37566 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

antidumping and/or countervailing 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping and/or 

countervailing duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of doubled 

antidumping duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

This notice is issued and published in 

accordance with sections 751 and 

777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(4). 

Dated: August 7, 2017. 

James Maeder, 

Senior Director performing the duties of the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16995 Filed 8–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF086 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

Exempted Fishing Permits 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of a final 

environmental assessment to issue an 

exempted fishing permit. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the 

availability of a Final Environmental 

Assessment (EA) analyzing the impacts 

of issuing an exempted fishing permit 

(EFP) to Dr. David Kerstetter of Nova 

Southeastern University to evaluate 

pelagic longline (PLL) catch and bycatch 

rates from within two different subareas in the northern portion of the East 

Florida Coast (EFC) Pelagic Longline 

(PLL) Closed Area (north and south of 

29°50′ N. lat.) and compare those rates 

to rates obtained by authorized samplers 

from an area outside the EFC PLL 

Closed Area, with certain terms and 

conditions. The overall purpose of the 

research project is to evaluate the 

effectiveness of existing area closures at 

meeting current conservation and 

management goals under current 

conditions using standardized PLL gear 

on a specified number of commercial 

vessels. In response to terms and 

conditions established by NMFS, the 

research project is also structured to 

maximize the survival of shark species, 

collect data on shark species 

identification, collect data on PLL soak 

times to reduce bycatch mortality of 

species such as dusky sharks, and to 

increase the Agency’s understanding of 

data poor shark stocks to improve future 

management of these species. NMFS 

considered public comments and 

decided to issue the EFP given the need 

to assess and compare current catch and 

bycatch rates during normal commercial 

fishing operations from areas inside and 

outside the EFC PLL Closed Area. 

DATES: The Final EA will be available 

on August 11, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Final EA may 

be requested by contacting Atlantic 

Highly Migratory Species Management 

Division (F/SF1), NMFS, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Cockrell at (301) 427–8503 or Rick 

Pearson at (727) 824–5399. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

NMFS published a notice of intent to 

issue EFPs, Scientific Research Permits, 

Letters of Acknowledgement, and 

Chartering Permits for Atlantic highly 

migratory species (HMS) in 2017 (81 FR 

80646, November 16, 2016). Although 

that notice anticipated a variety of such 

applications, it also stated that 

occasionally NMFS receives 

applications for research activities that 

were not anticipated, or for research that 

is outside the scope of general scientific 

sampling and tagging of Atlantic HMS, 

or rarely, for research that is particularly 

controversial and that NMFS will 

provide additional opportunity for 

public comment, consistent with the 

regulations at 50 CFR 600.745 if that 

were to occur. 

As discussed in the November 2016 

notice of intent to issue EFPs and 

related permits, issuance of EFPs and 

related permits are necessary because 

HMS regulations (e.g., fishing seasons, 

prohibited species, authorized gear, 

closed areas, and minimum sizes) 

sometimes otherwise prohibit activities 

that could be undertaken for scientific 

data collection or other valuable 

purposes. Thus, under 50 CFR 635.32, 

and consistent with 50 CFR 600.745, the 

Director of the Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries may, through issuance of an 

EFP, authorize for certain purposes the 

target or incidental harvest of species 

managed under a Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) or fishery regulations that 

would otherwise be prohibited. Among 

the purposes of EFPs are the ‘‘conduct 

of scientific research, the acquisition of 

information and data, . . . [and] the 

investigation of bycatch, economic 

discard and regulatory discard.’’ 50 CFR 

635.32(a)(1). These permits exempt 

permit holders from the specific 

portions of the regulations (e.g., fishing 

seasons, prohibited species, authorized 

gear, closed areas, and minimum sizes) 

that may otherwise prohibit the 

collection of HMS for public education, 

public display, or scientific research. 

The terms and conditions of individual 

permits are unique. EFPs and related 

permits are issued under the authority 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and/or the 

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) 

(16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.). 

NMFS closed the EFC area to PLL gear 

year-round in early 2001 (65 FR 47213, 

August 1, 2000). The closure was 

implemented to reduce bycatch and 

incidental catch of overfished and 

protected species by PLL fishermen who 

target HMS because there was a 

noticeable difference in the bycatch of 

some non-target species (mainly 

undersized swordfish) between the EFC 

area and open areas. At the time, 

Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, 

sailfish, West Atlantic bluefin tuna, 

North Atlantic albacore tuna, and 

swordfish were overfished with 

overfishing occurring, and bycatch 

reduction was a component of 

rebuilding efforts. In particular, the 

United States was implementing a 1999 

swordfish rebuilding plan, and the 

closure helped reduce bycatch of 

undersized swordfish. Several other 

laws required that NMFS address 

bycatch in the HMS fisheries, including 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 

which required reductions in sea turtle 

bycatch in the PLL fishery. National 

Standard 9 of the MSA also requires that 

fishery management plans minimize 

bycatch and bycatch mortality to the 

extent practicable. 

The closure has been in place for 

more than 15 years now and, since 

2001, a number of changes in stock 

status and fishery management 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37567 

measures have occurred. Specifically, 

North Atlantic swordfish and North 

Atlantic albacore tuna have been rebuilt, 

current international assessments of 

white marlin and West Atlantic sailfish 

indicate that overfishing is likely not 

occurring, and Western Atlantic bluefin 

tuna is not subject to overfishing, 

Additionally, the PLL fishery has been 

required since 2004 to use circle hooks 

instead of J-hooks to reduce sea turtle 

bycatch, and individual bluefin tuna 

quota (IBQ) allocations were 

implemented in the PLL fishery through 

Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated 

HMS Fishery Management Plan in 2014 

(79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014). 

Allowing limited access to the EFC PLL 

Closed Area for research purposes via 

an EFP would provide important data 

from the closed area under these 

changed conditions. NMFS has not 

obtained scientific data related to catch 

and bycatch rates from this area since 

2010, and that data suggested that more 

research was needed due to the small 

sample size and poor spatial 

distribution of PLL sets in the research 

area conducted from 2008–2010. The 

data resulting from the research under 

this EFP would be used to assess current 

bycatch rates during typical commercial 

fishing operations and to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the closed area in 

continuing to reduce bycatch of nontarget species (e.g., billfish, undersized 

swordfish, prohibited species, and 

protected species). It would also provide 

more current data about the socioeconomic impact of reduced catches of 

target species (swordfish and tunas) as 

a result of the closure, assess changes in 

species availability and distribution 

over time, and contribute to future stock 

assessments or other fishery 

management measures. Among the 

purposes of EFPs in the regulations are 

the ‘‘conduct of scientific research, the 

acquisition of information and data . . ., 

[and] the investigation of bycatch, 

economic discard and regulatory 

discard,’’ and such an EFP would be in 

furtherance of those purposes 

(§ 635.32(a)(1)). 

NMFS received an application to 

conduct research from within two 

different sub-areas in the northern 

portion of the EFC PLL Closed Area 

(north and south of 29°50′ N. lat.) and 

compare those rates to rates obtained 

from one portion of the open area (for 

comparative purposes) and published a 

notice of availability in the Federal 

Register for a Draft EA and a 30-day 

public comment period (82 FR 4856; 

January 17, 2017). On February 15, 2017 

(82 FR 10746), NMFS extended the 

public comment period from February 

16, 2017, until March 29, 2017. The EFP 

application is available for review on 

the HMS Management Division’s Web 

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

hms/compliance/efp/index.html. 

Availability of a Final Environmental 

Assessment 

NMFS announces the availability of a 

Final EA that analyzes the potential 

impacts to the human environment of 

granting this EFP application for 

experimental PLL fishing within two 

sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area 

and one area outside the Closed Area. 

Among other analyzed impacts, the 

Final EA projects the annual catches of 

all HMS species, as well as some nonHMS species interactions, from within 

two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed 

Area and one open area that could be 

expected to occur. Additionally, the 

Final EA describes NMFS’ rationale for 

the preferred alternative and other 

alternatives considered for this research 

and includes responses to public 

comments on the Draft EA. The Final 

EA may be found on the HMS 

Management Division’s Web site at 

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

compliance/efp/index.html. 

Response to Comments 

During the public comment period 

NMFS received over 500 comments. The 

majority of the comments were 

submitted by recreational fishing 

constituents opposed to the research 

project. These commenters stated that 

the current EFC Closed Area has been 

effective at rebuilding several fish stocks 

and increasing recreational fishing 

opportunities and that it should 

remained closed to maintain those 

results and benefits. Several 

environmental organizations were 

opposed to the research project 

primarily because of concerns about 

what they considered to be excessive 

levels of bycatch (sharks, billfish, and 

undersized swordfish) at the level of 

effort proposed by the EFP applicant, 

although some groups recognized the 

need for the research. Comments from 

HMS commercial fishing industry 

participants and organizations 

recognized the need for the research, but 

expressed reservations that only one 

company (Day Boat Seafood LLC) would 

conduct and benefit from the project. As 

described below, NMFS has made 

changes to the preferred alternative 

described in the Final EA, based in part 

on public comments. 

A. Purpose & Need for Proposed 

Research Project 

Comment 1: There is no legitimate 

need for the proposed research project 

because the effect of pelagic longline 

(PLL) fishing within the closed area (a 

nursery for juvenile swordfish) is wellknown. Conditions have not changed in 

the last 15 years. 

Response: The EFC PLL Closed Area 

has been in place for more than 15 

years. Since 2001, a number of changes 

in stock status and fishery management 

measures have occurred. Specifically, 

North Atlantic swordfish has been 

rebuilt since 2009, current international 

assessments of white marlin and West 

Atlantic sailfish indicate that 

overfishing is likely not occurring, West 

Atlantic bluefin tuna is not subject to 

overfishing, and North Atlantic albacore 

tuna has been rebuilt. Additionally, the 

PLL fishery has been required since 

2004 to use circle hooks instead of Jhooks to reduce sea turtle bycatch, and 

IBQ allocations were implemented in 

the PLL fishery through Amendment 7 

to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP in 

2014 (79 FR 71509, December 2, 2014). 

Environmental conditions may have 

changed thereby affecting migratory 

patterns and species distributions of 

Atlantic HMS. Allowing limited access 

to the EFC PLL Closed Area for research 

purposes through an EFP would provide 

important data from the closed area 

under all of these changed conditions. 

Thus, the purpose of the research 

project is to evaluate PLL catches and 

catch rates of target and non-target 

species within two sub-areas in the 

northern portion of the EFC PLL Closed 

Area and an open area to evaluate the 

effectiveness of existing area closures at 

meeting current conservation and 

management goals under current 

conditions using standardized PLL gear 

on a specified number of commercial 

vessels. Vessels participating in this 

project would be required to submit 

electronic logbooks at the end of each 

set to NOVA Southeastern University; 

and these data would be available to 

NMFS upon request. During the project 

period, 40 percent of all sets would be 

observed by NMFS-approved observers 

or scientific research staff. Finally, 

NMFS would review 100 percent of 

electronic video monitoring data for all 

sets conducted under this EFP. The 

research is of limited scope and would 

be conducted in only a portion of the 

EFC PLL Closed Area and, therefore, is 

not expected to negate the known 

conservation benefits of the closed area. 

Among the purposes of EFPs in federal 

regulations are ‘‘the investigation of 

bycatch, economic discard and 

regulatory discard,’’ and this EFP would 

be in furtherance of those purposes (50 

CFR 635.32(a)). 

Comment 2: This scientific research 

project will help to revitalize the U.S. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37568 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

highly migratory species (HMS) PLL 

fishery. It holds significant promise in 

evaluating responsible and sustainable 

ways to catch a larger percentage of 

swordfish quota allocated to the United 

States by ICCAT. We support efforts to 

assess the efficacy of the current closed 

areas and integrate new technologies 

into fisheries and fisheries research. 

Since the closure was implemented, 

many technological advances have been 

made in gear modifications, vessel 

monitoring, and bycatch mitigation 

tools and techniques that largely 

mitigate the duration and/or size of the 

PLL closed areas. Over the 15 years that 

the closure has been in place, little 

research has been conducted to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the existing closure 

in meeting current conservation and 

management goals. 

Response: In the short-term, this 

project is anticipated to provide 

economic benefit to the vessels 

participating in the research and could 

increase U.S. North Atlantic swordfish 

landings by approximately seven 

percent, thus more fully utilizing the 

U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota. In 

the long-term, this project is anticipated 

to provide scientific fisheries data to 

assess current bycatch rates during 

normal commercial fishing operations 

and to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

closed area in continuing to reduce 

bycatch of non-target species (e.g., 

billfish, undersized swordfish, 

prohibited species, and protected 

species). It will also provide current 

data about the socio-economic impact of 

reduced catches of target species 

(swordfish and tunas) as a result of the 

closure, electronic vessel monitoring, 

changes in species availability and 

distribution over time, and contribute to 

future stock assessments or other fishery 

management measures. 

B. Support for Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Comment 3: The recovery of a onceoverfished species (swordfish) does not 

warrant returning to the kind of fishing 

that caused overfishing (excessive 

harvest of juveniles) and created the 

need for closures in the first place. If 

closing the EFC area to PLL gear 

resulted in a stock rebound, then that 

area is obviously vital to the overall 

Western Atlantic swordfish stock and 

should remain permanently closed to 

PLL vessels. 

Response: Issuance of this EFP would 

not represent a return to the level of 

fishing that contributed to overfishing of 

swordfish (including excessive harvest 

of juveniles). Specifically, this project is 

limited to six PLL vessels and 720 sets 

(with 480 sets distributed between two 

sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area 

and the remainder occurring in the open 

area). Additionally, a historical 

comparison of the PLL fishery prior to 

2001 to current conditions indicates a 

very different situation. The overall 

number of vessels landing swordfish has 

declined from 168 in 2001 to 90 vessels 

in 2016/2017 (to date). There has also 

been a decline in the number of PLL 

hooks fished from 7.6 million to 5.8 

million. Several other time/area closures 

and gear restricted areas (GRAs) have 

been implemented since 2001, 

including the Desoto Canyon, 

Charleston Bump, and Northeastern 

closures, and the Cape Hatteras and Gulf 

of Mexico GRAs. Circle hooks now are 

required throughout the PLL fishery and 

weak hooks are required in the Gulf of 

Mexico. Electronic video monitoring 

systems (EM) are installed and must be 

utilized on all PLL vessels. Finally the 

individual bluefin quota (IBQ) program, 

which requires that sufficient IBQ be 

possessed prior to PLL fishing, may 

further limit effort in some 

circumstances. As described in Section 

8.5 of the 2016 HMS SAFE Report, the 

result is that reported numbers of 

swordfish kept and discarded, large 

coastal sharks kept, and BAYS tunas 

kept from 2005–2015 decreased by more 

than the predicted values developed in 

Regulatory Amendment 1 to the 1999 

FMP. Reported discards of pelagic 

sharks and all billfish also declined by 

more than the predicted values 

developed in Regulatory Amendment 1 

to the 1999 FMP (swordfish kept: ¥41 

percent; swordfish disc. ¥63 percent; 

LCS kept: ¥93 percent; BAYS kept: 

¥36 percent; pelagic sharks disc. ¥32 

percent; billfish disc. ¥53 percent). 

Comment 4: NMFS should support 

conservation and sustainable fishing 

activities related to recreational fishing. 

Please do not reverse the progress that 

the EFC PLL Closed Area has made to 

recreational fisheries. 

Response: Fishing activity conducted 

under this EFP is not anticipated to 

reduce recreational fishing 

opportunities for Atlantic HMS or to 

adversely affect the stocks that are 

recreationally fished. Recreational 

fishermen will still be able to go fishing 

off the eastern Florida coast, and the 

limited activities in this EFP are not 

expected to result in negative effects for 

recreationally-fished stocks. Successful 

recreational and commercial PLL fishing 

activities currently occur 

simultaneously in many areas of the 

Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. 

Caribbean. 

C. Range of Alternatives in Draft 

Environmental Assessment 

Comment 5: The Draft EA has not 

evaluated or discussed a number of 

possible reasonable alternatives that 

would meet the purpose and the need 

of the research project and could have 

less adverse impact to the human 

environment. The duration of the 

research should be reduced and data 

combined with data from the research 

conducted in the closed area from 2008– 

2010. The research project should be 

limited to the minimal number of sets 

and hooks necessary for statistical 

validity. 

Response: NMFS analyzed a 

reasonable range of alternatives that are 

feasible to accomplish the purpose and 

need of the project, which is to evaluate 

PLL catches and catch rates of target and 

non-target species within two sub-areas 

of the northern portion of the EFC PLL 

Closed Area and compare those to an 

open area. These included not issuing 

an EFP (no action) and a smaller and 

larger geographic area (Alternatives 2 

and 3, respectively). NMFS also 

analyzed both the level of effort 

proposed by the applicant and a lesser 

amount of fishing effort commensurate 

with current fishing effort. In the Final 

EA and EFP, NMFS has reduced the 

number of sets authorized from the 

requested (and previously-preferred) 

level of 1,080 sets/year to 720 sets/year 

and the number of hooks per set from 

750 hooks/set to 600 hooks/set. These 

numbers are commensurate with current 

levels of fishing effort by the 

participating vessels. 

A reduction in the duration of the 

project would not provide adequate 

sampling over time to account for 

seasonal variations in environmental 

conditions that may occur and thus 

would not meet the purpose and need 

of the EFP. Analysis of research data 

collected from 2008–2010 was used to 

develop projections for this EFP; 

however, changes in conditions since 

2008–2010 prevent the combination of 

data sets. Although the previous 

research did obtain some significant 

results, the sample size was small and 

the spatial distribution of sets was poor. 

These results suggested that additional 

research was needed, and the current 

project size was designed to correct the 

errors in sample size and spatial 

distribution in the previous research. 

D. Utilization of U.S Swordfish Quota 

Comment 6: There is an implication 

that if the United States does not catch 

every swordfish allotted to it, then it 

will lose its quota to other nations. 

Although this argument has been 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37569 

around for years, the United States has 

not lost any swordfish quota. 

Response: The United States has, to 

date, been successful in protecting its 

North Atlantic swordfish quota at 

ICCAT, despite significant underharvest 

of the quota in recent years. The United 

States has argued that restrictions on the 

U.S. fishery, such as the required use of 

circle hooks, contributed significantly to 

the stock’s rebuilding and that in light 

of those sacrifices and the strict 

conservation measures that benefitted 

all countries fishing on the stock, the 

United States should be given some 

time to revitalize its fishery. The threat 

of losing quota to other countries 

without the same conservation measures 

remains real, and NMFS continues to 

work with stakeholders to find ways to 

revitalize the stock while effectively 

managing the stock and other affected 

species. NMFS also is required under 

ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 

provide U.S. fishing vessels with a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest the 

ICCAT-recommended quota. In 2016, 

preliminary data indicate that 

approximately 37 percent of the U.S. 

swordfish baseline quota and 33 percent 

of the adjusted quota was landed. Thus, 

the commenter’s suggestion that our 

concern is catching ‘‘every fish’’ 

mischaracterizes and understates the 

quota issue. In the short-term, this 

research project provides an additional 

opportunity to harvest the swordfish 

quota while providing economic benefit 

to the vessels participating in the 

research. It is projected to increase U.S. 

landings of swordfish by approximately 

seven percent, thus more fully utilizing 

the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota. 

This is not the primary reason for 

issuing the EFP, which will gather 

much-needed research from the EFC 

PLL Closed Area, but the project will 

help revitalize the North Atlantic 

swordfish fishery in the near-term. 

E. Project Design 

Comment 7: If this EFP is authorized, 

it would allow more than 1,000 

longlines to be set per year, with over 

750 hooks per longline. This means that 

over 2.25 million additional hooks will 

be floating off of Florida’s coast. 

Response: While the preferred 

alternative in the Draft EA would have 

authorized up to 1,080 sets per year 

with 750 hooks per longline, NMFS has 

modified the preferred alternative in the 

Final EA and EFP to limit the number 

of sets to be commensurate with current 

effort in the open area. NMFS would 

authorize 720 longline sets per year 

with up to 600 hooks per set under this 

EFP. Of those, 480 sets would be 

authorized to be deployed between two 

sub-areas in the EFC PLL Closed Area. 

Thus, 288,000 hooks would be 

authorized in the EFC PLL Closed Area. 

NMFS emphasizes that these hooks 

would not be ‘‘additional’’ hooks, as 

they would otherwise be deployed in 

areas currently open off Florida’s east 

coast. This EFP only authorizes an 

amount of fishing effort commensurate 

with current levels of effort by 

participating vessels. 

Comment 8: An initial adjustment 

period should be provided for fishermen 

participating in the study area to allow 

them to learn how to fish the Gulf 

Stream waters and ‘normalize’ 

techniques and catches before data are 

collected or used for the purposes of the 

study. This will allow data to be 

reflective of experienced fishing 

practices in the EFC PLL Closed Area, 

rather than being influenced by data 

collected while fishermen are learning 

how to fish in the area. 

Response: The vessels and captains 

authorized to participate in this research 

project are experienced with fishing in 

areas immediately adjacent to the EFC 

PLL Closed Area. It would not be 

prudent to authorize fishing activities in 

the closed area without collecting the 

resultant data. NMFS believes that the 

participating captains will more quickly 

adjust their fishing practices while 

fishing under the provisions and terms 

and conditions of the EFP, rather being 

allowed to fish in the closed area 

without the EFP restrictions. In 

addition, pending annual review, if the 

EFP is authorized for an additional two 

years, variations between years could be 

recorded to see if changes in catch or 

bycatch rates occur due to 

improvements in fishing techniques. 

Comment 9: Data collection during 

this study should be at as high a 

resolution as possible in order to 

determine fine-scale differences in catch 

and bycatch in time and space. 

Response: Vessels participating in this 

project would be required to submit 

electronic logbooks, including date, 

time, location, and basic oceanographic 

conditions, at the end of each set to the 

research applicant at NOVA 

Southeastern University. These data 

would be available to NMFS upon 

request. The electronic logbook data 

would be audited every three months by 

the researcher who would compare 

randomly selected capture events in the 

electronic logbook to these events as 

recorded by electronic video data. 

NMFS will review one hundred percent 

of the electronic video data during the 

project. In addition, all existing 

reporting requirements would apply to 

participating vessels including logbook 

reporting and observer coverage 

requirements, which include latitude 

and longitude fields. 

Comment 10: We recommend a 

maximum mainline length of 5 miles, 

allowable soak times no longer than 3– 

4 hours, and retrieval of the gear in the 

order in which it was deployed. 

Reducing the amount of time that hooks 

are in the water could enhance the 

survival of fish and other animals 

caught incidentally or that must be 

released according to regulation. 

Response: The purpose of this study 

is to collect commercial fishery data 

from PLL vessels using normal fishing 

methods to effectively assess the 

difference between the closed and open 

area effects during such operations. 

Reducing the mainline length and soak 

times would not be representative of 

how commercial PLL vessels normally 

fish their gear. However, research 

investigating shorter mainline lengths, 

soak times, and gear retrieval techniques 

would be valuable and NMFS will 

consider these recommendations for 

future research. 

F. Observer Coverage Rates and Vessel 

Monitoring 

Comment 11: Some commenters 

stated that, if the project were to take 

place, it should have an unbiased 

observer coverage rate of 100 percent of 

all sets and that the EA must be 

supplemented with a defensible 

observer coverage rate to support the 

proposed project. Conversely, other 

commenters stated that the level of 

monitoring is excessive, because 

observer coverage is expensive, and a 33 

percent coverage rate, in addition to 100 

percent electronic video monitoring, 

may unnecessarily increase project costs 

and create an expensive precedent for 

future similar research. 

Response: We recognize that 

authorizing access to the EFC PLL 

Closed Area by commercial fishing 

vessels to conduct research warrants a 

high degree of oversight and monitoring. 

NMFS believes that an observer 

coverage rate of 40 percent is 

appropriate, given that additional 

funding has been obtained to ensure 

that 100 percent of electronic video 

monitoring data for all sets conducted 

under this EFP would be reviewed and 

the costs of 100 percent observer 

coverage would be prohibitive. 

Furthermore, 100 percent observer 

coverage is unnecessary given the other 

monitoring measures in place for this 

project. Forty percent observer coverage 

in addition to these other measures will 

ensure sufficient monitoring and 

accurate data collection and 

verification. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37570 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

Comment 12: Some commenters 

stated that this project should evaluate 

expanding the use of EM to all catch 

and bycatch species. Optimizing the 

configuration of EM for all catch could 

improve the reliability of data collected, 

especially for bycatch species like 

sharks, and ultimately allow for 

additional accountability at a reduced 

cost. Conversely, other commenters 

stated that this project is not sufficient 

in scale or scope to support any future 

decision by NMFS to use EM to record 

and analyze all catch and bycatch for 

the purpose of managing the PLL fishery 

as a whole in open areas. Yet other 

commenters stated that the project will 

also evaluate electronic logbooks for 

more streamlined and real-time 

reporting that combines catch data with 

oceanographic information. These data 

could help better understand where and 

under what conditions bycatch species 

occur and how fishermen can best avoid 

them. 

Response: EM equipment became 

required on all HMS PLL vessels on 

June 1, 2015. Thus, NMFS has 

approximately two years’ worth of 

experience using the equipment and 

analyzing the data. In this project, 

NMFS will be reviewing one hundred 

percent of electronic video (EM) data. 

Thus the project will provide additional 

experience and data that could help 

better evaluate the effectiveness and 

limitations of EM data in recording and 

identifying all species of catch and 

bycatch. 

G. Project Participation 

Comment 13: This EFP would give the 

applicant a distinct competitive market 

advantage with respect to some species, 

which other boats in the PLL fleet will 

not have during the project period. 

Response: The research project is 

temporary and relatively short in 

duration (one year, with a possibility to 

renew annually twice pending annual 

review). The vessels fishing in this 

project would be fishing in the open 

areas absent this EFP, and there are 

costs associated with participation in 

this project. Some increased catch in 

target species is expected and will, in 

part, compensate the vessel owners for 

their participation in the project. Any 

financial advantages will be limited. 

The research applicant, not NMFS, 

selected and worked with the 

commercial fishing entity to develop 

this particular research project. Other 

entities may submit similar applications 

for EFPs at any time for consideration 

by NMFS. Such applications would be 

reviewed and evaluated for merit, based 

upon a sound scientific study design 

and other criteria. 

Comment 14: This project should 

engage the participation of captains and 

crew with the greatest level of 

experience, including especially those 

that have prior experience fishing in 

this EFC area before it was closed. 

Failure to do this may generate catch 

and bycatch results that are not truly 

representative of the entire U.S. HMS 

PLL fleet. NMFS should allow other 

vessels or companies to apply and 

compete for the privilege to participate 

in the fishing activity specified in the 

EFP. 

Response: The EFP application 

indicates that experienced PLL 

fishermen would participate in the 

project. These vessels and captains are 

currently fishing in areas immediately 

adjacent to the EFC PLL Closed Area. 

NMFS did not select the participating 

vessels. The EFP applicant and 

principal investigator selected the 

participants based upon their 

experience and the amount of fishing 

effort and methods needed to 

accomplish the objectives of the 

research. 

H. Catch and Bycatch Impacts 

Comment 15: Allowing PLL vessels in 

the EFC Closed Area will likely drive 

down stock abundance by killing dusky 

sharks, white sharks, undersized 

swordfish, marlin, sailfish, sea turtles, 

marine mammals, and many other 

species. PLL fishing is indiscriminate 

and was a major cause of the collapse 

of the swordfish fishery over 20 years 

ago. 

Response: NMFS received many 

comments expressing concern about 

excessive levels of bycatch that could 

occur as a result of issuing the EFP. 

Given the size, scope, duration, and 

strict research protocols associated with 

the research project, NMFS does not 

anticipate that issuance of the EFP 

would result in any significant 

ecological economic impacts. The 

participating vessels are already fishing 

in areas that are currently open. The 

EFP would authorize the same amount 

of fishing effort compared to the 

baseline of normal operations that occur 

in open areas. There would be no 

overall increase in fishing effort as a 

result of the project, although fishing 

would occur in different areas and 

certain catches and interactions would 

be expected to increase. None of these 

increases are expected to adversely 

affect the stocks or to have significant 

environmental impacts. The 

management measures that have been 

implemented in the PLL fishery since 

2001, (including, but not limited to, 

circle hooks, gear restrictions, careful 

release equipment and training, 

individual bluefin tuna quotas, catch 

quotas, prohibited species, and 

electronic video monitoring) in 

combination with the strict research 

protocols associated with the research 

project are expected to mitigate any 

unforeseen ecological impacts such as 

unexpected bycatch levels. Discards of 

blue and white marlin are projected to 

remain largely unchanged. The amount 

of sailfish catch projected for this 

research project (226 individual sailfish) 

is not expected to lead to overfishing or 

have negative effects on the stock, as the 

overall TAC recommended by ICCAT 

(Rec. 16–11) for this stock is 1,030 mt. 

Similarly, the amount of swordfish 

projected to be caught is not expected to 

lead to overfishing as it would remain 

well within the 2017 adjusted U.S. 

North Atlantic swordfish quota which is 

expected to be 3,359.4 mt (equivalent to 

the 2016 adjusted quota). Although 

discards (dead and alive) of undersized 

swordfish are projected to increase, this 

would not be desirable for the vessel 

captain who would likely change 

fishing areas and modify fishing 

techniques to avoid such bycatch. 

NMFS intends to monitor this project 

carefully, and will consider the amount 

of undersized swordfish and other 

bycatch captured during annual review 

of the EFP. NMFS has added additional 

terms and conditions to the EFP, 

including individual vessel limits, to 

address dusky shark and other shark 

bycatch. While a commenter noted 

concerns about white shark interactions, 

no interactions with white sharks are 

expected. If white shark interactions do 

occur, they are not expected to have 

ecological impacts as recent research 

indicates white shark populations are 

apparently increasing in abundance 

since the 1990s when a variety of 

conservation measures were 

implemented. This also would be 

considered during annual review of the 

EFP. Sea turtle bycatch is projected to 

be reduced and marine mammal bycatch 

is expected to remain unchanged. 

Comment 16: Allowing research 

fishing in depths of 100 fathoms and 

less will likely lead to interactions with 

unwanted and undersized species. 

Response: Historically, some 

fishermen working with the principal 

investigator have fished a portion of 

their longline gear in slower water on 

the west side of the Gulf Stream and a 

portion of their longline gear in the 

faster moving waters of the Gulf Stream. 

This allows their gear to ‘‘swing’’ with 

the current. The principal investigator 

has indicated that the slower water 

along the west side of the Gulf Stream 

is in proximity to the 100 fathom 

contour. A purpose of the project is to 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37571 

collect data about PLL catch and 

bycatch that will help address questions 

such as the one mentioned in this 

comment. The answer would not be 

known until fishery data are collected 

and analyzed through this research 

project. 

I. Support for Bycatch Limits 

Comment 17: The EFP must include 

bycatch limits, either individual vessels 

or fleetwide, for target and non-target 

finfish species including shark and 

billfish species. EFP investigators 

should be required to cease operations 

if and when any species-specific catch 

limit is reached. 

Response: Bycatch limits are applied 

as a precautionary measure for certain 

shark species due to the current stock 

status of dusky sharks and problems of 

misidentification with silky and night 

sharks. Bycatch limits for other species 

are not necessary because of differences 

in stock status (i.e., not overfished, no 

overfishing), low projected catches, or 

easier identification during monitoring. 

However, NMFS will closely monitor 

the catches during the project duration 

and has the ability to modify the 

conditions of the EFP, and to end the 

research project, to address bycatch as 

warranted. 

Comment 18: The EFP must include 

limits on interactions, takes and catches 

of species protected under the ESA and/ 

or the MMPA. 

Response: Sea turtle interactions are 

projected to decline and marine 

mammal interactions are projected to 

remain the same under this EFP, versus 

if all fishing effort were in the open 

area. All existing ESA and MMPA 

requirements otherwise applicable to 

PLL fishing are applicable to the fishing 

activities conducted under this EFP. 

The PLL fishery is governed by the ITS 

contained in the 2004 PLL BiOp. Sea 

turtle interactions (all species) have 

remained well below the incidental take 

statement (ITS) established in the 2004 

PLL BiOp since its implementation. 

With regards to marine mammals, the 

PLL fishery must comply with the 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan and the Pelagic Longline Take 

Reduction Plan. These plans include 

broad-based gear modifications and 

time/area closures. 

Comment 19: What bycatch numbers 

will be deemed acceptable? The levels 

of acceptable bycatch must be at or 

below those achieved by the closures. 

Response: Any bycatch derived from 

within the EFC PLL Closed Area under 

this EFP would be above the level 

achieved by the closure because there is 

currently no PLL fishing activity in the 

area. NMFS has not determined the 

level of bycatch that would be 

considered acceptable, except for dusky 

sharks which are overfished and may be 

confused with other shark species. A 

general benchmark for fish species 

would be the likely projected annual 

catch levels analyzed in chapter four of 

the Final EA. However, these would 

also need to be assessed on an event by 

event basis. NMFS, in cooperation with 

the principal investigator, would 

determine if the catch of a certain 

species was unusually large and/or 

unexpected. The use of electronic 

logbooks, 100 percent video monitoring, 

increased observer coverage (40 

percent), and communication with the 

principal investigator would help 

enable this determination. Then, it 

would be necessary to assess whether 

the catch could lead to, or exacerbate, 

overfishing of the species. Extra 

precaution would be necessary for 

currently overfished species including 

blue and white marlin and certain shark 

species. Based upon this information, 

the principal investigator and NMFS 

would coordinate an appropriate 

response (e.g., relocation, soak time 

reduction, temporary or permanent 

suspension of fishing activities). NMFS 

will closely monitor catches during the 

project duration and has the ability to 

modify the conditions of the EFP, and 

to end the research project, to address 

bycatch as warranted. 

J. Economic Impacts 

Comment 20: The issuance of an EFP 

would have an adverse indirect socioecological effect resulting from a 

reduction in catches of HMS and other 

species. This adverse indirect impact 

would affect recreational billfish 

anglers, recreational tournament 

operators, and all of those industries 

which are connected to the recreational 

fishery (marinas, tackle stores, boat 

manufacturers, etc.). The money spent 

on recreational fishing far outweighs 

any benefit commercial fishing may 

bring. 

Response: Issuance of an EFP is not 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

overfishing of HMS or other species as 

described in the ecological effects 

analysis in the Final EA. Recreational 

fishing for HMS is an important social 

and economic activity. Mandatory 

reporting of recreational swordfish and 

billfish landings became effective in 

2001. However, a comparatively small 

amount of swordfish and billfish were 

reported as landed from recreational 

anglers in the state of Florida in 2016. 

Data indicate that 290 swordfish, 102 

sailfish, 2 blue marlin, and 1 white 

marlin were reported landed. Reporting 

of releases is optional, but only 1 blue 

marlin was reportedly released in 

Florida in 2016. Collecting commercial 

fisheries data under this EFP is not 

anticipated to reduce the economic 

benefits of recreational fishing. 

Comment 21: Data derived from the 

issuance of an EFP could benefit the 

U.S. PLL fleet. The PLL closures have 

had profound economic impacts on the 

fishery. 

Response: This research project could 

benefit the management of all U.S. HMS 

fisheries by allowing for improved 

management decision making based 

upon current and accurate information. 

Comment 22: The Draft EA does not 

provide adequate information and/or a 

determination whether a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) can be 

made. The Draft EA determined that the 

proposed activity will have a potential 

adverse socioeconomic impact due to 

gear conflicts and a reduction in 

recreational catch. This adverse impact 

does not support a FONSI. 

Response: A determination that there 

could be adverse indirect socioeconomic impacts to the recreational 

fishing community does not, by itself, 

indicate that the overall impact of the 

research project is significant. NMFS 

anticipates that these impacts should be 

partially mitigated because the research 

area is located far offshore, and well 

north of where the vast majority of 

Florida anglers are concentrated. Also, 

the strict research protocols and limits 

associated with the research project 

should mitigate impacts on recreational 

anglers. Thus, the finding of no 

significant impact was warranted. 

K. Gear Conflicts With Other Fisheries 

Comment 23: There is an overlap of 

the areas in the EFP and areas utilized 

in the royal red shrimp, rock shrimp, 

golden crab, and golden tilefish 

fisheries. These fisheries employ trawl, 

trap, and bottom longline gear 

respectively that are not compatible 

with the presence of pelagic longlines. 

Similarly, PLL gear fished in the same 

area where recreational and commercial 

hook-and-line fishing activity is 

occurring for dolphin or wahoo could 

create user conflicts, both through 

potential interaction with the PLL gear 

as well as a real or perceived localized 

depletion of these and other pelagic 

species. 

Response: This EFP would authorize 

a limited number of PLL sets by up to 

six vessels at one time in the project 

area. This level of fishing effort is not 

anticipated to result in a substantial 

number of interactions with fishing 

gears in other fisheries. These other 

fisheries also occur in other areas of the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico where PLL 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37572 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

fishing occurs, and these other fisheries 

occurred in the EFC area prior to its 

closure to PLL gear. In those areas and 

times, fishermen on the vessels have 

been able to communicate and work to 

minimize the potential for gear 

interactions. NMFS anticipates that this 

communication and coordination will 

continue to occur during the EFP project 

period. 

L. Impacts on ESA & MMPA Listed 

Species 

Comment 24: The Draft EA does not 

include a detailed assessment of the 

potential impacts of the proposed action 

on ESA-listed species or marine 

mammals. Interactions with marine 

mammals must be carefully considered 

by the agency to ensure that the project 

is consistent with the existing Take 

Reduction Plan for this fishery and the 

requirements of the MMPA to manage 

fisheries interactions with marine 

mammals. 

Response: Interactions with listed 

species and marine mammals were 

considered by the agency to ensure that 

the research project is consistent with 

the existing Take Reduction Plan for 

this fishery and the requirements of the 

MMPA. As described in the response to 

Comment 18, all requirements otherwise 

applicable to PLL fishing are applicable 

to fishing activities conducted under 

this EFP. Although a limited amount of 

fishing effort under this EFP would 

occur in areas currently closed to PLL 

gear, the analysis in the EA shows that 

sea turtle interactions are projected to 

decline and marine mammal 

interactions are projected to remain the 

same under either Alternative 2 and 

Preferred Alternative 3 of this EFP, with 

effort relocated to the closed area versus 

if fishing effort were to occur solely in 

the open area. The level of fishing 

activity that would be authorized under 

this EFP in Preferred Alternative 3 does 

not represent any increase in fishing 

effort or methods other than those 

currently deployed in the U.S. PLL 

fishery, as analyzed in the 2004 PLL 

BiOp. Relocating part of the effort to the 

closed area does not alter that analysis. 

No additional take or quota use beyond 

that already authorized and analyzed in 

previous consultations on the PLL 

fishery is authorized by this permit. 

Similarly, the PLL fishery must comply 

with the Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Plan and the Pelagic Longline 

Take Reduction Plan. These plans 

include broad-based gear modifications 

and time/area closures. Additionally, 

the terms and conditions of the EFP 

require that any interactions with sea 

turtles or marine mammals must 

immediately be reported to the HMS 

Management Division, and the project 

terms and conditions may be altered or 

the project stopped if interactions are at 

problematic levels in relation to the 

established limits and protections. 

Comment 25: The EFP should include 

a full discussion of consideration of 

reinitiating ESA Section 7 Consultation 

to consider the effect of the proposed 

EFP on the findings of the 2004 PLL 

Biological Opinion (BiOp). 

Response: Fishing activity authorized 

under this EFP would be conducted 

using the same fishing methods and at 

the same level of fishing effort as 

currently exists outside of the project 

area. Furthermore, catches of sea turtles 

are projected to decrease as a result of 

this EFP. The 2004 PLL BiOp states that 

if the fishing type is similar, and the 

associated fishing effort does not 

represent a significant increase over the 

effort levels for the overall fishery 

considered in this BiOp, then issuance 

of some EFPs would be expected to fall 

within the level of effort and impacts 

considered in the BiOp. For example, 

issuance of an EFP to an active 

commercial vessel likely does not add 

additional effects than would otherwise 

accrue from the vessel’s normal 

commercial activities. Thus, this 

research project is consistent with the 

findings of the 2004 BiOp. 

M. Cumulative Impacts Assessment 

Comment 26: NMFS has not 

demonstrated its methodology or Region 

of Influence (ROI) for conducting its 

cumulative impacts analysis for the 

proposed action. As the ROI for HMS 

includes the south Atlantic and the Gulf 

of Mexico (recent swordfish tag data 

from The Billfish Foundation shows 

juvenile swordfish migrating from the 

DeSoto Canyon to the Atlantic coast of 

south Florida), other actions in the ROI 

such as Department of Defense and 

offshore oil & gas operations should be 

addressed as part of the cumulative 

impacts analysis. 

Response: Cumulative impacts are the 

impacts on the environment which 

result from the incremental impacts of 

the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period of time (40 CFR 

1508.7). The cumulative impacts 

assessment contained in the draft EA for 

this research project describes all past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions for all fish stocks 

interacting with PLL gear across the 

range of those stocks (or their region of 

influence) which, for many, includes 

the entire Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of 

Mexico. Although offshore oil and gas 

operations and Department of Defense 

activities may affect HMS, the 

incremental effect of authorizing a 

limited number of commercial PLL 

vessels that are currently fishing in open 

areas to fish and conduct research in 

two sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed 

Area, when added to these other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, is not expected to 

produce adverse significant cumulative 

impacts. 

N. Impacts on Dolphin Fishery 

Comment 27: A reasonable trip limit 

of no more than 4,000 lbs of dolphin 

should be applied to the participating 

vessels while fishing in this area under 

the EFP. This will prevent the EFP 

fishery from using an excessive amount 

of the commercial dolphin quota before 

the rest of the PLL fleet has an 

opportunity when the Charleston Bump 

area opens on May 1st. Further, this will 

minimize conflicts with the interests of 

the recreational fishery. Finally, this is 

consistent with the trip limit currently 

applied to the commercial dolphin 

harvest when landings reach 75 percent 

of the commercial quota. NMFS should 

also implement a limit of 25,000 pound 

whole weight on the total amount of 

dolphin that can be landed with PLL 

gear from the EFC PLL Closed Area. 

Response: Under 50 CFR part 622.274, 

if pelagic longline gear is on board a 

vessel, a person aboard such vessel may 

not fish for or retain a dolphin or wahoo 

in the EFC PLL Closed Area. An 

exemption from this regulation has been 

submitted to the Southeast Regional 

Office (SERO) of NMFS under their EFP 

requirements to enable vessels to retain 

dolphin and wahoo during research 

operations, subject to otherwise 

applicable commercial fishing 

restrictions for the stocks. As 

recommended by the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council (SAFMC), 

a dolphin and wahoo exemption has 

been approved by the SERO Regional 

Administrator pending approval of this 

EFP by the HMS Management Division. 

Participating vessels would be limited 

to a 4,000 pound whole weight trip limit 

for dolphin when any portion of the trip 

occurs in the EFC PLL Closed Area. 

Additionally, participating vessels 

would be limited to the existing 500- 

pound trip limit for wahoo specified at 

50 CFR 622.278(a)(1)(i). All other 

commercial dolphin and wahoo 

regulations, including the requirement 

to be issued a commercial dolphinwahoo permit, would also apply. The 

environmental effects of this exemption 

have been analyzed in the Final EA. 

NMFS has determined that issuance of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 37573 

the EFP should not affect dolphin or 

wahoo in any way not already 

considered and analyzed under the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the 

Atlantic and it would not result in 

exceeding the annual catch limits for 

those species. Thus, the 25,000 pound 

whole weight total dolphin landing 

limit requested by the commenter is 

determined to not be necessary at this 

time. 

Comment 28: If the Charleston Bump 

area continues to be closed from 

February 1st to April 30th, there should 

be no special access during that same 

time frame given to the area 

immediately south of the 31 °N. Lat. line 

where all the HMS are migrating from 

unless the Charleston Bump was 

reopened at the same time. 

Response: The purpose of this 

research project is to evaluate PLL 

catches and catch rates of target and 

non-target species within a portion of 

the EFC PLL Closed Area on a yearround basis to evaluate the effectiveness 

of existing area closures at meeting 

current conservation and management 

goals. Therefore, prohibiting research 

activities in the area for three months 

would prevent the collection of 

important seasonal catch rate 

information that could potentially be 

used to address this issue in the future. 

O. Essential Fish Habitat 

Comment 29: The Draft EA notes that 

essential fish habitat (EFH) for HMS 

(including species targeted by PLL gear) 

exists within the EFC PLL Closed Area, 

but no EFH Assessment has been 

completed for the proposed action. 

NMFS must conduct an EFH 

Assessment in order to determine if the 

proposed action would adversely affect 

EFH. Both alternatives would co-occur 

within the Stetson Miami Terrace coral 

habitat area of particular concern 

(CHAPC) and Preferred Alternative 3 

would also overlap with the Oculina 

Bank CHAPC. If PLL gear fished in these 

areas unintentionally comes into contact 

with the bottom, the gear may damage 

this fragile coral habitat. The Oculina 

Bank and Stetson Miami Terrance are 

considered EFH–HAPC. 

Response: An EFH assessment has 

been conducted for the proposed and 

final actions. As stated in the EFH 

assessment in the Draft and Final EA, 

issuance of the EFP is not anticipated to 

have an impact on EFH. The only gear 

to be deployed is PLL gear which has 

minimal or no impact on EFH for HMS 

or other species. PLL gear is typically 

fished in the water column where it 

does not come into contact with the 

benthic substrate. Thus, no impacts to 

benthic habitat or other EFH are 

anticipated. 

P. Suggestions for Additional Research 

Comment 30: NMFS should develop a 

hook and line survey to collect 

important population dynamics 

information from recreational and forhire anglers. 

Response: NMFS appreciates this 

comment; however it is outside the 

scope of alternatives addressed in the 

Draft EA. NMFS notes that the current 

Marine Recreational Information 

Program (MRIP) collects some of this 

information. 

Comment 31: NMFS should conduct 

research into shorter sets and soak-times 

for longlines and how they might 

enhance survival of incidentally-caught 

fish and undersize target fish. 

Response: NMFS appreciates this 

comment and agrees that research 

investigating shorter mainline lengths, 

soak times, and gear retrieval techniques 

would be valuable. In a document 

entitled ‘‘Atlantic HMS Management 

Based Research Needs and Priorities’’ 

(2014), examining the feasibility of gear 

alternatives in Gulf of Mexico and 

Atlantic Ocean to reduce bycatch while 

maintaining target catch was identified 

as a high priority. 

Description of Preferred Alternative in 

Final Environmental Assessment 

The research conducted within the 

EFC PLL Closed Area and in the open 

area would be carried out by no more 

than six PLL vessels at any one time. An 

additional six ‘‘backup’’ vessels could 

be used to conduct research as 

replacements if any mechanical or 

technical issues arise on the other six 

vessels. The research project would be 

authorized for 12 months and, pending 

annual analysis review for any changed 

environmental conditions or impacts 

and of catches and catch rates of all 

species, as well as individual vessel 

performance, may be re-authorized for 

two additional 12-month periods. A 

maximum of 720 sets per year (12 

months) would be authorized to occur 

between the six vessels, and sets would 

be distributed evenly between two subareas of the EFC PLL Closed Area and 

the open area. Each set would consist of 

a maximum of 600 16/0 or larger circle 

hooks. During the research project, 40 

percent of sets occurring in both 

portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area 

and in the open area would be observed 

by scientific research staff or NMFSapproved observers. 

The commercial vessels that would be 

participating in this EFP project are 

otherwise authorized to fish and, absent 

this EFP, would be conducting normal 

PLL fishing operations in open areas 

consistent with their past practices. 

NMFS conducted an analysis that 

compared projected catches if the 

vessels were to continue fishing only in 

open areas (i.e., all effort in open areas) 

versus projected catches from fishing 

operations under the EFP (i.e., 2/3 effort 

in closed areas and 1/3 effort in the 

open area). The analysis indicated that 

fishing operations under the EFP could 

result in comparatively higher 

interactions with dusky, silky, and night 

sharks, whether fishing occurred at the 

level requested by the applicant or at 

the reduced level commensurate with 

past fishing activity. Therefore, many of 

the terms and conditions in the EFP are 

structured to limit interactions with and 

maximize the survival of these shark 

species, collect data on shark species 

identification, collect data on PLL soak 

times to reduce bycatch mortality, such 

as dusky sharks, and to increase the 

Agency’s understanding of these data 

poor stocks to improve future 

management of these species. The terms 

and conditions include: 

• NMFS would review 100 percent of 

electronic monitoring data for 100 

percent of sets occurring in both 

portions of the EFC PLL Closed Area 

and in the open area. 

• After three dusky sharks are caught 

dead at haulback by a vessel 

participating in the EFP, that vessel or 

its replacement vessel would be 

required to reduce the soak time of the 

gear to no longer than 10 hours when 

conducting fishing operations under the 

EFP. If, after reducing the soak time to 

no longer than 10 hours, an additional 

three dusky sharks are caught dead at 

haulback, then that vessel or its 

replacement vessel would no longer be 

authorized to fish in the EFC PLL 

Closed Area under this EFP, if issued, 

for the remainder of the 12-month 

project period, unless otherwise 

permitted by NMFS. 

• All live sharks caught but not being 

retained must be safely sampled (e.g., 

fin clip) and photographed without 

removing the shark from the water. All 

fin clips and photographs would be sent 

to the Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center (SEFSC) for identification 

purposes. 

• All sharks that are dead at 

haulback, including prohibited species, 

and all sharks being retained for sale 

must be biologically sampled (i.e., 

vertebra and reproductive organs 

removed) to facilitate species 

identification and collection of life 

history information. All biological 

samples would be sent to an address 

specified by the SEFSC. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
37574 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 154 / Friday, August 11, 2017 / Notices 

• Sets inside and outside of the two 

sub-areas of the EFC PLL Closed Area 

would be equipped with hook timers, in 

accordance with protocols established 

by NMFS, to determine when animals 

were captured and when mortality 

occurs. This will help determine 

appropriate PLL soak time to minimize 

dusky and other shark mortality. 

• To assist in current research efforts 

on shortfin mako sharks, observers are 

requested to place a specified number of 

pop-up satellite archival tags (PSATS) 

on shortfin mako sharks that are 

released alive. 

• NMFS will closely monitor the 

catches during the project duration and 

has the ability to modify the conditions 

of the EFP, and end the research project, 

to address bycatch as warranted. 

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

U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: August 4, 2017. 

Emily H. Menashes, 

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable 

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16990 Filed 8–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF592 

Marine Mammals; File No. 21158 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Robert Garrott, Ph.D., Montana State 

University, 310 Lewis Hall, Bozeman, 

MT 59717, has applied in due form for 

a permit to conduct research on 

Weddell seals (Leptoncychotes 

weddellii). 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or email 

comments must be received on or before 

September 11, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the ‘‘Features’’ box on 

the Applications and Permits for 

Protected Species (APPS) home page, 

https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then 

selecting File No. 21158 from the list of 

available applications. 

These documents are also available 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the Permits and Conservation 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301) 427–8401; fax (301) 713–0376. 

Written comments on this application 

should be submitted to the Chief, 

Permits and Conservation Division, at 

the address listed above. Comments may 

also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 

713–0376, or by email to 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Please 

include the File No. in the subject line 

of the email comment. 

Those individuals requesting a public 

hearing should submit a written request 

to the Chief, Permits and Conservation 

Division at the address listed above. The 

request should set forth the specific 

reasons why a hearing on this 

application would be appropriate. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Young or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427– 

8401. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act of 1972, as amended 

(MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the 

regulations governing the taking and 

importing of marine mammals (50 CFR 

part 216). 

The applicant proposes to continue 

long-term studies of the Erebus Bay, 

Antarctica, Weddell seal population to 

evaluate how temporal variation in the 

marine environment affects individual 

life histories and the population 

dynamics of long-lived mammal. 

Research involves the annual capture of 

up to 675 Weddell seal pups at 1–4 days 

after birth, flipper tagging, and release. 

A maximum of 150 of these pups would 

also receive a temperature recording 

flipper tag, be physically weighed, and 

have a skin biopsy taken for genetics 

when initially tagged. These pups 

would be re-captured again at 20 days 

of age to be weighed, and again at 

weaning for weighing and to remove the 

temperature tags. The applicant also 

proposes to capture up to 285 adults 

Weddell seals using the head-bagging 

technique to flipper tag previously 

untagged seals or replace lost or 

damaged tags of previously tagged 

individuals. An additional 100 

previously tagged adult Weddell seals 

would be captured to obtain a skin 

biopsy for genetics. Up to 75 adult 

female Weddell seals would be 

photographed on the 3 occasions when 

their pup is weighed to obtained an 

estimate of the mother’s mass through 

photogrammetry. An additional 15 

females would be physically weighed 

when their pups were initially tagged 

and weighed. The applicant proposes to 

conduct up to eight mark-resight 

surveys, approaching animals to read 

their flipper tags. The applicant also 

requests incidental take of crabeater 

seals (Lobodon carcinophagus) and 

leopard seals (Hydrurga leptonyx) that 

may be unintentionally harassed. This 

permit would be valid for five years. 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial 

determination has been made that the 

activity proposed is categorically 

excluded from the requirement to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, 

NMFS is forwarding copies of the 

application to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and its Committee of 

Scientific Advisors. 

Dated: August 8, 2017. 

Julia Harrison, 

Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2017–16985 Filed 8–10–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XF596 

Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; 

Southeast Data, Assessment, and 

Review (SEDAR); Post Data-Workshop 

Webinar Gulf of Mexico Gray Snapper; 

Public Meetings 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR 51 assessment 

webinar II for Gulf of Mexico gray 

snapper. 

SUMMARY: The SEDAR 51 assessment 

process of Gulf of Mexico gray snapper 

will consist of a Data Workshop, a series 

of assessment webinars, and a Review 

Workshop. 

DATES: The SEDAR 51 assessment 

webinar II will be held August 21, 2017 

from 1 p.m.–3 p.m. Eastern Time. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held 

via webinar. The webinar is open to 

members of the public. Those interested 

in participating should contact Julie A. 

Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an 

invitation providing webinar access 

information. Please request webinar 

invitations at least 24 hours in advance 

of each webinar. SEDAR address: 4055 

Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North 

Charleston, SC 29405. 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES