the HMS General 

category fishery, especially if additional 

species are authorized under an Atlantic 

HMS General Commercial Handgear 

Permit. 

2. Request for Comments Regarding a 

HMS General Commercial Handgear 

Permit 

NMFS requests comments on the 

potential adjustment of regulations 

governing Atlantic HMS fishing permits 

that would amend the species allowed 

to be retained by the Atlantic Tunas 

General category permit to include SWO 

and sharks, and establish size and 

retention limits for the permit. The 

preceding section provided information 

on some options and issues regarding 

the potential expansion of the HMS 

General Commercial Handgear permit. 

The public is encouraged to submit 

comments related to any aspect of this 

topic. NMFS is also specifically seeking 

comments to the following questions. 

What are the benefits of an open 

versus limited access HMS General 

Commercial Handgear permit? If SWO 

are authorized to be harvested with a 

HMS General Commercial Handgear 

permit, what retention limit should 

apply? If sharks are authorized to be 

harvested with a HMS General 

Commercial Handgear permit, what 

retention limit should apply? Under a 

potential Atlantic HMS General 

Commercial Handgear permit, should 

participation in HMS tournaments and 

landing of billfish in those tournaments 

be allowed? How can impacts to the 

value of existing SWO or shark limited 

access permits be minimized? Would 

low retention limits for SWO and shark 

aid in minimizing potential impacts to 

limited access permit values? Are there 

additional bycatch concerns regarding 

commercial handgear fishing for HMS? 

What methods might be utilized to 

collect data in commercial HMS 

handgear fisheries? If fish are caught by 

a HMS General Commercial Handgear 

26182 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

permitted vessel, but not sold, what 

mechanism might be most appropriate 

for reporting the landing? 

C. Squid Trawl Vessel Exemption from 

Multi-Permit Requirement to Retain 

SWO 

Current HMS regulations specify that 

three limited access permits (SWO 

Directed or Incidental, Shark Directed or 

Incidental, and Atlantic Tunas 

Longline) are required to commercially 

harvest and sell SWO, unless the vessel 

has been issued a limited access SWO 

Handgear permit. This regulation was 

originally intended to address PLL 

vessels, which are likely to have a 

bycatch of any of these species when 

targeting SWO or tunas. However, the 

regulation applies to any vessel which 

commercially captures and sells SWO. 

Therefore, squid trawl vessels must be 

issued all three permits, including an 

Atlantic Tunas Longline category 

permit, to sell their incidentally caught 

SWO. NMFS has received comments 

requesting reconsideration of the three 

permit requirement for squid trawl 

vessels. Commenters have indicated that 

this requirement is burdensome, 

confusing, and unnecessary since squid 

trawl vessels do not fish with PLL gear. 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Eligibility. To consider an exemption 

from the three permit requirement for 

squid trawl vessels to retain SWO, 

NMFS would need to determine which 

vessels are eligible for the exemption. 

This could potentially be accomplished 

by exempting any vessel which is issued 

an Illex squid and/or Loligo squid 

moratorium permit, by exempting only 

squid trawl vessels which are currently 

issued the three required HMS permits, 

or by creating a new HMS incidental 

catch permit for some or all squid trawl 

moratorium vessels. Expanding the 

exemption to include all squid trawl 

moratorium vessels and/or creating new 

incidental catch permit for some or all 

squid trawl vessel would likely require 

more extensive analysis and, possibly, 

an FMP amendment. 

Authorized Gear. SWO is oftentimes 

an unavoidable bycatch species in the 

midwater trawl (squid trawl) fishery and 

NMFS has established retention limits 

for the incidental catch of SWO by 

squid trawl vessels. The existing 

regulations at 50 CFR 635.24(b)(2) state 

that a vessel is considered to be in the 

squid trawl fishery when it has no 

commercial fishing gear other than 

trawls on board and when squid 

constitutes not less than 75 percent by 

weight of the total fish on board or 

offloaded from the vessel. Gears with 

which HMS are allowed to be harvested 

have been authorized in the regulations 

for that purpose. Midwater trawl is 

currently not an authorized gear for any 

HMS, however it may be advantageous 

to authorize midwater trawl in order to 

maintain consistency in the regulations. 

Authorizing midwater trawl gear for 

SWO may create the perception that 

targeting SWO with midwater trawl gear 

is allowable. NMFS is requesting 

information from the public regarding 

whether midwater trawl gear should be 

authorized in SWO and other HMS 

fisheries. 

