Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-08782

Proposed Rule2023-08782

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

May 5, 2023

Issuing agencies

Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Abstract

This proposed rule would implement Draft Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 15). NMFS is proposing changes to Atlantic HMS fishery management measures regarding four commercial longline spatial management areas and the administration and funding of the HMS pelagic longline electronic monitoring (EM) program. Specifically, NMFS proposes to modify the timing and boundaries of the Mid-Atlantic shark, Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon closed areas to create low- and/or high-bycatch risk areas. Lastly, NMFS proposes to implement a cost allocation program to transition electronic monitoring sampling costs to the industry, while NMFS remains responsible for administrative costs. These proposed changes would directly impact bottom and pelagic longline fishermen who hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits, and HMS commercial fishermen who use other gear types and HMS recreational fishermen may also be indirectly impacted given the proposed changes to the existing closed areas.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29050-29076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08782]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 230419-0106]
RIN 0648-BI10

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; public hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement Draft Amendment 15 to the
2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) (Amendment 15). NMFS is proposing changes to
Atlantic HMS fishery management measures regarding four commercial
longline spatial management areas and the administration and funding of
the HMS pelagic longline electronic monitoring (EM) program.
Specifically, NMFS proposes to modify the timing and boundaries of the
Mid-Atlantic shark, Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto
Canyon closed areas to create low- and/or high-bycatch risk areas.
Lastly, NMFS proposes to implement a cost allocation program to
transition electronic monitoring sampling costs to the industry, while
NMFS remains responsible for administrative costs. These proposed
changes would directly impact bottom and pelagic longline fishermen who
hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits, and HMS commercial fishermen who use
other gear types and HMS recreational fishermen may also be indirectly
impacted given the proposed changes to the existing closed areas.

DATES: Written comments must be received by September 15, 2023. NMFS
will hold five public hearings via conference calls and webinars on
Amendment 15 from June 15 through August 22, 2023. For specific dates
and times, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2019-0035, by electronic submission. Submit all electronic
public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> and enter ``NOAA-NMFS-2019-0035'' in the Search
box. Click the ``Comment'' icon, complete the required fields, and
enter or attach your comments.
Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the close of the comment period, may not
be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or
other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained
in this proposed rule may also be submitted via <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the
search function.
NMFS will hold three in-person public hearings and two virtual
public hearings via conference call and webinar on this proposed rule
and Draft Amendment 15. NMFS will hold public hearings in Jupiter, FL;
Houma, LA; and Manteo, NC. For specific locations, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Copies of the supporting documents--including Draft Amendment 15,
which includes the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS),
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA); the Issues and Options for Research and Data Collection in
Closed and Gear Restricted Areas in Support of Spatial Fisheries; the
peer-reviewed journal article regarding the predictive modeling program
used in support of this rulemaking; and the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP
and amendments are available from the HMS website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species</a> or by
contacting Steve Durkee or Larry Redd, Jr., at the email addresses and
telephone number below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Durkee (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#562522332033783223243d3333163839373778313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c3b0b7a6b5a6eda7b6b1a8a6a683adaca2a2eda4acb5">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>),
Larry Redd, Jr. (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#620e0310101b4c10070606220c0d03034c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dbb7baa9a9a2f5a9bebfbf9bb5b4babaf5bcb4ad">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>), Randy Blankinship
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#691b08070d10470b0508070200071a0100192907060808470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9deffcf3f9e4b3fff1fcf3f6f4f3eef5f4edddf3f2fcfcb3faf2eb">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>), or Karyl Brewster-Geisz (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9cf7fdeee5f0b2feeef9ebefe8f9eeb1fbf9f5efe6dcf2f3fdfdb2fbf3ea"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e78c86959e8bc98595829094938295ca80828e949da789888686c9808891">[email&#160;protected]</span></a>) at 301-427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Atlantic HMS 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). The 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are implemented by regulations
at 50 CFR part 635. A brief summary of the background of Draft
Amendment 15 and this proposed rule is provided below. Additional
information regarding spatial management can be found in Draft
Amendment 15 itself, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its

[[Page 29051]]

amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation
(SAFE) Reports, and online at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species</a>.
Closed areas are typically discrete geographic areas where certain
types of fishing are restricted or prohibited (usually by restricting a
particular type of gear) for limited periods of time or the entire
year. Closed areas can be particularly effective in reducing or
eliminating fishing interactions between particular species and gears.
Since 1999, NMFS has implemented a number of time/area closures and
gear restricted areas in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico to
reduce discards and bycatch of a number of species. NMFS acknowledges
that incidental catch is different than ``bycatch,'' which has a
specific definition under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, see 16 U.S.C.
1802(2). However, for ease of communication in this rule, unless
otherwise noted, ``bycatch species'' generally refer to all non-target
catch species, including incidentally-caught species that fishermen may
or may not retain. Four spatial management areas are being addressed by
Draft Amendment 15 and this proposed action: Charleston Bump, DeSoto
Canyon, East Florida Coast, and Mid-Atlantic shark closed areas. In
2000, NMFS published a final rule that, in addition to other things,
closed the Charleston Bump, DeSoto Canyon, and East Florida Coast areas
to pelagic longline gear effective in early 2001 (65 FR 47213, August
1, 2000). The Charleston Bump closed area is a seasonal closure from
February through April every year, whereas the DeSoto Canyon and East
Florida Coast closed areas are closed year-round to pelagic longline
gear. The closures were implemented to reduce bycatch and incidental
catch of overfished and protected species by pelagic longline fishermen
who target HMS. In 2005, NMFS published a final rule that, in addition
to other things, implemented the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. HMS
fishermen are prohibited from using bottom longline gear in the Mid-
Atlantic shark closed area from January through July. The intent of
this closure was to reduce both the catch and mortality of dusky and
juvenile sandbar sharks (68 FR 74746, December 24, 2003). Further
information on the four spatial management areas is contained in the
above-cited FR documents and Section 4.11 of Draft Amendment 15.
Since implementation of these time/area closures, there has been
little to no formal evaluation on whether the closures are still
effective in achieving their objectives or whether the balance of
associated costs and benefits over time is still appropriate. Given the
static nature of the existing time/area management measures, the highly
dynamic nature of HMS fisheries, and the highly dynamic nature of the
ocean environment, the need to assess the effectiveness of time/area
closures and other gear restricted management measures is heightened.
However, while closed areas can be an effective management tool for
achieving certain objectives, closed areas can also reduce or eliminate
the ability to gather fishery-dependent data within the areas. Fishery-
dependent data are information collected during normal fishing
operations (e.g., catch composition, bycatch rates, fishing effort),
and provide a vital and cost-effective source of information for
fisheries management. In general, such data are critical in determining
stock status, assessing bycatch levels, and in meeting other fishery
management needs. Relevant to this proposed rule, it is important to
recognize that in addition to reducing fishery-dependent data, the
closed areas have also reduced the ability to collect fishery-
independent data from these areas. Fishery-independent data are similar
to fishery-dependent data, but the information is collected by
scientists and the data collection methods may not be directly
comparable to the methods used by fishermen, even if the data are
collected on the same gears. The collection of fishery-independent data
is more costly than fishery-dependent data and relies on scientists
being able to collect the information and obtain the permits needed to
fish in the closed areas. Of all four areas, because it is the only
area that had research built into its design, only the Mid-Atlantic
shark closed area has had consistent data collection and monitoring. In
the mid-2000s, there was one research project that collected data in
the East Florida Coast closed area from three vessels over three years
(73 FR 450, January 3, 2008). In 2017, NMFS approved another research
project for that area (82 FR 37566, August 11, 2017), but that research
did not occur.
To address the lack of catch information inside of closed areas and
provide a means of evaluating the efficacy of the closed areas, NMFS
developed a spatial modeling tool, HMS Predictive Spatial Modeling
(PRiSM). HMS PRiSM combines observer-collected catch data with
environmental variables (e.g., sea surface temperature, salinity,
chlorophyll-A, bathymetry) to create a model that predicts catch of
modeled species even in areas where limited or no data has been
collected. HMS PRiSM fishery interaction predictions provide important
information on where commercial bycatch is likely to occur and helps
direct data collection efforts to avoid jeopardizing conservation
goals. The model does not use other catch or location data (e.g.,
tagging data or fishery-independent location data) because the intent
is to model when and where the commercial fishery is likely to interact
with species, not to model when and where the species can be found
generally. Further details on PRiSM and analyses conducted for this
action are in Chapter 2 and Appendices 1-6 of Draft Amendment 15.
On May 16, 2019, NMFS published a Notice of Intent in the Federal
Register that provided formal notice to the public that NMFS intended
to prepare an environmental impact analysis; announced the availability
of the Issues and Options Paper and the start of the public scoping
process (with a comment period of May 16 through July 31, 2019); and
solicited public comments (84 FR 22112). On May 22, 2019, NMFS
published a notice that provided the dates and locations of five
scoping meetings, including a webinar, pertaining to spatial management
research (84 FR 23519). Also on May 22, 2019, NMFS conducted scoping
during the spring HMS Advisory Panel meeting.
Draft Amendment 15 is a consolidated document that includes a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA), Draft Regulatory Impact Review, and Draft Social
Impact Assessment. It contains a complete description and analysis of
the range of alternatives analyzed. The preferred alternatives in Draft
Amendment 15 are the measures proposed in this rule, described below. A
description of the significant alternatives to the proposed measures is
provided later in this preamble in the summary of the IRFA.

Proposed Measures

This proposed rule is designed to: (1) use spatial management tools
to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality, to the extent practicable,
while also optimizing fishing opportunities for U.S. fishing vessels;
(2) develop methods of collecting target and non-target species
occurrence and catch rate data from HMS spatial management areas for
the purpose of assessing area performance; (3) broaden the
considerations for the use of spatial management areas as a fishery
management tool, including to provide flexibility to account for the
highly

[[Page 29052]]

variable nature of HMS and their fisheries, manage user conflicts,
facilitate collection of information, address the need for regular
evaluation and performance review, plan for climate resilience, and
address environmental justice; (4) evaluate the effectiveness of
existing HMS spatial management areas, and if warranted, modify them to
achieve an optimal balance of ecological and socioeconomic benefits and
costs; and (5) modify the HMS electronic monitoring program as
necessary to augment spatial management and address the requirements of
relevant NMFS policies regarding electronic monitoring. In Draft
Amendment 15, NMFS considered a reasonable range of different
alternatives to meet these objectives and is proposing to implement the
preferred alternatives in this proposed rule. NMFS' detailed analysis
of the alternatives is provided in Draft Amendment 15 (see ADDRESSES
for how to get a copy) and a summary is provided in the IRFA below. In
developing this proposed rule, NMFS considered comments received at HMS
Advisory Panel meetings, other conservation and management measures
that have been implemented in HMS fisheries since 2006 that have
affected relevant fisheries and bycatch issues, and public comments
received during scoping on the Issues and Options paper for this
rulemaking (84 FR 22112, May 16, 2019), including comments provided at
the May 2019 HMS Advisory Panel meeting. In response to public comment
on this proposed rule and Draft Amendment 15, NMFS may make changes in
the final rule by modifying the proposed measures or adopting different
or additional measures in response to public comment.
For each of the four spatial management areas, Draft Amendment 15/
DEIS analyzed a range of alternatives, including no action
alternatives, on evaluation and modification of the areas, now referred
to as ``spatial management areas'' (A alternatives); commercial data
collection programs for the areas (B alternatives), and evaluation
timing of the areas (C alternatives). The A alternatives include
different temporal and/or spatial changes for each area and identify
high- and low-bycatch-risk areas therein. The B alternatives consider
data collection approaches for the high- and low-bycatch-risk areas:
establishing a research fishery; cooperative research through exempted
fishing permits; and monitoring areas (i.e., low-bycatch-risk areas
inside the spatial management areas) with effort caps, bycatch caps,
trip-level effort controls, observer coverage, electronic monitoring,
and/or data sharing and communication protocols. The C alternatives
consider three and five-year review cycles for spatial management
areas; review of areas as warranted based on regulatory review factors;
and a sunset provision for spatial management areas. On a related note,
NMFS proposes in this action to reorganize, clarify and add regulatory
provisions regarding modifying or establishing spatial management areas
(preferred alternative E2). Separate from the spatial management areas,
Draft Amendment 15 also analyzed a range of alternatives related to
transfer of sampling costs of the HMS pelagic longline electronic
monitoring program from the Agency to industry (F alternatives).
As reflected below, NMFS has described its preferred packages of A,
B, and C alternatives for each spatial management area that would allow
for the bycatch risk-appropriate collection of data needed to evaluate
the performance of spatial management measures in meeting conservation
and management goals. The preferred packages are labeled D1, D2, D3,
and D4 in Section 5.4 of Draft Amendment 15. While these proposed
changes would directly impact bottom and pelagic longline fishermen who
hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits, HMS commercial fishermen who use
other gear types and HMS recreational fishermen have expressed concern
about potential indirect impacts from changes to the current closed
areas as a result of possible changes in fishing effort, strategy or
location. Discussion of HMS recreational fisheries is in Section 5.4.6
of Draft Amendment 15.

Spatial Management Area Preferred Packages

For evaluation timing and review of all four spatial management
areas, NMFS' preferred alternatives are C2, C4 and E2. NMFS would
evaluate data collected from the spatial management areas once three
years of catch and effort data is finalized and available (Alternative
C2). In addition, NMFS may review spatial management areas if specific
concerns arise, which may include but is not limited to unexpectedly
high or low bycatch, high or low data collection efforts, fishing
effort that is overly clustered temporally or spatially, changed
conditions within the fishery as a whole, or changed status of relevant
stocks (Alternative C4). NMFS also prefers Alternative E2, which
provides for adding or revising regulations to provide considerations
for review, evaluation, and adjustment of spatial management areas. See
Spatial Management regulatory provisions discussion below.
Proposed 50 CFR 635.34(d) and 635.35(e) contain regulatory text
related to the preferred C and E alternatives. New text for the
preferred A and B alternatives is mainly in proposed Sec. Sec. 635.35
(spatial management area restrictions), 635.2 (definitions), and
635.69(e)(2)(i) and (5) (additional VMS hailing out declarations and
reporting within Monitoring Areas)). Additions of or revisions to
terminology (i.e., using ``spatial management areas'' and ``monitoring
areas'' instead of ``closed areas''), reorganization of provisions, and
updates to citations and other consistency edits appear in Sec. Sec.
635.21(c)-(d) (sea turtle measures and possession/landing limits),
635.24 (commercial retention limits), 635.32 (exempted fishing permit
(EFP)), and 635.34 (adjustment of management measures). However,
substantive aspects of those provisions remain unchanged from current
regulations.
Currently, HMS closed areas, as well as regulations back-stopping
NMFS regional closed areas, are in Sec. 635.21. This action would move
regulatory text for those areas to proposed Sec. 635.35, update and
streamline names and citations for NMFS regional closed areas in Sec.
635.35(d), and delete an outdated provision at current Sec.
635.21(c)(3) (2020-2022 pelagic longline monitoring areas). Text
regarding transiting areas, gear stowage, rebuttable presumption, shark
research fishery, and Northeast Distant gear restrict area (NED) is the
same in proposed Sec. 635.35(a) as in current Sec. 635.21. Proposed
Sec. 635.71 contains new prohibitions for spatial management areas as
well as consistency edits.

[[Page 29053]]

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.000

After considering four alternatives, including the No Action
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative
(Alternative A1d) to modify the ``Mid-Atlantic shark closed area.''
This area, as shown in Figure 1, has been closed to HMS permitted
fishermen using bottom longline gear during the months of January
through July since 2005. This preferred alternative package would
modify the geographic boundary and timing of the current Mid-Atlantic
shark closed area, where the use of bottom longline gear is prohibited,
unless operating in the shark research fishery. The new Mid-Atlantic
Shark spatial management area (see proposed Sec. 635.2 and 635.35(a),
(b)) would be managed as follows:
<bullet> NMFS would extend the current eastern boundary to the 350-
meter shelf break. The area would be designated as a high-bycatch risk
area, and no low-bycatch risk area would be defined. The high-bycatch
risk area would be designated as the ``Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline
Restricted Area.''
<bullet> The Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area would be
closed to fishing with bottom longline gear from November 1 to May 31
(proposed Sec. 635.35(b)).
<bullet> Data collection would remain the same (Alternative B1, no
action) with continued access for fishery-independent surveys and
observer data collected from participants in the shark research
fishery, who can use bottom longline in the area to target sharks.
Extending the eastern boundary of the current Mid-Atlantic shark
closed area to the 350-meter shelf break would provide greater
protections to bycatch species (e.g., sandbar, dusky, and scalloped
hammerhead sharks) with greater fishery interaction risk along the 350-
meter shelf break. Shifting the timing of the closure from January
through July to the proposed November through May time period would
align with the time period that has the highest likelihood of fishery
interactions. Since 2005, the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area has been
closed to bottom longline fishing, however, some data are currently
collected in the area as part of the shark research fishery. NMFS
established the shark research fishery as part of Amendment 2 to the
HMS FMP. Within the Restricted Area, NMFS would continue to allow shark
research participants the opportunity to land sandbar, other large
coastal sharks, small coastal sharks, smoothhound, and pelagic sharks
in the closed area and provide NMFS with valuable data. Participants
within the program are subject to 100-percent observer coverage and
other terms and conditions as defined in the permit. Data collection

[[Page 29054]]

from this program has been vital in numerous shark stock assessments
and new data collection programs may not be necessary. Furthermore, due
to the low level of shark bottom longline effort in the region,
creating new data collection programs may not be feasible. Thus, NMFS
is not proposing a new data collection program within the revised
coordinates of the Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area.
NMFS would evaluate the area once three years of data is available
but may evaluate the area earlier, if preliminary data indicate that
there may be potential conservation and management issues, e.g.,
unexpectedly high or low bycatch, high or low data collection efforts,
fishing effort that is overly clustered temporally or spatially,
changed conditions within the fishery as a whole, changed status of
relevant stocks, etc. See proposed Sec. 635.35(e) (considerations for
review of spatial management areas). The use of an evaluative process
provides NMFS a precautionary mechanism to collect and review data, and
determine whether spatial or temporal modifications to the area, or
other changes to area management measures, are needed. After reviewing
an area, NMFS may make changes or modifications, as appropriate,
through framework adjustments (see proposed Sec. 635.34).

Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.001

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
After considering five alternatives, including the No Action
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative
(Alternative A2c) to modify the current Charleston Bump closed area.
This area, as shown in Figure 2, has been closed to HMS permitted
fishermen using pelagic longline gear during the months of February
through April since 2000. The Preferred alternative package would
modify the geographic boundary and the duration of the current
Charleston Bump closed area, includes two different data collection
alternatives, and requires evaluation of the area according to a set
schedule. The new Charleston Bump spatial management area (see proposed
Sec. 635.2 and 635.35(a), (c)(1) and (3)) would be managed as follows:
<bullet> NMFS would shift the current eastern boundary to the west.
The redefined area would create a boundary that nearly bisects the
current Charleston Bump closed area, with a line that runs from the
northeastern corner of the current closure, southwest to a point near
the Charleston Bump bathymetric feature on the southern boundary. The
area inshore of the boundary would be designated as a high-bycatch risk
area and offshore of that boundary would be designated as a low-bycatch
risk area. The high-bycatch risk area would be combined with the

[[Page 29055]]

preferred modification alternative for the East Florida Coast closed
area to create the ``South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area.''
The low-bycatch risk area in the remaining offshore portion of the
closure would be designated as the ``Charleston Bump Monitoring Area.''
<bullet> The South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area
(proposed Sec. Sec. 635.35(c)(1) and 635.2) would be closed to
fishermen with HMS permits who are fishing with pelagic longline gear
year round unless otherwise allowed per cooperative research via an
exempted fishing permit (EFP) (Alternative B4), as described below.
<bullet> The Charleston Bump Monitoring Area (proposed Sec. Sec.
635.35(c)(3) and 635.2) would be open to fishermen with HMS permits who
are fishing with pelagic longline gear from February 1 through April 30
but would be subject to an effort cap (Sub-Alternative B3a) that could
close the area to fishing through April 30. From May 1 through January
31, the area would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing
activities.
<bullet> There would be an annual effort cap of 69 pelagic longline
sets within the Monitoring Area. The proposed 69 pelagic longline sets
effort cap is based on the amount of fishing effort of the larger
geographic area called the ``reference area'' in which the Monitoring
Area is located (from 2011 through 2020). See Section 3.2.3.1 of Draft
Amendment 15 for details on how the cap was calculated. The Atlantic
region pelagic longline reference area occurred within the U.S. EEZ
from 35[deg] N lat. to 22[deg] N lat. and east of 81[deg]47'24'' W
long.
<bullet> Effort in the Monitoring Area would be closely monitored
by NMFS. If the effort cap is reached, or is projected to be reached,
NMFS would file a closure for the Monitoring Area with the Office of
the Federal Register. From the effective date and time of the closure
action, the Monitoring Area would be closed to pelagic longline fishing
until May 1. The Monitoring Area would become effective again on
February 1. However, NMFS may file for publication with the Office of
the Federal Register a closure of the monitoring area before the effort
cap is reached and/or an action to not reopen the area on February 1,
if warranted by conservation and management concerns raised by
unexpectedly high bycatch, high fishing effort, fishing effort that is
overly clustered temporally or spatially, or other relevant
considerations.
<bullet> Within the Monitoring Area (from February through April),
pelagic longline vessels fishing for all, or a part of a trip, would
have 100 percent of the electronic monitoring data reviewed for that
trip, paid for by the vessel owner.
<bullet> In order to fish in the Monitoring Area (from February
through April), fishermen with HMS permits using pelagic longline gear
would be required to comply with three reporting requirements using a
vessel monitoring system (VMS). See proposed Sec. 635.69(e)(2)(i)-(ii)
and (5). First, vessel owners and/or operators that intend to fish in a
Monitoring Area would need to declare that intention via VMS during the
pre-trip or in-trip hail-out. Second, the vessel owner and/or operator
must report fishing effort (date and area of each set and number of
hooks) through VMS within 12 hours of the completion of each pelagic
longline haul-back. Third, within 12 hours of the completion of each
pelagic longline haul-back, the vessel owner and/or operator must
report through VMS (or an alternative method specified by NMFS) the
length of the following species that are retained and approximate
length of these species that are discarded dead or alive: blue marlin,
white marlin, roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea turtles,
loggerhead sea turtles, and shortfin mako sharks. These requirements
are in addition to current bluefin tuna reporting requirements. Vessels
would be allowed to fish inside and outside of a Monitoring Area on the
same trip, but any fishing effort would be considered to have occurred
from within the Monitoring Area.
<bullet> Researchers could apply for an EFP under Sec. 635.32 to
collect data in the Monitoring Area or the Restricted Area, provided
their research plan includes standardized conditions that would provide
more timely accounting for effort and bycatch and caps at levels
designed to prevent adverse ecological impacts. The standardized EFP
conditions include additional safeguards such as reporting, observer,
and EM requirements.
Establishment of the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area would allow
for bycatch risk-appropriate data collection inside the Charleston Bump
spatial management area. Data collected during these activities would
provide information to evaluate the effectiveness of the area in
meeting conservation and management goals. The Monitoring Area also
provides increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing
distributions and concentrations of HMS and target catch by providing
more locations to distribute fishing effort, however, the area would be
a special access area, not open to normal commercial pelagic longline
fishing, and heavily monitored. This measure also alleviates short-term
uncertainty due to lack of data collection from within the boundaries
of the Monitoring Area.
NMFS would evaluate the area once three years of data is available
but may evaluate the area earlier, if preliminary data indicate that
there may be potential conservation and management issues, e.g.,
unexpectedly high bycatch, fishing effort that is overly clustered
temporally or spatially, changed status of relevant stocks, etc. See
proposed Sec. 635.35(e) (considerations for review of spatial
management areas). The use of an evaluative process provides NMFS a
precautionary mechanism to collect and review data, and determine
whether spatial or temporal modifications to the area, or other changes
to area management measures, are needed. After reviewing an area, NMFS
may consider changes or modifications to the area or its management
measures, as appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed
Sec. 635.34). For example, if bycatch is lower than expected for a
period of time, NMFS could consider increasing effort caps for the
following year(s).

East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 29056]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.002

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
After considering five alternatives, including the No Action
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative
(Alternative A3d) to modify the ``East Florida Coast Closed Area.''
This area, as shown in Figure 3, has been closed to fishermen using
pelagic longline gear year-round since 2000. The preferred alternative
package would modify the geographic boundary of the current East
Florida Coast Closed Area, includes two different data collection
alternatives, and requires evaluation of the area according to a set
schedule. The new East Florida Coast spatial management area (see
proposed Sec. 635.2 and 635.35(a), (c)(1) and (4)) would be managed as
follows:
<bullet> NMFS would shift the current northeastern boundary to the
west to 79[deg]32'46'' W long. The area inshore would be designated as
a high-bycatch risk area and the offshore area would be designated as a
low-bycatch risk area. As noted earlier, the Charleston Bump high-
bycatch risk area would be combined with the East Florida Coast high-
bycatch risk area to create the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline
Restricted Area. The low-bycatch risk area in the offshore portion of
the current closure footprint would be designated as the East Florida
Coast Monitoring Area.
<bullet> As described above, the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline
Restricted Area (proposed Sec. Sec. 635.35(c)(1) and 635.2)) would be
closed year round to fishing with pelagic longline gear unless
otherwise allowed per cooperative research via an EFP (Alternative B4).
<bullet> The East Florida Coast Monitoring Area would be open to
fishermen with HMS permits who are fishing with pelagic longline gear
year-round, subject to an effort cap (Sub-Alternative B3a) similar to
the effort cap in the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area, as described
above.
<bullet> There would be an annual effort cap of 124 pelagic
longline sets within the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area. The
proposed 124 pelagic longline sets effort cap is based on the amount of
fishing effort of the larger geographic area called the ``reference
area'' in which the Monitoring Area is located (from 2011 through
2020). See Section 3.2.3.1 of Draft Amendment 15 for details on how the
cap was calculated. The Atlantic region pelagic longline reference area
occurred within the U.S. EEZ from 35[deg] N lat. to 22[deg] N lat. and
east of 81[deg]47'24'' W long.
<bullet> Effort in the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area would be
closely monitored by NMFS. If the effort cap is reached, or is
projected to be reached, NMFS would file a closure for the Monitoring
Area with the Office of the Federal Register. From the effective date
and time of the closure action, the Monitoring Area would be closed to
pelagic longline fishing until January 1.

[[Page 29057]]

However, NMFS may file for publication with the Office of the Federal
Register a closure of the monitoring area before the effort cap is
reached and/or an action to not reopen the area on January 1, if
warranted by conservation and management concerns raised by
unexpectedly high bycatch, high data collection efforts, fishing effort
that is overly clustered temporally or spatially, or other relevant
considerations.
<bullet> Within the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area, pelagic
longline vessels fishing for all, or a part of a trip, would have 100
percent of the electronic monitoring data reviewed for that trip, paid
for by the vessel owner.
<bullet> In order to fish in the East Florida Coast Monitoring
Area, owners and/or operators of vessels using pelagic longline gear
would be required to comply with the same three additional VMS
reporting requirements described under Preferred Charleston Bump
spatial management area package. See proposed Sec. 635.69(e)(2), (5).
<bullet> Researchers could apply for an EFP under Sec. 635.32 to
collect data in the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area or the
Restricted Area, provided their research plan includes standardized
conditions that would provide more timely accounting for effort and
bycatch and caps at levels designed to prevent adverse ecological
impacts. The standardized EFP conditions include additional safeguards
such as reporting, observer, and EM requirements.
Establishment of the Monitoring Area would allow for bycatch risk-
appropriate data collection inside the East Florida Coast spatial
management area. Data collected during these activities would provide
information to evaluate the effectiveness of the area in meeting
conservation and management goals. The Monitoring Area also would
provide increased flexibility for fishermen to adapt to changing
distributions and concentrations of HMS and target catch by providing
more locations to distribute fishing effort, however, the area would be
a special access area, not open to normal commercial pelagic longline
fishing, and heavily monitored. This measure also would alleviate
short-term uncertainty due to lack of data collection from within the
boundaries of the Monitoring Area.
NMFS would evaluate the area once three years of data is available
but may evaluate the area earlier, if preliminary data indicate that
there may be potential conservation and management issues, e.g.,
unexpectedly high bycatch, fishing effort that is overly clustered
temporally or spatially, changed status of relevant stocks, etc. See
proposed Sec. 635.35(e) (considerations for review of spatial
management areas). The use of an evaluative process provides NMFS a
precautionary mechanism to collect and review data, and determine
whether spatial or temporal modifications to the area, or other changes
to area management measures, are needed. After reviewing an area, NMFS
may consider changes or modifications to the area or its management
measures, as appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed
Sec. 635.34). For example, if bycatch is lower than expected for a
period of time, NMFS could consider increasing effort caps for the
following year(s).

DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 29058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05MY23.003

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
After considering four alternatives, including the No Action
alternative, NMFS proposes implementing the preferred alternative
(Alternative A4d) to modify the ``DeSoto Canyon Closed Area.'' This
area, as shown in Figure 4, has been closed to fishermen using pelagic
longline gear year-round since 2000. The preferred alternative package
would modify the geographic boundary of the current DeSoto Canyon
Closed Area, include a method of data collection for the high-bycatch
risk area, and require evaluation of the area according to a set
schedule. The low-bycatch risk area (unshaded, cross-hatched area in
Figure 4) would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing activities.
The new DeSoto Canyon spatial management area (see proposed Sec. 635.2
and 635.35(a), (c)(1)) would be managed as follows:
<bullet> NMFS would shift the spatial extent and shape, creating a
parallelogram designated as a high-bycatch risk area. The high-bycatch
risk area would be designated as the ``DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline
Restricted Area.'' The parallelogram would connect the southern points;
27[deg]00' N lat., 86[deg]30' W long. and 27[deg]00' N lat., 83[deg]48'
W long., while the northern boundary would be defined by the state
water boundary between 88[deg]24'58'' W long. and 85[deg]22'34'' W
long.
<bullet> The DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted Area would
be closed year round to fishing with pelagic longline gear unless
otherwise approved via an EFP. Researchers could apply for an EFP under
Sec. 635.32 to collect data in the DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline
Restricted Area, provided their research plan includes standardized
conditions that would provide more timely accounting for effort and
bycatch and caps at levels designed to prevent adverse ecological
impacts. The standardized EFP conditions include additional safeguards
such as reporting, observer, and EM requirements.
In the redesigned high-bycatch risk area, NMFS proposes collecting
data through the issuance of exempted fishing permits to researchers
with research plans that include the standardized conditions discussed
above. NMFS is not proposing a new data collection program in the low-
bycatch risk areas because the modified shape of the spatial management
area created multiple, non-contiguous areas and a data collection
program in those areas would be overly complex to administer and
enforce. As described under the other alternatives above, NMFS would
evaluate the De Soto Canyon Restricted Area once three years of data is
available (or earlier, if needed), and after a review, may consider
changes or modifications to the area or its management measures, as
appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed Sec. 635.34).

Spatial Management Regulatory Provisions

After considering two alternatives, including the No Action
alternative (Alternative E1), NMFS is proposing the

[[Page 29059]]

preferred alternative (Alternative E2) with regard to spatial
management area regulatory provisions. See Section 5.6 of Draft
Amendment 15. Under this alternative, NMFS would add to proposed Sec.
635.35(c) considerations for review of spatial management areas, such
as fishery metrics, social and economic data, biological information,
and oceanographic data. This action is necessary to ensure that future
and existing spatial management areas are designed to include the data
collection requirements that will show whether the areas meet the
intent for which they were created. The need to assess the
effectiveness of spatial management measures is critical due to the
static nature of the spatial management measures, the highly dynamic
nature of HMS fisheries, and the highly dynamic nature of the ocean
environment. As explained earlier, after reviewing an area, NMFS may
consider changes or modifications to the area or its management
measures, as appropriate, through framework adjustments (see proposed
Sec. 635.34).

HMS Pelagic Longline Electronic Monitoring Cost Allocation

After considering three alternatives, including the No Action
alternative (F1) and removal of current EM regulations regarding
bluefin tuna and shortfin mako sharks (F3), NMFS is proposing the
preferred alternative (Alternative F2) with regard to electronic
monitoring costs. Detailed information regarding the electronic
monitoring alternatives and preferred Alternative F2 measures can be
found in Section 5.6 of Draft Amendment 15. Under preferred Alternative
F2, NMFS would transfer 100 percent of electronic monitoring sampling
costs to the industry, over a 3-year period (phased-in). See proposed
Sec. 635.9(b). NMFS would certify electronic monitoring vendors based
on their ability to carry out responsibilities and duties under Sec.
635.9(d) and through the application process in Sec. 635.9(c). Vessel
owners could then contract directly with any NMFS-certified vendor for
electronic monitoring services. Unless otherwise specified, owners and
operators would be jointly and severally responsible for their vessel's
compliance with EM requirements (see proposed Sec. 635.9(a)). To have
a standardized electronic monitoring program that can be implemented by
vendors, the program has four distinct components: (1) vendor
requirements (Sec. 635.9(d) with application, approval and removal
processes in paragraph (c)); (2) vessel owner and operator requirements
(Sec. 635.9(a), (e)); (3) vessel monitoring plan (Sec. 635.9(d)(2));
and (4) modification of the current IBQ Program's electronic monitoring
spatial/temporal requirements (Sec. 635.9(a) (EM Data Review Areas)).
The proposed rule clarifies responsibilities of EM service
providers and vessel owners and operators, but many requirements of the
current electronic monitoring regulations are not substantively
changed. Required content for vessel monitoring plans in proposed rule
Sec. 635.9(d)(1) is from current Sec. 635.9(e). EM system components
in proposed Sec. 635.9(f) are from current Sec. 635.9(c). Vessel
owner and operator requirements in proposed Sec. 635.9(e) are from
current Sec. 635.9(b)(2) and (e). Data maintenance, storage and
viewing text in proposed Sec. 635.9(g) is from current Sec.
635.9(d)). When drafting new regulatory text on cost responsibilities
and EM vendors (Sec. 635.9(b)-(d)), NMFS took into consideration
existing regulations at 50 CFR 648.11 (Northeast Fisheries Monitoring
Coverage) and 50 CFR 660.603-660.604 (West Coast Groundfish EM
Program).

Vendor Requirements (Sec. 635.9(c)-(d))

NMFS would solicit vendors to perform the operational tasks (e.g.,
install and maintain electronic monitoring equipment; review electronic
monitoring video data, etc.), consistent with vendor technical
performance standards (See proposed Sec. 635.9(d)). NMFS, or a NMFS-
designated entity, would certify vendors that meet certain
requirements, including meeting the technical performance standards,
and publish a list of certified vendors in the Federal Register, which
would be made available to vessel owners. NMFS would reserve the right
to remove vendors from the approved list if vendor technical
performance standards are not being met or if the vendor is shown to
have a conflict of interest. See proposed Sec. 635.9(c)(4).

Vessel Requirements (Sec. 635.9(e))

The vessel owner and/or operator subject to the relevant electronic
monitoring regulations would need to comply with the operational, cost
responsibility, reporting, and communication protocols in the approved
Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP) (see below for more detail on the VMP).
Non-compliance with these requirements could result in enforcement
action.

Vessel Monitoring Plans (Sec. 635.9(d))

The vessel owner must develop a VMP with assistance from the EM
vendor. Final approval of the VMP would be provided by NMFS or a NMFS-
designated entity. The VMP must be consistent with relevant VMP
regulations. This proposed rule does not consider any changes to the
required information in the VMP. However, if a vessel owner changes
vendor, the owner would be required to update the VMP with the new
vendor before leaving on a trip.

Modification of EM IBQ Spatial/Temporal Requirements (Sec. 635.9(a))

This proposed rule would change the location and timing of HMS
pelagic longline electronic monitoring requirements. Currently, vessels
must comply with electronic monitoring requirements regardless of time
or location of fishing. This proposed rule would limit the electronic
monitoring requirements to certain areas and times. For all areas
outside of the spatial management areas discussed earlier, NMFS has
identified areas where electronic monitoring data would be most useful
to meet bluefin tuna catch reporting compliance goals and designated
these spatial/temporal areas as four large ``EM Data Review Areas.'' In
addition to requirements for monitoring areas as described above,
vessels would be required to activate EM and submit video only when
fishing with pelagic longline in an EM Data Review Area during all or a
portion of a trip. Trips that engage in fishing in multiple areas must
abide by the more restrictive requirement (e.g., if any fishing occurs
in an area that requires electronic monitoring, the entire trip must
use electronic monitoring and all videos must be submitted even when
fishing in areas that do not require electronic monitoring).
The current EM regulations require vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear on board to have an operational EM system powered on
during the full duration of all trips, to record video of all haul-
backs, and to send in the hard drive (with the recorded video and
metadata) to a NMFS-contracted vendor. At the end of each sampling time
period, the SEFSC selects sets for video review under a stratified
sampling plan. The first step in selecting sets for review is to filter
sets that occurred in a time and area where bluefin tuna interactions
are likely. Sets that occur in areas of unlikely bluefin tuna
interactions are not considered when selecting sets for review under
the stratified sampling plan. From the narrowed list of sets that
occurred in areas and times of likely bluefin tuna catch, the SEFSC
selects sets for review and notifies the NMFS-contracted vendor to
review the

[[Page 29060]]

associated videos. The stratified sampling plan cannot be carried out
until after all the pelagic longline sets have been deployed and
reported. Under Alternative F2, this process would not be operationally
feasible, given that vessel owners would directly contract with EM
vendors and there may be several approved vendors providing services.
Neither the vendor nor the vessel owner would know which sets would
ultimately require video review, thus, would be unable to negotiate a
price for video review at the time of video submission. Furthermore,
video review may be unequally distributed among the multiple vendors,
with some vendors receiving more video review requests than expected
and some less. This unpredictability could result in higher prices to
cover the possibility of higher video costs or could disincentive
vendors from entering the HMS EM pelagic longline market. Modification
of the EM spatial and temporal requirements could address these
problems by limiting video submission to times and areas of likely
bluefin tuna catch, allowing vendors to simply review 10 percent of the
submitted sets. This would reduce uncertainty for the vendor and
simplify the process for selecting sets for video review. Modification
of the EM spatial and temporal requirements are designed around the
current SEFSC sampling program, would reduce complexity in the
selection of pelagic longline sets for review, and should reduce the
costs associated with the EM requirements and with the IBQ Program,
while maintaining the effectiveness of the EM Program. The objectives
of the EM Program in support of the IBQ Program would remain the same
(i.e., to verify the accuracy of counts and identification of bluefin
tuna reported by the vessel). NMFS also considered ease of
communication, compliance, and enforcement when developing the EM Data
Review Areas, and does not believe that the areas pose concerns in
these regards. Because these EM Data Review Areas are largely designed
around the current electronic monitoring video review sampling plan, no
impact to monitoring compliance with the IBQ program is expected. For
further details and explanation of EM Data Review Areas, see Section
3.6.2.4 of Draft Amendment 15.

Request for Comments

NMFS is requesting comments on the alternatives and analyses
described in this proposed rule, Draft Amendment 15, and the IRFA.
Written comments may be submitted via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or at a
public conference call/webinar. NMFS solicits comments on this action
by September 15, 2023 (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
During the comment period, NMFS will hold three public hearings and
two public hearings via conference call and webinar for this proposed
action. The hearing locations will be physically accessible to people
with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Steve Durkee or Larry Redd, Jr. at
301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. Information on the
webinar will be posted at: <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-15-2006-consolidated-hms-fishery-management-plan-spatial-management-EM">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/amendment-15-2006-consolidated-hms-fishery-management-plan-spatial-management-EM</a>.

Table 1--Dates, Times, and Locations of Upcoming Public Hearings and
Conference Call
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Street address/
Venue Date/time webinar information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conference call/Webinar....... June 15, 2023, 2 https://
p.m. to 4 p.m. www.fisheries.noaa.g
ov/action/amendment-
15-2006-
consolidated-hms-
fishery-management-
plan-spatial-
management-EM.
Public Hearing................ July 20, 2023, 5 River Center, 805 US
p.m. to 8 p.m. Highway 1, Jupiter,
FL 33477.
Public Hearing................ July 25, 2023, 5 Terrebonne Parish
p.m. to 8 p.m. Library (Main
Branch), 151 Library
Drive, Houma, LA
70360.
Conference call/Webinar....... August 17, 2023, https://
2 p.m. to 4 p.m. www.fisheries.noaa.g
ov/action/amendment-
15-2006-
consolidated-hms-
fishery-management-
plan-spatial-
management-EM.
Public Hearing................ August 22, 2023, Dare County
5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Administration
Building,
Commissioners
Meeting Room, 954
Marshall Collins
Drive, Manteo, NC
27954.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at public
conference calls and webinars to conduct themselves appropriately. At
the beginning of each public conference call and webinar, the moderator
will explain how the public conference call and webinar will be
conducted and how and when participants can provide comments. NMFS
representative(s) will structure the public conference calls and
webinars so that all members of the public will be able to comment, if
they so choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the
subject(s). Participants are expected to respect the ground rules, and
those that do not may be asked to leave the public conference call and
webinars.

Classification

Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and other applicable law, subject to
further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), NMFS
prepared a DEIS for Draft Amendment 15 and this proposed rule that
analyzes impacts on the environment from the preferred alternatives and
other alternatives analyzed. The DEIS is consolidated in the same
document as Draft Amendment 15. A copy of the Draft Amendment/DEIS is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A Notice of Availability of the
DEIS is publishing in the Federal Register on the same day as this
proposed rule. A summary of the impacts of the alternatives considered
is described below.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy
of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the
action is being considered. NMFS is amending the 2006 Consolidated
Atlantic HMS FMP to address the modification, data collection, and
assessment of four commercial longline spatial management areas; and
modification to

[[Page 29061]]

the administration and funding of the HMS pelagic longline EM program.
Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires Agencies to state the
objective of, and legal basis for the proposed action. This action is
necessary to meet domestic management objectives of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act including preventing overfishing, achieving optimal yield,
and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable, as well as the
objectives of the ATCA and obligations pursuant to binding
recommendations of ICCAT. The objectives of this Amendment are (1)
Using spatial management tools, minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality,
to the extent practicable, while also optimizing fishing opportunities
for U.S. fishing vessels; (2) Develop methods of collecting target and
non-target species occurrence and catch rate data from HMS spatial
management areas for the purpose of assessing spatial management area
performance; (3) Broaden the considerations for the use of spatial
management areas as a fishery management tool, including to provide
flexibility to account for the highly variable nature of HMS and their
fisheries, manage user conflicts, facilitate collection of information,
address the need for regular evaluation and performance review, plan
for climate resilience, and address environmental justice; (4) Evaluate
the effectiveness of existing HMS spatial management areas, and if
warranted, modify them to achieve an optimal balance of ecological,
social, and economic benefits and costs; and (5) Modify the HMS
electronic monitoring program as necessary to augment spatial
management and address the requirements of relevant NMFS policies
regarding electronic monitoring, including the 2019 Cost Allocation
Policy.
NMFS developed the draft management objectives based upon comments
received during the Amendment 15 scoping process and the detailed
suggestions and concerns expressed by the HMS Advisory Panel, fishery
participants, and the public regarding management of spatial management
areas over the last several years. Additionally, the EM funding
alternatives were developed to comply with the 2019 NMFS Policy 04-115-
02 ``Cost Allocation in Electronic Monitoring Programs for Federally
Managed Fisheries.'' These specific objectives are within the context
of the current 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, including
the overarching objectives of ending overfishing, and meeting other
legal obligations and conservation and management goals and
requirements.
Section 603(b)(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires
Agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to
which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA)
authorizes an agency to develop its own industry-specific size
standards after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy and an
opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Pursuant to
this process, NMFS issued a final rule that established a small
business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all
businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA
compliance purposes (80 FR 81194; December 29, 2015; effective on July
1, 2016). SBA has established size standards for all other major
industry sectors in the U.S., including the scenic and sightseeing
transportation (water) sector (North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code 487210, for-hire), which includes charter/party
boat entities. SBA has defined a small charter/party boat entity as one
with average annual receipts (revenue) of less than $14.0 million.
NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because
they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for
commercial fishing. Regarding those entities that would be directly
affected by the proposed measures, the average annual revenue per
active pelagic longline vessel is estimated to be $222,000, based on
approximately 82 active vessels that produced an estimated $18.2
million in revenue in 2020, well below the NMFS small business size
standard for commercial fishing businesses of $11 million. No single
pelagic longline vessel has exceeded $11 million in revenue in recent
years. HMS bottom longline commercial fishing vessels typically earn
less revenue than pelagic longline vessels and, thus, would also be
considered small entities.
NMFS has determined that the preferred alternatives would not
likely directly affect any small organizations or small government
jurisdictions defined under RFA, nor would there be disproportionate
economic impacts between large and small entities.
Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. Some
preferred alternatives in Draft Amendment 15 would result in reporting,
record-keeping, and compliance requirements that require a new or
modified Paperwork Reduction Act filing. Under Preferred Alternative
Packages D2 and D3, NMFS would implement Alternative B3 to create two
monitoring areas within the current footprints of the Charleston Bump
and East Florida Coast closed areas. To control effort and ensure
accurate reporting under Alternative B3, NMFS prefers implementation of
Sub-Alternative B3a (effort caps) and Sub-Alternative B3e (expanded EM
review). Sub-Alternative B3a includes two expanded reporting
requirements for HMS pelagic longline fishermen operating in the
monitoring areas. First, vessel operators that intend to fish in a
monitoring area would need to declare that intention via VMS before
embarking on a trip or during the in-trip hail-out. Second, vessel
operators would be required to report the catch of the following
species, in addition to current bluefin tuna reporting requirements,
through VMS within 12 hours after the end of a longline set: blue
marlin, white marlin, roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea
turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and shortfin mako sharks. Neither
requirement is wholly new since pelagic longline vessel operators
currently need to hail-out via VMS before embarking on a trip and
bluefin tuna catch must be reported with 12 hours after the end of a
longline set. Rather, the proposed measures are expanded requirements
with an additional hail-out declaration requirement and species
reporting requirements. These requirements would impact a sub-set of
the 82 active HMS pelagic longline vessels that choose to fish within
the monitoring areas.
Under Preferred Alternative F2, HMS pelagic longline vessel owners
would be required to cover sampling costs associated with the EM
program to support compliance with catch reporting requirements during
pelagic longline fishing activity, including incidentally caught
bluefin tuna. The alternative would also open up the HMS pelagic
longline EM program to additional vendors, and establishes application
and reporting standards for potential EM vendors. All pelagic longline
vessel owners (82 active vessels) would need to coordinate with a NMFS-
approved vendor to provide support for EM requirements including
equipment maintenance and replacement and review of video data. NMFS
would solicit vendors to perform the tasks in support of the EM
program, consistent with performance design standards. NMFS, or a NMFS-
designated entity, would certify vendors that meet certain
requirements, including meeting the technical

[[Page 29062]]

performance standards and publish a list of certified vendors in the
Federal Register, which would be made available to vessel operators.
Certification of EM vendors would require submittal of information by
vendors including demonstration of technical ability, a data integrity
and storage plan, and conflict of interest information. NMFS
anticipates receiving applications from up to four vendors and approval
of three.
The expanded requirements under both these alternatives are within
the scope of an existing approved Paperwork Reduction Act (OMB Control
No. 0648-0372 ``Electronic Monitoring Systems for Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species''). However, due to the existence of concurrent
actions for that collection, which will come up for renewal before the
final rule for this action is anticipated to be published, the
collection-of-information requirements in this proposed rule will be
assigned a temporary Control Number that will later be merged into
Control Number 0648-0372. A revised Paperwork Reduction Act submission
and approval is pending.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, Agencies must identify, to the
extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in
these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements,
domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include,
but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic Tunas
Convention Act, the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone
Management Act. This proposed action has been determined not to
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any Federal rules.
One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any significant
alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated
objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. NMFS cannot
establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small
entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of
it. All of the businesses impacted by this action are considered small
entities, and thus the requirements are already designed for small
entities. Moreover, the objectives for this action center around the
modification, data collection, and assessment of spatial management
areas and funding and administration of the HMS pelagic longline EM
program. NMFS thus analyzed a broad range of alternatives to meet those
objectives: Alternatives A-E consider modification, data collection,
and assessment of spatial management areas and the F Alternatives
consider funding and administration of the HMS pelagic longline EM
program. Consistent application of management measures is important for
effective management of spatial management areas and the EM program.
Thus, no differing requirements or exemptions would be appropriate.
NMFS designed alternatives that would simplify compliance or reporting
requirements while still meeting the objectives of the amendment.
Preferred A Alternatives to modify spatial management areas used design
elements that would ease communication and enforcement including
straight lines and points near ports or existing spatial management
areas. Preferred B Alternatives to create data collection programs
largely built upon current reporting and other requirements to avoid
creating overly-complicated measures. Preferred Alternative F2 does
introduce new complexities into the HMS pelagic longline EM program,
including new requirements to independently contract with EM vendors.
However, these complexities may be necessary in order to mitigate
adverse economic impacts. Performance standards are built into the
preferred B Alternatives to collect data through monitoring areas and
cooperative EFP research. Each of these components include a total cap
on effort to ensure conservation goals are met. Once effort caps are
reached, the area is closed to data collection.

Evaluation and Modification of Closed Areas

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area

Sub-Alternative A1a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain
the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area in effect with respect to
its spatial and temporal extent. This sub-alternative would likely
maintain the recent catch levels and revenues, because the spatial and
the temporal extents would remain unchanged and social and economic
impacts are expected to be neutral. Median earnings across the shark
research fishery and non-shark research fishery per trip (taking into
account operating costs) ranged between $609 and $1,192 from 2017
through 2020 in nominal dollars ($614 in 2020). Estimated total ex-
vessel revenue from sharks in 2020 is $2,311,319 (2021 real dollars).
Based on permit and target species, some fishermen direct effort on
sharks while others only retain incidentally caught sharks. In 2020,
there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips where 75 percent
of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting sharks in the
Atlantic.
Sub-Alternative A1b would maintain the current Mid-Atlantic shark
closed area in effect with respect to its spatial extent, and shift the
temporal extent to November 1 through May 31 from January 1 through
July 31 (i.e., same seven-month duration, but shifted two months
earlier). The social and economic impacts of Sub-Alternative A1b are
expected to be neutral. There is relatively little bottom longline
fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic region during open time periods,
including and adjacent to the area defined by this spatial management
area. Effort is low enough that totals for the area, even during open
time periods, that the data cannot be provided due to confidentiality
concerns. This sub-alternative would maintain the recent catch levels
and revenues, and there would likely be low levels of data collection
from within the spatial management area. Overall revenues from shark
research fishery trips are likely to continue in the range noted in
Sub-Alternative A1a. Based on permit and target species, some fishermen
direct effort on sharks while others only retain incidentally caught
sharks. In 2020, there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips
where 75 percent of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting
sharks in the Atlantic.
Sub-Alternative A1c would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. Specifically,
this sub-alternative would extend the eastern boundary of the current
Mid-Atlantic shark closed area eastward to the 350-m shelf break and
shift the north boundary south to Cape Hatteras (35[deg]13'12'' N
lat.). The temporal extent would shift to November 1 through May 31
from January 1 through July 31. The social and economic impacts of Sub-
Alternative A1c are expected to be neutral. There is relatively little
bottom longline fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic region during open
time periods, including and adjacent to the area defined by this
spatial management area. Effort is low enough that totals for the area,
even during open time periods, that the data cannot be provided due to
confidentiality concerns. This sub-alternative would maintain the
recent catch levels and revenues, and there would likely be low levels
of data collection from within the spatial

[[Page 29063]]

management area. Overall revenues from shark research fishery trips are
likely to continue in the range noted in Sub-Alternative A1a. Based on
permit and target species, some fishermen direct effort on sharks while
others only retain incidentally caught sharks. In 2020, there were 13
active vessels (vessels that had trips where 75 percent of the landings
by weight were sharks) targeting sharks in the Atlantic.
Sub-Alternative A1d would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. Specifically,
this sub-alternative would extend the eastern boundary of the current
Mid-Atlantic shark closed area eastward to the 350-m shelf break. The
temporal extent would shift to November 1 through May 31 from January 1
through July 31. The social and economic impacts of Sub-Alternative A1d
are expected to be neutral. There is relatively little bottom longline
fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic region during open time periods,
including and adjacent to the area defined by this spatial management
area. Effort is low enough that totals for the area, even during open
time periods, that the data cannot be provided due to confidentiality
concerns. This sub-alternative would maintain the recent catch levels
and revenues, and there would likely be low levels of data collection
from within the spatial management area. Overall revenues from shark
research fishery trips are likely to continue in the range noted in
Sub-Alternative A1a. Based on permit and target species, some fishermen
direct effort on sharks while others only retain incidentally caught
sharks. In 2020, there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips
where 75 percent of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting
sharks in the Atlantic.

Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area

Sub-Alternative A2a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain
the current Charleston Bump closed area in effect with respect to its
spatial and temporal extent. NMFS used the target species catch
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial
pelagic longline revenue. The estimated combined target species revenue
is $4,419,261 (2021 real dollars). This sub-alternative would maintain
the recent fishing effort, catch levels, and revenues, resulting in
direct neutral social and economic impacts on pelagic longline
fishermen. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic
longline vessels in the fishery.
Sub-Alternative A2b would maintain the current Charleston Bump
closed area in effect with respect to its spatial extent, and would
shift the temporal scope from December 1 through March 31 from February
1 through April 30 (i.e., starting two months earlier and ending one
months earlier; change from a three-month closure to a four-month
closure). NMFS used the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel
prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the
effect of the sub-alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue.
This sub-alternative would generate less revenue from swordfish and
bigeye tuna, but more from yellowfin tuna than the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is -$205,237.
However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with lower catch
rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. Sub-Alternative
A2b would likely result in minor adverse social and economic impacts.
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels
in the fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so
economic impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A2c would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current Charleston Bump closed area. This sub-alternative
would move the eastern boundary of the current Charleston Bump closed
area westward. Specifically, the eastern boundary of this sub-
alternative would be formed by the line connecting the northeast corner
of the current Charleston Bump closed area (34[deg]00' N lat.,
76[deg]00' W long.) to a point on the current southern border of
Charleston Bump closed area (31[deg]00' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W
long.). The western boundary of this management area would remain the
same as the current western boundary of Charleston Bump closed area.
The temporal extent of the high-bycatch-risk area would increase from
February 1 to April 30 to include the entire year. The remainder of the
current closed area footprint would only be designated low-bycatch-risk
area from February 1 through April 30. Outside those months, that area
would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing. NMFS used the target
species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin
tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on
commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would
generate more revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin and
bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined
the total revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No
Action sub-alternative is $235,863 resulting in moderate positive
direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term, which would also
lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there
were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all
vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally
shared among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A2d would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current Charleston Bump closed area. Specifically, this
sub-alternative would shift the eastern boundary westward 40 nm from
the coastline; retain the current northern and southern boundaries of
the current Charleston Bump closed area; and retain the current western
boundary of Charleston Bump closed area. The temporal extent of the
high-bycatch-risk area would be extended from February 1 through April
30 to October 1 through May 31. The remainder of the current closed
area footprint would only be designated low-bycatch-risk area from
February 1 through April 30. Outside those months, that area would be
open to normal pelagic longline fishing. NMFS used the target species
catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate more
revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin and bigeye tuna
relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined, the total
revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No Action sub-
alternative is $390,532 resulting in moderate positive direct economic
impacts in the short- and long-term, which would also lead to positive
direct social impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all vessels are
active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally shared
among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A2e would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current Charleston Bump closed area. Specifically, this
sub-alternative would reduce the spatial extent by moving the northern
boundary of the current Charleston Bump closed area southward to
33[deg]12'39'' N lat. and the shifting the eastern boundary westward to
78[deg]00' W long. The western boundary would be consistent with the
current western boundary of Charleston Bump closed area. The temporal
extent of the high-bycatch-risk area would be eight months (from
October 1 through May

[[Page 29064]]

31) instead of three months (February 1 through April 30). The
remainder of the current closed area footprint would only be designated
low-bycatch-risk area from February 1 through April 30. Outside those
months, that area would be open to normal pelagic longline fishing.
NMFS used the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for
swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of
the sub-alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-
alternative would generate more revenue from swordfish and yellowfin
tuna, but less from bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is $83,590 resulting
in minor positive direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term,
which would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.

East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area

Sub-Alternative A3a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain
the current East Florida Coast closed area in effect with respect to
its spatial and temporal extent. NMFS used the target species catch
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial
pelagic longline revenue. The estimated annual revenue for each target
species and the combined target species revenue is $4,196,431 (2021
real dollars). This sub-alternative would maintain the recent fishing
effort, catch levels, and revenues, resulting in direct neutral social
and economic impacts on pelagic longline fishermen. From 2018 through
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Sub-Alternative A3b would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically,
this sub-alternative consists of two different spatial configurations
associated with two temporal periods. From May 1 through November 30
the spatial extent would be the same as the No Action alternative. From
December 1 through April 30 the spatial extent would shift the eastern
boundary to 40 nm from the coastline within the northern and southern
boundaries of the current East Florida Coast closed area. The remainder
of the current closed area footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-
risk area from May 1 through November 30. NMFS used the target species
catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate slightly
more revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin tuna and bigeye
tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined the total
revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No Action sub-
alternative is -$75,453 resulting in minor negative direct economic
impacts in the short- and long-term, which could also lead to negative
social impacts. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with
lower catch rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. From
2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A3c would modify only the spatial extent of the
current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically, this sub-
alternative would reduce the spatial extent by shifting the eastern
boundary of the current closed area to 40 nm from the coastline in
areas north of the U.S.--Bahamas EEZ boundary at approximately
28[deg]17'24'' N lat. All areas south of that boundary within the
current closed area would remain the same relative to the No Action
alternative. The temporal extent would remain unchanged relative to the
No Action alternative. The remainder of the current closed area
footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-risk area for the entire
year. NMFS used the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices
for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect
of the sub-alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue. This
sub-alternative would generate more revenue from swordfish, but less
from yellowfin and bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is $15,145 resulting
in minor positive direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term,
which would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A3d would modify only the spatial extent of the
current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically, this sub-
alternative would reduce the spatial extent by including areas east of
the line connecting two points at 31[deg]00' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W
long. and 27[deg]52'55'' N lat., 79[deg]28'34'' W long. at the northern
and southern boundaries, respectively, of the current closed area. All
areas south of 27[deg]52'55'' N lat. within the current closed area
would remain the same relative to the No Action alternative. The
temporal extent would remain unchanged relative to the No Action
alternative. The remainder of the current closed area footprint would
be designated a low-bycatch-risk area for the entire year. NMFS used
the target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish,
yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-
alternative on commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-
alternative would generate more revenue from swordfish, but less from
yellowfin and bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative.
When combined, the total revenue difference between this sub-
alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is $37,845 resulting in
minor positive direct economic impacts in the short- and long-term,
which would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A3e would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current East Florida Coast closed area. Specifically,
this sub-alternative consists of two different spatial configurations
associated with two temporal periods. From June 1 through September 30
the spatial extent would consist of the area within 40 nm of the
coastline within the northern and southern boundaries of the current
East Florida Coast closed area. During this time period, the remainder
of the current closed area footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-
risk area. From October 1 through May 31 and the spatial extent would
include the area east of the Florida coast to a line connecting two
points at 31[deg]00' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long. and 27[deg]52'55''
N lat., 79[deg]28'34'' W long. at the northern and southern boundaries,
respectively, of the current closed area. As with the June to September
area, from October to May, the remainder of the current closed area
footprint would be designated a low-bycatch-risk area. NMFS used the
target species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish,
yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-
alternative on commercial

[[Page 29065]]

pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate slightly
more revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin tuna and bigeye
tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined the total
revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No Action sub-
alternative is -$8,762 resulting in minor negative direct economic
impacts in the short- and long-term, which could also lead to negative
social impacts. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with
lower catch rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. From
2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.

DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area

Sub-Alternative A4a, the no action sub-alternative, would maintain
the current DeSoto Canyon closed area in effect with respect to its
spatial and temporal extent. NMFS used the target species catch
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial
pelagic longline revenue. The estimated annual revenue for each target
species and the combined target species revenue is $4,618,912 (2021
real dollars). This sub-alternative would maintain the recent fishing
effort, catch levels, and revenues, resulting in direct neutral social
and economic impacts on pelagic longline fishermen. From 2018 through
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Sub-Alternative A4b would modify both the spatial and temporal
extent of the current DeSoto Canyon closed area. Specifically, the sub-
alternative would maintain the current spatial extent of the DeSoto
Canyon spatial management area while changing the timing of the closed
areas. Both boxes would remain closed from April 1 to October 31
instead of all year. Additionally, from November to March, the top
northwest box would be closed while the bottom southeast box would be
designated a low-bycatch-risk area. NMFS used the target species catch
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate more
revenue from swordfish, but less from yellowfin tuna and similar from
bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined
the total revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No
Action sub-alternative is $38,188 resulting in minor positive direct
economic impacts in the short- and long-term, which would also lead to
positive direct social impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all vessels
are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally shared
among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A4c would only modify the spatial extent of the
current DeSoto Canyon closed area. Specifically, this sub-alternative
would reduce the spatial extent by including areas within the current
spatial extent that occurs north of 27[deg]00' N lat. The temporal
extent would remain unchanged relative to the No Action alternative.
The remainder of the current closed area footprint would be designated
a low-bycatch-risk area throughout the year. NMFS used the target
species catch estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin
tuna, and bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on
commercial pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would
generate more revenue from swordfish and yellowfin tuna, but less from
bigeye tuna relative to the No Action sub-alternative. When combined,
the total revenue difference between this sub-alternative and the No
Action sub-alternative is $278,627 resulting in moderate positive
direct and indirect economic impacts in the short- and long-term, which
would also lead to positive direct social impacts. From 2018 through
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery,
though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic impacts
would not be equally shared among all active vessels.
Sub-Alternative A4d would modify the spatial extent of the current
DeSoto Canyon closed area; the temporal extent would remain unchanged
(i.e., area would remain closed year-round). Specifically, this sub-
alternative would shift the spatial extent putting a parallelogram
through the current area. The parallelogram connects southern points;
27[deg]00' N lat., 86[deg]30' W long. and 27[deg]00' N lat., 83[deg]48'
W long., while the northern boundary would be defined by the state
water boundary between 88[deg]24'58'' W long. and 85[deg]22'34'' W
long. The areas outside this parallelogram that are currently closed
would reopen to normal fishing. NMFS used the target species catch
estimates and ex-vessel prices for swordfish, yellowfin tuna, and
bigeye tuna to estimate the effect of the sub-alternative on commercial
pelagic longline revenue. This sub-alternative would generate less
revenue from all three target species relative to the No Action sub-
alternative. When combined, the total revenue difference between this
sub-alternative and the No Action sub-alternative is -$224,295
resulting in moderate negative direct and indirect economic impacts in
the short- and long-term, which could also lead to negative social
impacts. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas with lower
catch rates, so reductions in revenue may not be realized. From 2018
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the
fishery, though, not all vessels are active in the area so economic
impacts would not be equally shared among all active vessels.

Commercial Data Collection

Alternative B1, the no action alternative, would not implement any
new closed area data collection approaches to support HMS spatial
management. Because Alternative B1 would not implement any new data
collection programs, direct social and economic impacts to fishermen
would be neutral in the short-term. In the long-term, as described
above, because there would not be any way to collect data from the
spatial management areas and modify them accordingly, the impacts to
the species, and therefore the impacts to the fishermen and the
economy, would be unknown. If the spatial management areas are
appropriate and the species and their habitat are protected, fishermen
and related industries might experience an increase in revenue as
species become more abundant. However, if the spatial management areas
are inappropriate and do not protect the species and their habitat,
fishermen and related industries might experience a decrease in revenue
as the species abundance declines. From 2018 through 2020, there were
82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Alternative B2 would create a new research fishery, similar to the
existing bottom longline shark research fishery, where permitted
commercial longline fishing vessels may apply, and a small number would
be selected for participation in the spatial management area research
fishery. The selected vessels would conduct fishing operations guided
by a research plan developed by NMFS, and be subject to conditions.
Alternative B2 would be a voluntary program and fishermen would
continue to decide whether to fish based on market conditions, fish
availability, and the restrictions and conditions of the research
fishery. Because of the limited nature of the research fishery, large
beneficial social or economic impacts to fishermen are not expected.
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82

[[Page 29066]]

active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Alternative B3 would implement monitoring areas to allow fishermen
into previously-closed areas to collect data while following strict
effort restrictions and monitoring and reporting requirements. Under
this alternative a specific geographic area would be designated a
``monitoring area'' and commercial longline vessels would be permitted
to fish inside the monitoring area subject to certain conditions and
other applicable regulations. In conjunction with Alternative B3, two
sub-alternatives are preferred as well: Sub-Alternative B3a (effort
caps) and Sub-Alternative B3e (electronic monitoring). Under Sub-
Alternative B3a, NMFS would monitor the number of longline sets
occurring in the monitoring area, and when the number of sets reaches
the effort ``cap'', would prohibit fishing with the relevant gear type
in the monitoring area as described above. Additionally, vessel
operators that intend to fish in a monitoring area would need to (1)
declare that intention via VMS before embarking on a trip and (2) would
be required to report the catch of the following species, in addition
to current bluefin tuna reporting requirements, through VMS within 12
hours after the end of a longline set: blue marlin, white marlin,
roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea turtles, loggerhead sea
turtles, and shortfin mako sharks. Sub-Alternative B3e would require
that longline vessels fishing for all, or a part of a trip in a
monitoring area have 100 percent of the EM data reviewed for that trip,
and paid for by the owner/operator of the vessel.
Fishing effort in the monitoring area(s) would rely on commercial
fishermen's willingness to fish in the area based on market conditions,
fish availability, and the restrictions of the monitoring area.
Although it is difficult to predict the amount of fishing effort and
fish availability that would occur in the monitoring areas, the socio-
economic impact is likely to be either neutral or minor and beneficial.
Access to previously closed areas would provide the flexibility to fish
in locations previously closed to fishing. If access to fishing in
monitoring areas decreases the amount of steaming time required to
reach the fishing locations, operating costs may be reduced, and a
shorter trip duration would facilitate participation in the fishery.
Shorter transit times would also result in reduced fuel consumption.
Owners of fishing vessels can often have difficulty finding and hiring
crew willing to work on vessels, in part due to the duration of fishing
trips, and the impact of fishing trips on crew members' lives. The
increased revenue and flexibility associated with monitoring areas
would be limited by the restrictions and costs associated with the
monitoring areas such as effort caps or the cost of electronic
monitoring. Expanding the use of electronic monitoring to 100-percent
video review of all sets that occur within the monitoring area would
require owners or operators of fishing vessels to pay for the
additional review. Each set would cost approximately $280 for a full
video review, thus, a typical ten day trip consisting of six sets would
cost $1,680. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic
longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all vessels would choose
to fish in monitoring areas so economic impacts would not be equally
shared among all active vessels.
Under Alternative B4, data would be collected from within a spatial
management area, which would otherwise be closed, through the issuance
of an EFP. This EFP would be issued to fishing vessels participating in
specific research. The EFP would exempt participating vessels from
certain regulatory requirements for specific research during a limited
timeframe. Consideration of an application for gear-specific research
in closed areas would require incorporation of elements to ensure
research activities do not jeopardize conservation goals or result in
excessive gear conflicts with other user groups. Fishermen
participating in research under an EFP are likely to be compensated
through some combination of commercial target catch sales and research
funds. Since the fishermen are likely to operate in areas of unknown
target catch rates, researchers may partially or fully fund fishing
activities to ensure trips do not have negative profits. As such,
fishermen operating under the EFP are unlikely to experience adverse
economic impacts nor are they expected to realize larger profits than
regular commercial fishing. Thus, Alternative B4 would have neutral
social and economic impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.

Evaluation Timing of Spatial Management Areas

Under Alternative C1, the no action alternative, NMFS would not
commit to a schedule to evaluate the spatial management modifications
using data collected under the data programs (``B'' Alternatives)
analyzed by this DEIS. Evaluations of spatial management areas are
administrative in nature and would not have any short-term social and
economic impacts on fishermen or indirect impacts on supporting
businesses. In the long-term, evaluation of spatial management areas
could result in minor beneficial social and economic impacts due to the
achievement of a better balance between the ecological and
socioeconomic impacts of spatial management areas. This No Action
Alternative has no time period for reviews or factors to consider when
reviewing areas, and thus has less clarity process-wise than
Alternatives C2, C3 and C4. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Under Alternative C2 NMFS would evaluate the four spatial
management areas once three years of catch and effort data is finalized
and available. Subsequent reviews would occur after three full years of
data are available after the conclusion of the previous evaluation.
Evaluations of spatial management areas are administrative in nature
and would not have any short-term social or economic impacts on
fishermen or indirect impacts on supporting businesses. In the long-
term, evaluation of spatial management areas could result in minor
beneficial social and economic impacts due to the achievement of a
better balance among the ecological, social, and economic impacts of
spatial management areas. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Under Alternative C3 NMFS would evaluate the four spatial
management areas once five years of catch and effort data is finalized
and available. Subsequent reviews would occur after five full years of
data are available after the conclusion of the previous evaluation.
Evaluations of spatial management areas are administrative in nature
and would not have any short-term social or economic impacts on
fishermen or indirect impacts on supporting businesses. In the long-
term, evaluation of spatial management areas could result in minor
beneficial social and economic impacts due to the achievement of a
better balance among the ecological, social, and economic impacts of
spatial management areas. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Under Alternative C4, NMFS would monitor data collection activities
and begin an evaluation if conditions warrant it instead of, or in
addition to, scheduled regular evaluation. Evaluations of spatial
management areas are administrative in nature and would

[[Page 29067]]

not have any short-term social or economic impacts on fishermen or
indirect impacts on supporting businesses. In the long-term, evaluation
of spatial management areas could result in minor beneficial social
economic impacts due to the achievement of a better balance among the
ecological, social, and economic impacts of spatial management areas.
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels
in the fishery.
Under Alternative C5, NMFS would set a default end date for a
spatial management area and the area and associated restrictions would
be removed unless action is taken to maintain or modify the area.
Eliminating spatial management areas after a set number of years would
provide additional flexibility for fishermen to fish in areas that were
previously closed to fishing, and therefore increase the total amount
of area to pursue target species. Further, the newly open area may
include locations with potential advantages such as higher catch rates
or lower trips costs. Thus, Alternative C5 would likely result in minor
beneficial social and economic impacts. From 2018 through 2020, there
were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.

Preferred Alternative Packages

The D1 Mid-Atlantic Spatial Management Area Preferred Alternative
Package would include implementation of four alternatives and sub-
alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C'' alternatives.
Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from implementation
of the D1 Preferred Alternative Package would be the combination of the
impacts of the following alternatives and sub-alternatives described
above: Sub-Alternative A1d (spatial and temporal modification to the
area), Alternative B1 (no action data collection), Alternative C2
(three year evaluation), and Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation).
Impacts of each of the alternatives are not repeated here. In 2020,
there were 13 active vessels (vessels that had trips where 75 percent
of the landings by weight were sharks) targeting sharks in the
Atlantic.
The D2 Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area Preferred
Alternative Package would include implementation of four alternatives
and sub-alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C''
alternatives. Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from
implementation of the D2 Preferred Alternative Package would be the
combination of the impacts of the following alternatives and sub-
alternatives described above: Sub-Alternative A2c (spatial and temporal
modification to the area), Alternative B3 (monitoring area),
Alternative B4 (cooperative research EFP), Alternative C2 (three year
evaluation), and Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation). Impacts of each
of the alternatives are not repeated here. From 2018 through 2020,
there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though,
not all vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be
equally shared among all active vessels.
The D3 East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area Preferred
Alternative Package would include implementation of four alternatives
and sub-alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C''
alternatives. Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from
implementation of the D3 Preferred Alternative Package would be the
combination of the impacts of the following alternatives and sub-
alternatives described above: Sub-Alternative A3d (spatial modification
to the area), Alternative B3 (monitoring area), Alternative B4
(cooperative research EFP), Alternative C2 (three year evaluation), and
Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation). Impacts of each of the
alternatives are not repeated here. From 2018 through 2020, there were
82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all
vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally
shared among all active vessels.
The D4 Preferred DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area Preferred
Alternative Package would include implementation of four alternatives
and sub-alternatives analyzed among the ``A,'' ``B,'' and ``C''
alternatives. Thus, economic impacts to small entities resulting from
implementation of the D3 Preferred Alternative Package would be the
combination of the impacts of the following alternatives and sub-
alternatives described above: Sub-Alternative A4d (spatial modification
to the area), Alternative B1 (no action data collection), Alternative
B4 (cooperative research EFP), Alternative C2 (three year evaluation),
and Alternative C4 (triggered evaluation). Impacts of each of the
alternatives are not repeated here. From 2018 through 2020, there were
82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery, though, not all
vessels are active in the area so economic impacts would not be equally
shared among all active vessels.

Spatial Management Area Regulatory Provisions

Alternative E1, the no action alternative, would make no changes to
the current high-level aspects of design and evaluation regulations at
50 CFR 635.34(d). Consideration of high-level spatial management design
elements or factors are administrative in nature and would not have any
short-term or long-term social or economic impacts on fishermen. Thus,
all social and economic impacts would be neutral. From 2018 through
2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Alternative E2 would revise the HMS regulations at 50 CFR part 635
to add elements to address the high-level design of specific
objectives, timing of evaluation, data collection and access within
spatial management areas. Consideration of high-level spatial
management design elements or factors are administrative in nature and
would not have any short-term or long-term social or economic impacts
on fishermen. Thus, all social and economic impacts would be neutral.
From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels
in the fishery.

Electronic Monitoring

Under Alternative F1, NMFS would not transfer sampling costs to the
industry and would continue to fund the EM Program (both administrative
and sampling costs) and utilize contracts with one or more vendors to
conduct EM system installation, maintenance, and repair, as well as
data storage, video review, and analyses. Since this alternative would
not implement any changes, direct social and economic impacts on
pelagic longline fishermen are expected to be neutral. From 2018
through 2020, there were 82 active pelagic longline vessels in the
fishery.
Alternative F2 would transfer 100 percent of HMS pelagic longline
EM sampling costs to the industry, over a three-year period (phased-in)
and would include components designed to create a standardized EM
program that may be implemented by NOAA certified vendors. In
conjunction with the phase-in of sampling costs, this alternative would
include four distinct components: (1) vendor requirements; (2) vessel
requirements; (3) vessel monitoring plan requirements; and (4)
modification of current IBQ Program's EM spatial/temporal requirements.
The transfer of EM sampling costs from the Agency to industry would
likely lead to a substantial increase in economic costs

[[Page 29068]]

for vessel owners. The cost to industry is estimated to be
approximately $280 per set before mitigation measures (e.g., multiple
vendors, changes to EM spatiotemporal requirements) are factored in. On
a median length trip of 10 days with 6 sets, the cost would be $1,680/
trip or $168/sea-day. This cost estimate equates to approximately 19%
of net revenue on a median trip. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82
active pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.
Alternative F3 would remove all of the current EM program
requirements applicable to pelagic longline vessels. Bluefin tuna
interactions with pelagic longline gear would be monitored using a
combination of VMS data, logbook data, observer reports, and landings
data from dealers. Since the Agency funds nearly 100% of the EM
program, removing EM requirements would not have a large economic
impact on the fishery. However, the fishery would no longer incur costs
associated with activities such as shipping hard drives and
coordinating equipment repair and replacement. Thus, small economic
benefits would be likely. From 2018 through 2020, there were 82 active
pelagic longline vessels in the fishery.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d))
(PRA). The collection of information requirements in this proposed rule
relate to the collection under Control Number 0648-0372, ``Electronic
Monitoring Systems for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species.'' However,
due to the existence of concurrent actions for that collection, which
will come up for renewal before the final rule for this action is
anticipated to be published, the collection-of-information requirements
in this proposed rule will be assigned a temporary Control Number that
will later be merged into Control Number 0648-0372.
This rule proposes to establish two pelagic longline monitoring
areas, in which pelagic longline vessel owners and/or operators that
are approved to fish will be required to report interactions with
select bycatch species by set via their vessel monitoring system (VMS)
units. We estimate no more than 9 pelagic longline vessel operators
would be required to submit a total of 198 bycatch reports each year
with no additional recordkeeping and reporting costs, excluding labor
costs. These reports would take an estimated 15 minutes to complete for
50 hours of burden per year across the fleet.
Amendment 15 would also bring the HMS Electronic Monitoring (EM)
Program in line with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Procedure
04-1150-02 ``Cost Allocation in Electronic Monitoring Programs for
Federally Managed Fisheries'' which outlines guidance and directives
for EM cost allocation framework between fishery participants and the
Agency. Primarily, the cost allocation policy requires fishery
participants to take on responsibility for EM sampling costs, which
have previously been covered by the Agency, and Amendment 15 would
implement this requirement in the HMS EM Program. To facilitate this,
NMFS is proposing a process under which EM vendors could apply to be
approved by NMFS based on requirements set forth in the regulations.
This process is expected to mitigate economic impacts by encouraging
additional EM vendors to enter the market. Vessel owners would contract
with NMFS-approved EM vendors for services. The proposed rule would
result in new reporting requirements for EM vendors: vendors would be
required to assist vessel owners in the development of vessel
monitoring plans, and provide quarterly EM video review reports, non-
compliance reports, and debriefs to NMFS staff as needed.
As explained above in the ``HMS Pelagic Longline Electronic
Monitoring Cost Allocation'' section, while EM vendor provisions of
this proposed rule are new, many requirements of the current EM
regulations are not substantively changed by this proposed rule. We
estimate 91 pelagic longline vessel operators would be subject to
existing and new EM elements of the information collection with 547
total annual burden hours, and an estimated maximum total annual cost
to the public of $932,560 in recordkeeping and reporting costs.
Proposed measures to limit the months and regions in which EM reporting
is required may substantially reduce reporting costs for vessel owners
depending on how they redistribute their fishing effort. Under the
proposed measures, vessel owners would be responsible for the full cost
of EM video processing. Currently, pelagic longline vessel operators
are required to mail in their EM hard drives after every other trip,
which is currently estimated to be 6 times per year, and take 1 hour.
We estimate vessel owners would have $1,692 in recordkeeping and
reporting costs each time they submit video data, likely through
removable hard drives in the near term.
We also anticipate up to 4 EM vendors will apply to be approved as
EM service providers to the pelagic longline fleet, and that no more
than 3 vendors will receive approval. EM vendor estimated total annual
burden hours would be 718, with $27,481 estimated total annual
recordkeeping and reporting costs. These estimates include the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. The estimated time per response varies by
item within the suite of information collected, as follows: EM service
provider applications, 45 hours; copies of contracts and other
documents, 30 minutes; appeals, 4 hours; application revisions, 2
hours; EM certificate of installation, 30 minutes; vessel monitoring
plans, 4 hours; quarterly EM review reports, 40 hours; technical
assistance, 20 minutes; non-compliance reports, 20 minutes; data
storage, 15 minutes; and debriefs of EM staff, 2 hours.
Public comment is sought regarding: whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Submit comments on
these or any other aspects of the collection of information at
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics,
Treaties.

Dated: April 20, 2023.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

[[Page 29069]]

PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES

0
1. This authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec. 635.2 by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``Charleston Bump closed area'';
0
b. Adding the definition of ``Charleston Bump Monitoring Area'';
0
c. Removing the definition of ``DeSoto Canyon closed area'';
0
d. Adding the definition of ``DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted
Area'';
0
e. Removing the definition of ``East Florida Coast closed area'';
0
f. Adding the definition of ``East Florida Coast Monitoring Area'';
0
g. Removing the definitions of ``Edges 40 Fathom Contour closed area''
and ``Madison-Swanson closed area'';
0
h. Adding the definition of ``Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted
Area'';
0
i. Removing the definitions of ``Mid-Atlantic shark closed area'' and
``Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area'';
0
j. Adding the definition of ``South Atlantic Pelagic Longline
Restricted Area'';
0
k. Removing the definitions of ``Spring Gulf of Mexico Pelagic Longline
Monitoring Area'' and ``Steamboat Lumps closed area''; and
0
l. Adding the definition of ``Straight line''.
The additions read as follows:

Sec. 635.2 Definitions.

* * * * *
Charleston Bump Monitoring Area means the area within the Atlantic
Ocean bounded by straight lines from 34[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
76[deg]00'00'' W long.; proceeding due south to 31[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
76[deg]00'00'' W long.; then proceeding due west to 31[deg]00'00'' N
lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long.; then proceeding northeast to
34[deg]00'00'' N lat., 76[deg]00'00'' W long.
* * * * *
DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted Area means the area
within the Gulf of Mexico seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ
bounded by straight lines from a point intersecting the inner boundary
of the U.S. EEZ at 29[deg]30'27'' N lat., 85[deg]22'34'' W long. near
Cape San Blas, Florida; proceeding southeast to 27[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
83[deg]48'00'' W long.; then proceeding due west to 27[deg]00'00'' N
lat., 86[deg]30'00'' W long.; then proceeding northwest to
30[deg]02'53'' N lat., 88[deg]24'57'' W long.; then proceeding east to
a point intersecting the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at
30[deg]07'30'' N lat., 87[deg]31'07'' W long. near Orange Beach,
Florida.
* * * * *
East Florida Coast Monitoring Area means the area within the
Atlantic Ocean bounded by straight lines from 31[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
79[deg]32'46'' W long.; proceeding due east to 31[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
78[deg]00'00'' W long.; then proceeding southwest until the outer
boundary of the EEZ is reached at 28[deg]17'10'' N lat., 79[deg]11'24''
W long.; then following the outer boundary of the EEZ southwest to
27[deg]52'55'' N lat., 79[deg]28'35'' W long.; then proceeding due
north to 31[deg]00'00'' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long.
* * * * *
Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area means the area within
the Atlantic Ocean seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ
bounded by straight lines from a point intersecting the inner boundary
of the U.S. EEZ at 35[deg]41'00'' N lat., 75[deg]25'00'' W long. just
south of Oregon Inlet, North Carolina; proceeding due east to
35[deg]41'00'' N lat., 74[deg]48'50'' W long.; then proceeding
southeast to 35[deg]29'55'' N lat., 74[deg]46'04'' W long.; then
proceeding southwest, roughly following the 191 fathom (350 meter)
mark, to 33[deg]50'46'' N lat, 76[deg]16'15'' W long.; then proceeding
due west to intersect the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at
33[deg]50'46'' N lat., 77[deg]53'17'' W long near Cape Fear, North
Carolina.
* * * * *
South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area means the area
within the Atlantic Ocean seaward of the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ
bounded by straight lines from a point intersecting the inner boundary
of the U.S. EEZ at 34[deg]00'00'' N lat., 77[deg]50'26'' W long. near
Wilmington Beach, North Carolina; proceeding due east to 34[deg]00'00''
N lat., 76[deg]00'00'' W long.; then proceeding southwest to
31[deg]00'00'' N lat., 79[deg]32'46'' W long; then proceeding south
until reaching the outer boundary of the EEZ at 27[deg]52'55'' N lat.,
79[deg]28'35'' W long.; then proceeding along the outer boundary of the
EEZ to the intersection of the EEZ with 24[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
81[deg]11'15'' W long.; then proceeding due west to 24[deg]00'00'' N
lat., 81[deg]47'00'' W long.; and then proceeding due north to
intersect the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at 24[deg]29'28'' N lat.,
81[deg]47'00'' W long. near Key West, Florida. long.; and then
proceeding due north to intersect the inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at
81[deg]47'00'' W long. near Key West, FL.
* * * * *
Straight line means in this part:
(1) For regulated areas, a straight line means a geodesic line with
the shortest length connecting two or more points. Straight lines will
be displayed as a rhumb line on a map with a Mercator-based projection.
(2) For measuring fish, a straight-line measurement means a
measurement between two points of the fish that is not made along the
curve of the body.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 635.9 to read as follows:

Sec. 635.9 Electronic Monitoring.

(a) Applicability. A vessel permitted or required to be permitted
in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category under Sec. 635.4 and that has
pelagic longline gear on board is required to have an EM system
installed and fully operational before departing on a trip where a
vessel will fish with pelagic longline within the boundaries of the
relevant EM Data Review Areas and/or Monitoring Areas while they are
effective, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this
section. If during a trip pelagic longline sets are deployed both
inside and outside of an effective EM Data Review Area and/or
Monitoring Area, the EM requirements of this section are in effect for
the entire trip and all videos must be submitted to an EM vendor as
specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. This section sets
forth EM cost responsibilities; NMFS' application, approval and removal
process for EM vendors; requirements for NMFS-approved EM vendors
providing services pursuant to contracts to vessels owners;
requirements for vessel owners and/or operators; required EM system
components; and other related provisions. Unless otherwise specified,
owners and operators of vessels permitted or required to be permitted
in the Atlantic Tunas Longline category under 635.4 must comply with
this section and are jointly and severally responsible for their
vessel's compliance with this section.
(1) The North Atlantic EM Data Review Area. The North Atlantic EM
Data Review Area includes all waters north of 35[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
excluding the Mid-Atlantic Bight EM Data Review Area defined in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section. This area is effective from June
through December of each calendar year.
(2) The Mid-Atlantic Bight EM Data Review Area. The Mid-Atlantic
Bight EM Data Review Area is the area seaward of the coastline bounded
by straight lines from a point intersecting the coastline at
41[deg]30'00'' N lat. 71[deg]01'37'' W long.; proceeding due east to
41[deg]30'00'' N lat., 69[deg]30'00'' W long.; then proceeding due
south to 35[deg]00'00'' N lat., 69[deg]30'00'' W long.; then proceeding
due west to the point

[[Page 29070]]

intersecting the coastline at 35[deg]00'00'' N lat., 76[deg]07'34'' W
long. This area is effective from January through December of each
calendar year.
(3) The South Atlantic EM Data Review Area. The South Atlantic EM
Data Review Area includes all waters south of 35[deg]00'00'' N lat.,
north of 22[deg]00'00'' N lat., and east of 83[deg]00'00'' W long. This
area is effective from January through June of each calendar year.
(4) The Gulf of Mexico EM Data Review Area. The Gulf of Mexico EM
Data Review Area includes all waters of the U.S. EEZ west and north of
the boundary stipulated at Sec. 600.105(c) of this chapter. This area
is effective from January through June of each calendar year.
(5) The Monitoring Areas. The Monitoring Areas are defined in Sec.
635.2 and are effective during the months specified for each area as
provided in Sec. 635.35(c)(3) and (4). Vessels fishing with pelagic
longline within the boundaries of the Monitoring Areas during the
months specified for each area are required to comply with all EM
requirements and at all times during the trip.
(b) Cost responsibilities. NMFS is responsible for all
administrative costs set forth in paragraph (1) of this section. As of
January 1, 2028, the owner of a vessel fishing with pelagic longline
gear within the boundaries of the relevant EM Data Review Areas
described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section and/or a
Monitoring Area as described in paragraph (a)(5) of this section is
responsible for the EM sampling costs set forth in paragraph (2) of
this section. During the three-year period leading up to January 1,
2028, NMFS will transition the responsibility of the sampling costs to
the vessel owner as follows. In year one, the vessel owner is
responsible for 25 percent of the sampling costs and NMFS is
responsible for 75 percent of the sampling costs (and 100 percent of
the administrative costs). In year 2, the vessel owner is responsible
for 50 percent of the sampling costs and NMFS is responsible for 50
percent of the sampling costs (and 100 percent of the administrative
costs). In year 3, the vessel owner is responsible for 75 percent of
the sampling costs and NMFS is responsible for 25 percent of the
sampling costs (and 100 percent of the administrative costs).
(1) Administrative costs. Administrative costs may include, but are
not limited to, program administration support; certification of EM
service providers; EM program sample design and performance monitoring;
compliance monitoring; data analysis for management and enforcement
purposes; and storage of Federal records.
(2) Sampling costs. Sampling costs may include, but are not limited
to, equipment purchases, leases, and installation; equipment
maintenance and upkeep; training for captain and crew; development and
implementation of vessel monitoring plans (VMPs) (see paragraph (d)(2)
of this section); data transmittal; video processing, review, and
storage; and payment to a NMFS-certified vendor as appropriate for
services rendered.
(c) EM vendor approval and evaluation. An entity seeking to provide
EM services described in paragraph (d) of this section must submit a
complete application to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS. Once
received, NMFS will review the application for completeness and
possible approval.
(1) Contents of application. Application forms and instructions for
their completion are available from NMFS. An application is complete
when all requested forms, information, and documentation have been
received, including the information described in this paragraph. NMFS
will notify the applicant of any deficiency in the application,
including failure to provide information required to be submitted under
this part. If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency within 30
days following the date of notification, the application will be
considered abandoned. An application to become an approved EM vendor
shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) Identification of the management, organizational structure, and
ownership structure of the applicant's business, including
identification by name and general function of all controlling
management interests in the company, including but not limited to
owners, board members, officers, authorized agents, and staff. If the
applicant is a corporation, the articles of incorporation must be
provided. If the applicant is a partnership, the partnership agreement
must be provided.
(ii) A list of all physical and electronic mailing addresses and
any relevant phone or fax numbers where the owner(s) can be contacted
for official correspondence, and the current physical location for each
office.
(iii) A description of the applicant's ability to carry out the
responsibilities and duties of EM vendors under paragraph (d) of this
section.
(iii) A statement signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized
agent of the applicant EM vendor that each owner, board member,
officer, and employee of the EM vendor has no conflict of interest as
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(iv) Procedures for hiring and training of competent program staff
to carry out EM field services and data services, including procedures
to maintain the skills of EM data processing staff in:
(A) Use of data processing software;
(B) Species identification;
(C) Metadata reporting requirements;
(D) Data processing procedures;
(E) Data tracking; and,
(F) Reporting and data upload procedures.
(2) Application evaluation. NMFS shall review and evaluate each
complete application submitted under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
A decision to approve or deny an application shall be made by NMFS
within 90 business days of receipt of the complete application by NMFS.
(i) Issuance of approval as an EM vendor shall be based on a
determination by NMFS of the applicant's ability to perform the
responsibilities and duties under paragraph (d) of this section, as
demonstrated in the application information, and the absence of
conflict of interest with the fishing industry (see paragraph (c)(3) of
this section).
(ii) If NMFS approves the application, the EM vendor's name will be
added to the list of approved EM vendors found on the NMFS website and
in any outreach information to the industry. An approved vendor shall
be notified in writing and provided with any information pertinent to
its participation in the EM program.
(iii) If NMFS determines that the applicant is unable to perform
the responsibilities and duties under paragraph (d) of this section or
has conflicts of interest pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section,
NMFS shall deny the application. NMFS shall notify the applicant in
writing of the reason for the denial. Within 30 days of the applicant's
receipt of the denial notification, an applicant may request
reconsideration by submitting additional information to rectify any
deficiencies specified in the written denial. If the applicant does not
submit additional information within that 30-day period, they would
need to resubmit a new application containing all of the information
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section in order to be
reconsidered for being added to the list of approved EM vendors.
(3) Limitations on conflict of interest for EM vendors. Other than
providing EM services to vessel owners in the fishery, an approved EM
vendor and its employees must not:

[[Page 29071]]

(i) Have a direct or indirect interest in a fishery managed under
Federal regulations, including, but not limited to, a fishing vessel,
fish dealer, and/or fishery advocacy group;
(ii) Solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift,
favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone
who conducts fishing or fishing related activities that are regulated
by NMFS, or who has interests that may be substantially affected by the
performance or non-performance of the responsibilities and duties of an
EM vendor.
(4) Removal from the list of approved vendors. An EM vendor that
fails to meet the responsibilities and duties under paragraph (d) of
this section or that is shown to have a conflict of interest as
described in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, shall be notified by
NMFS, in writing, that it is subject to removal from the list of
approved EM vendors. Such notification shall specify the reasons for
the pending removal. Within 30 days of receiving such notification, an
EM vendor may submit written evidence to rebut the reasons for removal
from the list. Within 30 days of receiving any rebuttal, NMFS shall
notify the EM vendor of its decision. If no rebuttal is received by
NMFS within the first 30-day period, the EM vendor shall be
automatically removed from the list of approved EM vendors. The
decision to remove an EM vendor from the list, either after reviewing a
rebuttal or if no rebuttal is submitted, shall be the final decision of
NMFS and the Department of Commerce. Removal from the list of approved
EM vendors does not necessarily prevent an EM vendor from obtaining an
approval in the future if a new application is submitted that
demonstrates that the reasons for removal are remedied.
(d) Responsibilities and duties of EM vendors. To maintain an
approved EM vendor status, an EM vendor must demonstrate an ability to
provide or support pelagic longline vessel owners and/or operators with
the following services:
(1) Vessel Monitoring Plan (VMP). An approved EM vendor must, in
consultation with the vessel owner with whom the vendor has a contract,
develop required operational plans, also known as VMPs, for EM systems
that meet the components and capabilities requirements under paragraph
(f) of this section. The VMP is not valid until the EM vendor and the
vessel owner have signed and dated the VMP indicating their agreement
and NMFS or a NMFS-designated entity has approved the VMP as meeting
the management requirements of the EM program by signing and dating the
VMP. At a minimum, the VMP must include: information on the locations
of EM system components (including any customized camera mounting
structure); contact information for technical support; instructions on
how to conduct a pre-trip system test; instructions on how to verify
proper system functions; location(s) on deck where fish retrieval
should occur to remain in view of the cameras; specifications and other
relevant information regarding the dimensions and grid line intervals
for the standardized reference grid; procedures for how to manage EM
system data transmission; catch handling procedures; procedures for
periodic checks of the monitor during the retrieval of gear to verify
proper functioning; and reporting procedures; and a date(s) specified
upon which the requirements, specifications and protocols outlined in
the VMP will be fully implemented and functional. The VMP may be
updated, supplemented, or revised periodically if such a change
determined necessary by either NMFS, the EM vendor, or the vessel
owner. The VMP must be updated if changes to the regulations in this
part necessitate changes. Any change, update, supplement, or revision
to the VMP must be agreed to by the EM vendor and the vessel owner, and
approved by NMFS or a NMFS-designated entity. The VMP should minimize
to the extent practicable any impact of the EM systems on the current
operating procedures of the vessel, and should help ensure the safety
of the crew. The VMP is only valid when there is an existing, signed
contract between an approved EM vendor and the vessel owner.
(2) EM installation and maintenance. An approved EM vendor is
responsible for ensuring the appropriate EM system, as specified in the
VMP, is installed and tested. The EM vendor is also responsible for
providing training to vessel owners and operators on how to use the EM
system. After confirming that the EM system is properly installed and
tested and that the appropriate persons have been trained, the EM
vendor will provide a Certificate of Installation to the vessel owner.
If the EM system stops working properly, the EM vendor will assist in
repairing or replacing the equipment and returning the system to
working order. If the EM vendor is notified by the vessel owner or
operator that the EM system has stopped functioning properly while the
vessel is at sea, the EM vendor will notify NMFS and provide
instructions to the vessel owner and/or operator consistent with NMFS'
guidance.
(3) Data integrity and storage requirements. An approved EM vendor
must receive, access, and store video data consistent with the VMP, and
the regulations in this section. Video and metadata must be stored for
a minimum of two years after the date received.
(4) Video review requirements. An approved EM vendor must:
(i) Ensure that all video review staff has been trained in species
identification consistent with requirements at paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of
this section;
(ii) At NMFS' request, conduct additional video review to verify
catch reports, and provide information for regulatory, enforcement, or
for other management purposes; and,
(iii) On a calendar year quarterly basis, review 10 percent of the
sets submitted (randomly selected); at least one set from each pelagic
longline vessel that fished in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic Bight,
South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico EM Data Review Areas, as defined in
paragraph (a)(1) through (4) of this section; and 100 percent of the
sets submitted from the vessels that fished in the Monitoring Areas, as
defined in paragraph (a)(5) of this section. NMFS may evaluate and
modify video review rates on a regular basis.
(5) Reporting requirements. Each calendar year, an approved EM
vendor must submit quarterly reports to NMFS for vessels for which the
EM vendor has existing, signed contracts. Quarter 1 (January through
March) report is due on or before June 30. Quarter 2 (April through
June) report is due on or before September 30. Quarter 3 report (July
through September) is due on or before December 31. Quarter 4 report
(October through December) is due on or before March 31. The reports
must include a list of vessels that submitted trips or sets for review;
a list of vessels that did not submit any trips or sets for review; the
location, date, and time of all sets submitted for review;
identification of the sets reviewed (vessel name, location, date, and
time of sets) for the quarterly report; species caught and amounts
(retained and discarded) from the sets reviewed and disposition (dead
or alive) of catch that is discarded; information on any technical
difficulties (including poor video, no video, unreviewable video,
misaligned camera angles, and any other issues that prevent effective
video review of catch); information on how technical difficulties were
addressed on the vessel and during the video review process; and/or any
questions video reviewers may have about whether the vessel's fishing

[[Page 29072]]

practices are compliant with applicable regulations. The metadata from
all submitted trips and sets must accompany these quarterly reports. As
appropriate, NMFS may respond to the questions about fishing practices
or possible regulatory violations in order to assist video reviewers
and EM vendors in understanding the regulations and the EM program.
(e) Vessel owner and operator requirements. The owner of a vessel
with pelagic longline gear on board and fishing with pelagic longline
gear in an effective EM Data Review Area and/or Monitoring Area, as
described in paragraph (a) of this section, must obtain EM services as
described in paragraph (d) of this section from a NMFS-approved EM
vendor (see paragraph (c)). For such a trip, the vessel owner and/or
operator must:
(1) Declare intent to fish with pelagic longline in an EM Data
Review Area or Monitoring Area through hail-out via VMS unit prior to
departing on the trip as described in 635.69;
(2) Have EM system components on board as required under paragraph
(f) of this section;
(3) Activate the EM system prior to departing on the trip;
(4) Collect video data during hauling activities and sensor data
during the duration of the trip via an installed and working EM system;
(5) Have on board and available for inspection an approved VMP
pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
(6) Ensure that all of the requirements, specifications and
protocols outlined in the VMP have been implemented by the date
specified in the VMP;
(7) Have on board and available for inspection a Certificate of
Installation in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this section;
(8) Prior to departing on the trip, ensure the installed EM system
has the capacity needed to enable data collection and video recording
for the entire trip;
(9) Prior to departing on the trip, test the functionality of the
system and contact an approved EM vendor if the system is not
functioning properly. If the system is not functioning properly, the
vessel is prohibited from deploying pelagic longline sets in any
effective EM Data Review Area and/or Monitoring Area as defined in
paragraph (a) of this section. The vessel owner and operator must work
with the EM vendor pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section to
correct this issue;
(10) During the trip, ensure the proper continuous functioning of
all aspects of the EM system as required under paragraph (f) of this
section, including that: the EM system must remain powered on for the
duration of each fishing trip consistent with paragraph (a) of this
section; cameras must be functioning and cleaned routinely; the
hydraulic and gear sensors must be operational; the global positioning
system (GPS) signal must be functioning; and the EM system components
must not be tampered with;
(11) If the EM system stops functioning properly at sea, contact
the EM vendor and follow the instructions given. Such instructions may
include but are not limited to returning to port until the EM system is
repaired. Once in port, an EM system must be functioning properly
(e.g., repaired, reinstalled, or replaced) before the vessel may fish
with pelagic longline within an effective EM Data Review area;
(12) Ensure that all fish that are caught, even those that are
released, are handled in a manner that enables the video system to
record such fish, and ensure that interactions occur in accordance with
relevant regulations and the operational procedures outlined in the
VMP;
(13) Ensure that each retained fish is placed on the standardized
reference grid (see paragraph (f)(7) of this section) in view of
cameras in accordance with the operational procedures outlined in the
VMP;
(14) At the completion of a trip, submit all electronic data,
including video, sensor, and metadata, to a prearranged, approved EM
vendor, consistent with the agreed upon requirements in the VMP; and,
(15) Monitor and maintain the EM system in working condition and
ensure the proper continuous functioning of the EM system as required
under paragraph (f) of this section. The vessel owner and operator must
work with the EM vendor to ensure the EM system is maintained and
working properly (see paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
(f) EM System Components. The EM system installed must be comprised
of video camera(s), recording equipment, and other related equipment,
and must have the following components and capabilities:
(1) Video camera(s).
(i) Video cameras must be mounted and placed to provide clear,
unobstructed views of the area(s) where the pelagic longline gear is
retrieved and of catch being removed from hooks prior to being placed
in the hold or discarded. There must be lighting sufficient to clearly
illuminate individual fish.
(ii) Video camera(s) must be in sufficient numbers (a minimum of
two), with sufficient resolution (no less than 720p (1280 x 720)) for
the NMFS-approved vendor, NMFS, the USCG, and their authorized officers
and designees to determine the number and species of fish harvested. To
obtain the views required in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, at
least one camera must be mounted to record close-up images of fish
being retained on the deck at the haulback station, and at least one
camera must be mounted to provide views of the area from the rail to
the water surface, where the gear and fish are hauled out of the water.
The NMFS-approved vendor will determine the number and placement of
cameras needed to achieve the required views, based on the operation
and physical layout of the vessel.
(iii) The EM system must be capable of initiating video recording
at the time gear retrieval starts. It must record all periods of time
from when the gear is being retrieved and catch is removed from the
hooks until it is placed in the hold or discarded.
(2) GPS receiver. A GPS receiver is required to produce output,
which includes location coordinates, velocity, and heading data, and is
directly logged continuously by the control box. The GPS receiver must
be installed and remain in a location where it receives a strong signal
continuously.
(3) Hydraulic and drum rotation sensors. Hydraulic sensors are
required to continuously monitor the hydraulic pressure and a drum
rotation sensor must continuously monitor drum rotations.
(4) EM control box. The system must include a control box that
receives and stores the raw data provided by the sensors and cameras
and must be adequate for the entire length of the trip.
(5) EM systems monitor. A wheelhouse monitor must provide a
graphical user interface for the harvester to monitor the state and
performance of the control box and provide information on the current
date and time synchronized via GPS, GPS coordinates, current hydraulic
pressure reading, presence of a data disk, percentage used of the data
disk, and video recording status.
(6) EM software. The EM system must have software that enables the
system to be tested for functionality and that records the outcome of
the tests.
(7) Standardized reference grid. The vessel must have a
standardized grid on deck in view of the haulback station camera(s) in
such a way that the video recording includes an image of each fish on
the grid in order to provide a size reference. The standardized grid
may be on a removable mat or carpet that is placed on the deck before
the fish are brought on board, or may be painted

[[Page 29073]]

directly on the deck. The standardized reference grid must have
accurate dimensions and grid line intervals as instructed and specified
in the vessel's VMP by the NMFS-approved EM vendor. The vessel owner
and operator are responsible for ensuring compliance with the provided
instructions and specifications and for ensuring accurate, straight,
clear and complete grid lines with no missing, incomplete, blurry or
smudged lines.
(g) Data maintenance, storage, and viewing. The EM system must have
the capacity to allow the vessel owner and operator, the approved EM
vendor, NMFS and their authorized officers and designees, and
consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(1) (confidentiality of information),
the USCG and their authorized officers and designees and state law
enforcement officers, to observe the live video on the EM systems
monitor (see paragraph (f)(5) of this section). The vessel owner and
operator must provide access to the system, including the data, upon
request. The EM vendor must provide access to stored data upon request
by NMFS, its agents, or authorized officers.
(h) Handling NMFS-owned EM systems and components. Vessel owner and
operators may continue to use NMFS equipment currently installed as
long as it functions properly as required under these regulations. Any
replacement or repair of equipment or system components is the
financial responsibility of the vessel owner pursuant to the contract
with an EM vendor. Equipment or components that are no longer
operational or useful must be surrendered or disposed of consistent
with Federal property laws and requirements.
0
4. Amend Sec. 635.21 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (a)(3);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(4) as (a)(3);
0
c. Removing paragraph (b)(2);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) and (3);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2);
0
f. Removing paragraph (c)(3);
0
g. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(4) through (6) as paragraphs (c)(3)
through (5);
0
h. Removing paragraph (d)(1);
0
i. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(2) through (5) as (d)(1) through (4);
and
0
j. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 635.21 Gear operation and deployment restrictions.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Has bottom longline gear on board and is in a Restricted Area
or gear restricted area designated under Sec. 635.35(c)(1) and (2) or
is in a monitoring area designated under Sec. 635.35(c)(3) and (4)
that has been closed, the vessel may not, at any time, possess or land
any pelagic species listed in Table 2 of Appendix A to this part in
excess of 5 percent, by weight, of the total weight of pelagic and
demersal species possessed or landed, that are listed in Tables 2 and 3
of Appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
(2) If pelagic longline gear is on board a vessel issued or
required to be issued a LAP under this part, persons aboard that vessel
may not fish or deploy any type of fishing gear in the NED at any time
unless, the vessel complies with paragraphs (i) through (iii) and also
paragraph (5) of this section:
(i) The vessel is limited to possessing on board and/or using only
18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees.
The outer diameter of the circle hook at its widest point must be no
smaller than 2.16 inches (55 mm) when measured with the eye on the hook
on the vertical axis (y-axis) and perpendicular to the horizontal axis
(x-axis), and the distance between the circle hook point and the shank
(i.e., the gap) must be no larger than 1.13 inches (28.8 mm). The
allowable offset is measured from the barbed end of the hook and is
relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook
when laid on its side. The only allowable offset circle hooks are those
that are offset by the hook manufacturer. If green-stick gear, as
defined at Sec. 635.2, is on board, a vessel may possess up to 20 J-
hooks. J-hooks may be used only with green-stick gear, and no more than
10 hooks may be used at one time with each green-stick gear. J-hooks
used with green-stick gear may be no smaller than 1.5 inch (38.1 mm)
when measured in a straight line over the longest distance from the eye
to any other part of the hook; and,
(ii) The vessel is limited, at all times, to possessing on board
and/or using only whole Atlantic mackerel and/or squid bait, except
that artificial bait may be possessed and used only with green-stick
gear, as defined at Sec. 635.2, if green-stick gear is on board; and,
(iii) Vessels must possess, inside the wheelhouse, a document
provided by NMFS entitled, ``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle
Release with Minimal Injury,'' and must post, inside the wheelhouse,
sea turtle handling and release guidelines provided by NMFS.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) If a vessel issued or required to be issued a permit under this
part is in a Restricted Area or closed area designated under Sec.
635.35(d)(1) and has pelagic longline gear on board, the vessel may
not, at any time, possess or land any demersal species listed in Table
3 of Appendix A to this part in excess of 5 percent, by weight, of the
total weight of pelagic and demersal species possessed or landed, that
are listed in Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this part.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 635.24, revise the introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 635.24 Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and
BAYS tunas.

The retention limits in this section are subject to the quotas and
closure provisions in Sec. Sec. 635.27 and 635.28, and the gear
operation and deployment restrictions in Sec. Sec. 635.21 and 635.35.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 635.32, revise paragraph (c)(1) and adding paragraphs
(c)(2) and (h)(6) to read as follows:

Sec. 635.32 Specifically authorized activities.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) For activities consistent with the purposes of this section and
Sec. 600.745(b)(1) of this chapter, other than scientific research
conducted from a scientific research vessel, NMFS may issue EFPs.
(2) NMFS may issue EFPs to conduct research and collect information
specifically regarding the spatial management areas described in Sec.
635.35. In addition to all of the information required under Sec.
600.745(b)(2) of this chapter, an application for an EFP to conduct
research and collect information regarding the spatial management areas
should include the objective of the research; a description of the how
the researchers intend to verify that the catch and all of the terms
and conditions of the EFP are being met (e.g., via a working EM system,
authorized researchers, NMFS-approved observers); and a description of
how the research is being conducted. As with other EFPs, any EFP
provides authorization only for the time and area, retention limits,
and gear specified in the permit, and based upon the terms and
conditions set forth in the permit and as acknowledged and agreed to by
the permit holder under Sec. 600.745(b)(4) of this chapter. The terms
and

[[Page 29074]]

conditions for a spatial management area EFP may require reporting more
frequently than is described in paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(6) EFPs, scientific research permits, display permits, chartering
permits, and shark research permits may be revoked, suspended, or
modified at any time, do not confer any right to engage in activities
beyond those authorized by the permit, and do not confer any right of
compensation to the holder.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 635.34, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (d) to read as
follows:

Sec. 635.34 Adjustment of management measures.

(a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for
bluefin tuna, as specified in Sec. 635.15; catch limits for bluefin
tuna, as specified in Sec. 635.23; the overall, regional, and/or sub-
regional quotas for bluefin tuna, sharks, swordfish, and northern
albacore tuna as specified in Sec. 635.27; the retention limits for
sharks, as specified at Sec. 635.24; the regional retention limits for
Swordfish General Commercial permit holders, as specified at Sec.
635.24; the marlin landing limit, as specified in Sec. 635.27(d); the
minimum sizes for Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and roundscale
spearfish as specified in Sec. 635.20, the EM Data Review Area
definitions as specified in Sec. 635.9(a); and the annual effort cap
thresholds in the monitoring areas as specified in Sec. 635.35(c)(3)
and (4).
(b) In accordance with the framework procedures in the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or modify for species or
species groups of Atlantic HMS the following management measures:
Maximum sustainable yield or optimum yield based on the latest stock
assessment or updates in the SAFE report; domestic quotas; recreational
and commercial retention limits, including target catch requirements;
size limits; fishing years or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions,
or regional and/or sub-regional quotas; species in the management unit
and the specification of the species groups to which they belong;
species in the prohibited shark species group; classification system
within shark species groups; permitting and reporting requirements;
workshop requirements; the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for
bluefin tuna; administration of the IBQ program (including but not
limited to requirements pertaining to leasing of IBQ allocations,
regional or minimum IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps (individual
or by category), permanent sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); de
minimis bluefin tuna quota set-aside for new entrants and associated
requirements, process and conditions; spatial management restrictions;
allocations among user groups; gear prohibitions, modifications, or use
restriction; effort restrictions; observer coverage requirements; EM
requirements and administration of the EM program; essential fish
habitat; and actions to implement ICCAT recommendations, as
appropriate.
* * * * *
(d) Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and other
applicable law, when considering a framework adjustment to add, change,
or modify the spatial management restrictions, NMFS will consider, but
is not limited to, the following: any Endangered Species Act related
issues, concerns, or requirements, including applicable BiOps; bycatch
rates of protected species, prohibited HMS, or non-target species both
within the specified or potential closure area(s) and throughout the
fishery; bycatch rates and post-release mortality rates of bycatch
species associated with different gear types; new or updated landings,
bycatch, and fishing effort data; evidence or research indicating that
changes to fishing gear and/or fishing practices can significantly
reduce bycatch; social and economic impacts; and the practicability of
implementing new or modified closures compared to other bycatch
reduction options. If the species is an ICCAT managed species, NMFS
will also consider the overall effect of the U.S.' catch on that
species. Additionally, NMFS may also consider the factors listed at
Sec. 635.35(e).
0
8. Add Sec. 635.35 to Subpart C to read as follows:

Sec. 635.35 Spatial management area restrictions.

(a) General Restrictions. If a vessel issued or required to be
issued a LAP under this part has pelagic or bottom longline gear on
board and is in a closed area (see paragraph (d) of this section), gear
restricted area (see paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section), or a
monitoring area (see paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section) that has
been closed, it is a rebuttable presumption that any fish on board such
a vessel were taken with pelagic or bottom longline gear in the area
except where such possession is aboard a vessel transiting such an area
with all fishing gear stowed appropriately. Longline gear is stowed
appropriately if all gangions and hooks are disconnected from the
mainline and are stowed on or below deck, hooks are not baited, and all
buoys and weights are disconnected from the mainline and drum (buoys
may remain on deck). Coordinates for gear restricted areas and
monitoring areas are set forth in the definitions under Sec. 635.2.
(b) Bottom Longline restrictions. If bottom longline gear is on
board a vessel issued or required to be issued a permit under this
part, persons aboard that vessel may not fish or deploy any type of
fishing gear in the Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area from
November 1 through May 31 each calendar year, unless persons on board
the vessel are authorized to conduct research under a shark research
fishery permit as specified at Sec. 635.32.
(c) Pelagic longline restrictions. If pelagic longline gear is on
board a vessel issued or required to be issued a permit under this
part:
(1) In the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area and the
DeSoto Canyon Restricted Area, persons aboard that vessel may not fish
or deploy any type of fishing gear at any time, unless persons aboard
the vessel are authorized to conduct research under an EFP as specified
at Sec. 635.32.
(2) In the NED, persons aboard that vessel may not fish or deploy
any type of fishing gear at any time unless they comply with the
requirements under Sec. 635.21(c)(2) and (5).
(3) In the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area from February 1 through
April 30, persons aboard that vessel may deploy fishing gear until the
annual effort cap of 69 pelagic longline sets has been reached or is
projected to be reached. When the effort cap is reached, or is
projected to be reached, NMFS will file for publication with the Office
of the Federal Register a closure for the Monitoring Area, which will
be effective no fewer than five days from date of filing. From the
effective date and time of the closure until May 1, vessels issued or
required to be issued a LAP under this part and that have pelagic
longline gear on board are prohibited from deploying pelagic longline
gear within the boundaries of the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area.
Vessels fishing within the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area from
February 1 through April 30 are required to comply with all EM
requirements in Sec. 635.9 and VMS requirements in Sec. 635.69. From
May 1 through January 31, vessels issued or required to be issued a LAP
under this part and that have pelagic longline gear on board are
authorized to deploy pelagic longline gear within the boundaries of the
Charleston Bump Monitoring Area. NMFS may file for publication with the
Office of the Federal Register a closure of the

[[Page 29075]]

monitoring area before the effort cap is reached and/or an action to
not reopen the monitoring area on February 1, if warranted by
conservation and management concerns raised by unexpectedly high
bycatch, high fishing effort, fishing effort that is overly clustered
temporally or spatially, or other relevant considerations.
(4) In the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area, year-round, persons
aboard that vessel may deploy fishing gear until the annual effort cap
of 124 pelagic longline sets has been reached or is projected to be
reached. When the effort cap is reached, or is projected to be reached,
NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register
a closure for the Monitoring Area, which will be effective no fewer
than five days from date of filing. From the effective date and time of
the closure forward, vessels issued or required to be issued a LAP
under this part and that have pelagic longline gear on board are
prohibited from deploying pelagic longline gear within the boundaries
of the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area until January 1 of the
following year. Vessels fishing within the East Florida Coast
Monitoring Area at any time are required to comply with all EM
requirements in Sec. 635.9 and VMS requirements in Sec. 635.69. NMFS
may file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a
closure of the monitoring area before the effort cap is reached and/or
an action to not reopen the monitoring area on January 1, if warranted
by conservation and management concerns raised by unexpectedly high
bycatch, high fishing effort, fishing effort that is overly clustered
temporally or spatially, or other relevant considerations.
(d) Other area restrictions applicable to HMS permitted vessels.
(1) In addition to the area restrictions listed above, vessels that
have been issued or are required to be issued a permit under this part,
may not fish for, catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic HMS in the
following spatial management times and areas:
(i) As specified at Sec. 622.34(a)(1)(iii) and (3) of this
chapter, within the Edges from January through April of each year.
(ii) As specified at Sec. 622.34(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
chapter, within the Madison and Swanson and the Steamboat Lumps sites:
(A) From November through April of each year, no vessel issued or
required to be issued a permit under this part may fish or deploy any
type of fishing gear.
(B) From May through October of each year, no vessel issued or
required to be issued a permit under this part may fish or deploy any
type of fishing gear except for surface trolling. For the purposes of
this section, surface trolling is defined as fishing with lines
trailing behind a vessel that is in constant motion at speeds in excess
of four knots with a visible wake. Such trolling may not involve the
use of down riggers, wire lines, planers, or similar devices.
(iii) Within the areas of the Gulf coral Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPCs), as specified in Sec. 622.74 of this
chapter, no person may bottom anchor a fishing vessel or deploy
unauthorized fishing gear. For purposes of this provision, fishing gear
is deployed if any part of the gear is in contact with the water.
(2) If bottom longline gear is on board a vessel issued or required
to be issued a permit under this part, persons aboard that vessel may
not fish or deploy any type of fishing gear in the following areas:
(i) In the Caribbean, the areas designated at Sec. Sec.
622.439(a)(1) through (2), 622.479(a)(1) through (2), and 622.514(a)(1)
of this chapter, year-round; and
(ii) In the South Atlantic, the areas designated at Sec.
622.183(a)(1)(i)(A) through (H) of this chapter, year-round.
(e) Review of spatial management measures. NMFS will regularly
review HMS spatial management areas (not NMFS regional areas under
paragraph (d) of this section) to determine if adjustments are needed
to add, change, or modify an area or any applicable requirements for an
area. After reviewing an area, NMFS may consider changes or
modifications to the area or its management measures, as appropriate,
through framework adjustments as specified at Sec. 635.34. When
reviewing a spatial management area, NMFS may consider, but is not
limited to consideration of, the following relevant factors:
(i) Fishery metrics such as landings, discards, catch rates, and
effort.
(ii) The usefulness of information from catches for biological
sampling and monitoring status of target and non-target species.
(iii) Fishery social and economic data regarding fishing vessels
and shoreside business, including revenue, costs, and profitability.
(iv) Effects of catch rates on target and non-target species in
other regions or on fishing opportunities in other regions or
fisheries.
(vii) Fishing practices, including tactics, strategy, and gear.
(viii) Biological, ecological, and life history data and research
on primary bycatch and target species.
(ix) Variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migration
patterns of the relevant species.
(x) Resilience to climate change impacts, including changes in
species distribution, fishing effort location, and vulnerable fishing
communities.
(xi) Oceanographic data and research including sea surface
temperature, chlorophyll a concentrations and bathymetry.
(xii) Variations in oceanographic features such as currents,
fronts, and sea surface temperature.
(xiii) Other design and technical considerations such as ecosystem
modeling parameters (e.g., ocean currents, bottom topography), safety,
enforceability (e.g., regular shapes), gear conflicts, timing of
evaluation, access to the area for data collection, conservation and
management objectives, environmental justice, state or other
jurisdictional boundaries, efficiency in the size of area (given the
highly variable and mobile nature of the HMS fisheries), and non-
fishery activity (e.g., transportation, energy production).
(xiv) Other considerations as may be applicable to the specific
management goals of any particular spatial management area.
0
9. Amend Sec. 635.69 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (e)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (e)(5) as paragraph (e)(6); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (e)(5).
The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec. 635.69 Vessel monitoring systems.

(a) * * *
(2) Whenever a vessel issued a directed shark LAP has bottom
longline gear on board, is located between 33[deg]00' N lat. and
36[deg]30' N lat., and the Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Restricted Area
is closed as specified in Sec. 635.35(b); or
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Hailing out. Prior to departure for each trip, a vessel owner
and/or operator must submit a pre-trip hail out to NMFS declaring any
highly migratory species the vessel will target on that trip and the
specific type(s) of fishing gear that will be on board the vessel,
using NMFS-defined gear codes. If the vessel owner and/or operator
participates in multiple HMS fisheries, or possesses multiple fishing
gears on board the vessel, the vessel owner and/or operator must submit
multiple electronic reports to NMFS. If, during the trip, the vessel
switches to a gear type or species group not reported on the initial
declaration, another in-trip hail out declaration must

[[Page 29076]]

be submitted before fishing begins. This information must be reported
to NMFS using an attached VMS terminal or using another method as
instructed by NMFS. Additional hailing out declarations for EM Data
Review Areas and Monitoring Areas are as follows:
(i) If a vessel owner or operator intends to deploy pelagic
longline sets in the Charleston Bump or East Florida Coast Monitoring
Areas (Sec. Sec. 635.35(c)(3), (4) and 635.2), such intent must be
declared in the pre-trip or in-trip hail-out. Vessel owners and
operators shall not deploy pelagic longline sets in these Monitoring
Areas until such declaration is submitted in the pre-trip or in-trip
hail-out.
(ii) If a vessel owner or operator intends to deploy pelagic
longline sets in an EM Data Review Area (Sec. 635.9(a)(1) through
(4)), such intent must be declared in the pre-trip or in-trip hail-out.
Vessel owners and operators shall not deploy pelagic longline sets in
an EM Data Review Area until such declaration is submitted in the pre-
trip or in-trip hail-out.
* * * * *
(5) The vessel owner and/or operator of a vessel fishing with
pelagic longline gear within the boundaries of the Monitoring Areas
(Sec. Sec. 635.35(c)(3) and (4) and 635.2) must report to NMFS using
the attached VMS terminal, or using an alternative method specified by
NMFS as follows: For each set, as instructed by NMFS, the date and area
of the set, the number of hooks and the actual length of the following
species that are retained and approximate length of these species that
are discarded dead or alive must be reported within 12 hours of the
completion of each pelagic longline haul-back: bluefin tuna, blue
marlin, white marlin, roundscale spearfish, sailfish, leatherback sea
turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, and shortfin mako sharks.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 635.71 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(30), (31), (39), (57), and (58);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(63) through (67);
0
c. Removing paragraph (b)(46); and
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(47) through (59) as (b)(46) through
(58).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 635.71 Prohibitions.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(30) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel, or anchor
a fishing vessel, permitted or required to be permitted under this
part, in any spatial management area contrary to the requirements
specified and defined at Sec. 635.35.
(31) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a
pelagic longline on board in any spatial management areas during the
time periods specified at Sec. 635.35(c).
* * * * *
(39) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a
bottom longline on board, in any spatial management area during the
time periods specified at Sec. 635.35(d).
* * * * *
(57) Fail to appropriately stow longline gear when transiting a
spatial management area that has been closed, as specified in Sec.
635.35(a).
(58) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with a
pelagic longline gear on board in a Monitoring Area that has been
closed as specified in Sec. 635.35(c)(3) through (5).
(63) Fail to comply with the EM vendor responsibilities as
specified in Sec. 635.9.
(64) Fail to comply with the vessel owner and/or operator
operational requirements as specified in Sec. 635.9.
(65) Fail to comply with the EM requirements when fishing with
pelagic longline gear within the EM Data Review Areas as specified at
Sec. 635.9(a)(1) through (4) and the spatial management areas as
specified at Sec. 635.34(c)(3) and (4).
(66) Fail to report the catch of species through VMS as required
when fishing with pelagic longline gear within spatial management areas
as specified at Sec. 635.69(e)(5).
(67) Fish with pelagic longline gear in the EM Data Review Areas as
specified at Sec. 635.9(a)(1) through (4) and the spatial management
areas as specified at Sec. 635.34(c)(3) and (4) without submitting a
hail out declaration through VMS as specified at Sec. 635.69(e)(2).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-08782 Filed 5-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 5, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.