Species Retention. NMFS has 

established retention limits for the 

incidental catch of SWO by squid trawl 

vessels. However, some squid trawl 

vessels have also reported landing tunas 

or other HMS. NMFS is requesting 

information from the public regarding 

the degree to which tunas or other HMS 

are an unavoidable bycatch in the squid 

trawl fishery. 

2. Request for Comments Regarding a 

Squid Trawl Exemption from MultiPermit Requirement to Retain SWO 

NMFS requests comments on a 

potential exemption for squid trawl 

vessels from the multi-permit 

requirement to retain SWO. The 

preceding section provided information 

on options and issues. The public is 

encouraged to submit comments related 

to any aspect of this topic. NMFS is also 

specifically seeking comments to the 

following questions. 

Should a potential exemption apply 

only to squid trawl vessels currently 

issued the three required HMS permits 

to retain SWO? Should a potential 

exemption apply to all squid trawl 

vessels currently issued Illex and/or 

Loligo moratorium permits? Should 

midwater trawl gear be authorized for 

SWO or other HMS fisheries? Should a 

potential exemption apply to other HMS 

species, or only to SWO? How should a 

potential exemption be implemented 

(no permit(s) required, a trawl permit 

only, retention limits)? 

IV. Catch Share Programs 

As noted in the ‘‘DATES’’ section, the 

comment period on issues in this 

section is open through August 31, 

2009. 

Catch share programs generally refer 

to a variety of fishery management 

regimes which may allocate fishing 

privileges to permit holders, groups of 

permit holders, fishing communities, or 

other entities. In this ANPR, NMFS is 

considering the feasibility and 

applicability of two types of catch share 

programs in HMS fisheries, namely 

Limited Access Privilege Programs 

(LAPPs) and Individual Bycatch Caps 

(IBCs), both of which are briefly 

described below. 

A. LAPPs 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Applicability. LAPPs are authorized 

by Magnuson-Stevens Act and are a type 

of catch share program. In a LAPP, 

privileges to harvest part of a total 

allowable catch (TAC) or quota are 

distributed to fishery participants 

through permits. By ensuring each 

LAPP participant an opportunity to 

harvest a specific amount of TAC or 

quota, LAPPs have the potential to: 

eliminate the incentive to over-invest in 

fishing capacity; provide increased 

operational flexibility; increase harvest 

timing flexibility; increase fishing 

efficiency; and increase the overall 

profitability of fishing fleets. Even in a 

fishery that is not achieving its quota, 

such as BFT and SWO, LAPPs provide 

an opportunity for fishery participants 

to ‘‘lock-in’’ a share of the quota which 

may prove valuable if the fishery 

becomes quota-limited in the future. 

LAPPs represent a significant change 

from the way that most HMS fisheries 

are managed because fishing quotas 

would be assigned to individual 

participants or groups of participants. 

The biological, social, or economic 

impacts associated with such a change 

in the management of quotas and quota 

shares could vary greatly, depending on 

the specifics of the LAPP provisions 

implemented. All such impacts would 

be analyzed in a separate rulemaking 

with appropriate supporting 

documentation should such programs 

be further considered. 

2. Request for Comments Regarding 

LAPPs 

The preceding section provided 

information on the options and issues 

regarding LAPPs in HMS fisheries. The 

public is encouraged to submit 

comments related to any aspect of this 

topic. NMFS is also specifically seeking 

comments to the following questions. 

For HMS fisheries, what aspects of 

LAPPs have the most potential to 

increase operational flexibility, harvest 

timing flexibility, and fishing 

efficiency? Would LAPPs in HMS 

fisheries result in increased profitability 

for fishermen? What social or biological, 

social, or economic impacts might be 

associated with implementation of 

LAPPs in HMS fisheries? What criteria 

should NMFS consider when evaluating 

LAPPs for HMS fisheries? 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 103 / Monday, June 1, 2009 / Proposed Rules 26183 

B. IBCs 

1. Potential Management Options and 

Issues 

Applicability. IBCs refer to a part of a 

total allowable amount of interaction 

with bycatch species (which may 

include both non-target and protected 

species) that may be encountered during 

fishing activity. The total allowable 

amount of interaction with bycatch 

species may be established through 

mechanisms such as stock assessments 

that establish a TAC for overfished 

species, incidental take statements 

issued under the ESA, or other 

mechanisms. Examples of bycatch 

species may be an overfished species for 

which overfishing is occurring or a 

listed species. By distributing the 

allowable amount of interaction with 

bycatch species to vessels, either 

individually or grouped, or on a 

regional basis, the ability to individually 

or regionally manage interactions may 

be achieved. The advantages of this 

management approach may include: 

increased individual responsibility for 

interactions in a fishery; increased 

ability for individuals that avoid 

interactions to continue to fish; and 

more regionally applicable 

consequences of interactions if bycatch 

caps are applied on a regional basis. 

IBCs represent a significant change from 

the way that bycatch issues in most 

HMS fisheries are managed because 

allowable limits of bycatch would be 

assigned to individual participants, 

groups of participants, or regions. The 

biological, social or economic impacts 

associated with such a change in the 

management of bycatch in HMS 

fisheries could vary greatly, depending 

on the specifics of the provisions 

implemented. All such impacts would 

be analyzed in a separate rulemaking 

with appropriate supporting 

documentation should such provisions 

be further considered. 

2. Request for Comments Regarding 

IBCs 

The preceding section provided 

information on the options and issues 

regarding IBCs in HMS fisheries. The 

public is encouraged to submit 

comments related to any aspect of this 

topic. NMFS is also specifically seeking 

comments to the following questions. 

How might an IBC system in HMS 

fisheries affect the status of bycatch 

species? What aspects of an IBC system 

in HMS fisheries might be advantageous 

to fishery participants? What aspects of 

an IBC system would not be 

advantageous to fishery participants? 

What efficient and effective ways of 

monitoring IBCs are there? What social, 

biological, or economic impacts might 

be associated with implementation of 

IBCs in HMS fisheries? What should 

NMFS consider when evaluating IBCs 

for HMS fisheries? 

V. Submission of Public Comments 

NMFS reminds the public that there 

are two deadlines for the submission of 

written comments. The comment period 

for items discussed in Section II of this 

ANPR closes on June 30, 2009. The 

comment period for items discussed in 

Sections III and IV of this ANPR closes 

on August 31, 2009. Please see the 

ADDRESSES section of this ANPR for 

additional information regarding the 

submission of written comments. 

All written comments received by the 

due dates will be considered in drafting 

proposed changes to the HMS 

regulations. In developing any proposed 

regulations, NMFS must consider and 

analyze ecological, social, and economic 

impacts. Therefore, NMFS encourages 

comments that would contribute to the 

required analyses, and respond to the 

questions presented in this ANPR. 

Public Meetings 

NMFS will hold five public meetings 

to receive comments from fishery 

participants and other members of the 

public regarding this ANPR. These 

meetings will be physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Request for 

sign language interpretation or other 

auxiliary aids should be directed to 

Sarah McLaughlin at 978–281–9260 or 

Randy Blankinship at 727–824–5399, at 

least 7 days prior to the meeting. For 

individuals unable to attend a meeting, 

NMFS also solicits written comments on 

the ANPR (see DATES and ADDRESSES). 

The meeting dates, times, and 

locations follow. All meetings will be 

held from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. All 

meetings will begin with an opportunity 

for individuals to view information on 

the issues raised in this ANPR and ask 

questions at 5:00 p.m. followed by a 

presentation and opportunity for public 

comment beginning at 6:00 p.m. 

1. June 23, 2009, Holiday Inn, 151 

Route 72 East, Manahawkin, NJ 08050 

2. June 25, 2009, Roanoke Island 

Festival Park, 1 Festival Park, Manteo, 

NC 27954 

3. June 29, Radisson Hotel Plymouth 

Harbor, 180 Water Street, Plymouth MA 

02360 

4. July 21, Belle Chasse Auditorium, 

8398 Hwy. 23, Belle Chasse, LA 70037 

5. July 28, Broward County Main 

Library, 100 S. Andrews Ave., Fort 

Lauderdale, FL 33301 

Classification 

This action is not significant pursuant 

to Executive Order 12866. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. and 1801 

et seq. 

Dated: May 26, 2009. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–12652 Filed 5–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

RIN 0648–XL60 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Loan Program for 

Crab Quota Share; Amendment 33 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of a 

proposed amendment to a fishery 

management plan; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) has 

submitted Amendment 33 to the Fishery 

Management Plan for Bering Sea/ 

Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs 

(FMP). If approved, Amendment 33 

would allow NMFS to reduce the 

amount of fees collected under the Crab 

Rationalization Program to the amount 

needed to finance the Federal loan 

program for quota share purchase. The 

amendment would allow NMFS to 

reserve only the amount of fees 

necessary to support the loan program, 

including no fees if none are needed. 

This action is necessary to ensure that 

fishery participants do not pay fees for 

loan program financing in excess of the 

fees needed to support the loan 

program. This FMP amendment would 

not result in modifications to Federal 

regulations. 

DATES: Comments on Amendment 33 

must be received on or before July 31, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 0648– 

XL60‘‘, by any one of the following 

methods: