Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-04256

Rule2026-04256

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management; Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan

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

March 4, 2026

Effective

April 3, 2026

Issuing agencies

Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Abstract

This final rule implements Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) (Amendment 15). This final action modifies the timing of the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area, modifies the boundaries of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast closed areas to create low- and/ or high-bycatch-risk areas, and maintains the current boundaries and timing of the DeSoto Canyon closed area. This action also establishes a process to collect data from all the spatial management areas and review that data as needed and on a regular basis, while also renaming the closed areas to more closely reflect their intended uses. This rule does not implement a fleet-wide requirement for vessel owners to pay for electronic monitoring sampling costs as proposed but requires pelagic longline vessel owners to pay for the electronic monitoring sampling costs if their vessels choose to fish within the low-bycatch- risk areas of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial management areas. This final action directly affects bottom and pelagic longline fishermen who hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10696-10744]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04256]

[[Page 10695]]

Vol. 91

Wednesday,

No. 42

March 4, 2026

Part II

Department of Commerce

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

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

50 CFR Part 635

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management;
Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 10696]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 260205-0038]
RIN 0648-BI10

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Spatial Fisheries Management;
Amendment 15 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
Fishery Management Plan

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements Amendment 15 to the 2006
Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan
(HMS FMP) (Amendment 15). This final action modifies the timing of the
Mid-Atlantic shark closed area, modifies the boundaries of the
Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast closed areas to create low- and/
or high-bycatch-risk areas, and maintains the current boundaries and
timing of the DeSoto Canyon closed area. This action also establishes a
process to collect data from all the spatial management areas and
review that data as needed and on a regular basis, while also renaming
the closed areas to more closely reflect their intended uses. This rule
does not implement a fleet-wide requirement for vessel owners to pay
for electronic monitoring sampling costs as proposed but requires
pelagic longline vessel owners to pay for the electronic monitoring
sampling costs if their vessels choose to fish within the low-bycatch-
risk areas of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial
management areas. This final action directly affects bottom and pelagic
longline fishermen who hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 3, 2026.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the supporting documents, including the final
environmental impact statement (FEIS) and its Record of Decision, the
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA), 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, the detailed
spatial management StoryMap, and the 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>.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
final rule may be submitted to the HMS Management Division and to
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Find these particular information
collections by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Durkee (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4330372635266d273631282626032d2c22226d242c35">[email&#160;protected]</a>),
Larry Redd, Jr. (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa969b888883d4889f9e9eba94959b9bd49d958c">[email&#160;protected]</a>), Randy Blankinship
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7f0d1e111b06511d131e111416110c17160f3f11101e1e51181009">[email&#160;protected]</a>), or Karyl Brewster-Geisz (<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2843495a5144064a5a4d5f5b5c4d5a054f4d415b526846474949064f475e">[email&#160;protected]</a>) at 301-427-8503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the HMS FMP and its
amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)
and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C.
971 et seq.). HMS are defined at 16 U.S.C. 1802(21) and the provisions
for their management are at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1). ATCA is the
implementing statute for binding recommendations of the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). HMS
implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. More information
regarding the authorities for this rule can be found in the ``Statutory
Authority'' section below.
On May 5, 2023, NMFS published a proposed rule (88 FR 29050) and
released Draft Amendment 15 (which included a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS), draft RIR, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA)) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a Notice of Availability of the DEIS (88 FR 29127). The
proposed rule and Draft Amendment 15 contain background information on
the potential changes to the fishery that is not repeated here. The
original comment period on the proposed rule ended on September 15,
2023. Based on public requests, the comment period was extended until
October 2, 2023 (88 FR 62044, September 8, 2023). NMFS held 5 public
hearings and webinars between June 15 and September 18, 2023, and also
briefed the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, New England, and
Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. NMFS held 2 discussions on
Amendment 15 with the HMS Advisory Panel (May 9, 2023 and September 6,
2023). During the comment period, NMFS received 166 written comments
from individual members of the public and a variety of entities
including industry associations, environmental organizations, and
states. A summary of these comments and NMFS' responses is found below.
Taking into consideration public comment, NMFS prepared Final
Amendment 15, which included an FEIS, final RIR, and FRFA, and which
analyzed the anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of
a range of alternatives. On May 6, 2024, NMFS released Final Amendment
15 and the EPA published a Notice of Availability of the FEIS (89 FR
40481, May 10, 2024). NMFS received three written comments on the FEIS
during the 30-day period after publication of the FEIS. A summary of
the preferred alternatives is provided below. The full list of
alternatives and their analyses are provided in Final Amendment 15 and
are not repeated here.
Overall, the objectives of this final rule are 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 variable nature of HMS and their fisheries, manage user
conflicts, facilitate collection of information, address the need for
regular evaluation and performance review, and plan for the changing
environment and access to fishery resources; (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 (EM) program as necessary and appropriate to
augment spatial management and address the requirements of relevant
NMFS policies regarding EM. This final rule implements the preferred
alternatives identified in Final Amendment 15.

[[Page 10697]]

In developing the final measures, NMFS considered the objectives
identified above, public comments on Amendment 15 and the proposed
rule, input from the HMS Advisory Panel (AP), and the FEIS, RIR, and
FRFA analyses. After reviewing this information, NMFS has concluded
that further analyses are needed to modify the HMS EM program fleet-
wide as appropriate to address the requirements of relevant policies
regarding EM, including the EM Cost Allocation Policy. To ensure that
other spatial management and EM measures are finalized as expeditiously
as possible, NMFS has decided to conduct additional analyses regarding
the fleet-wide industry payment of EM costs in a separate future
action. Comments that have already been submitted on the EM program
during the proposed rule stage of this current action will be
considered in that future action, and there will be an additional
comment period.
This final action implements Amendment 15 to the HMS FMP. In brief,
the final management measures implemented in this rule are: (1) a
modification of the Mid-Atlantic shark closed area timing; (2) a
modification of the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast closed areas
to create high- and low-bycatch-risk areas; (3) the establishment of
effort caps for the low-bycatch-risk areas, also known as monitoring
areas, in the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial management
areas; (4) the requirement that pelagic longline vessels that choose to
fish within the boundaries of a monitoring area pay for the sampling
costs and arrange for additional EM video review of the portion of the
trip in the monitoring area; (5) the allowance for data collection
through cooperative research via an exempted fishing permit for high-
and low-bycatch-risk areas in the Charleston Bump, DeSoto Canyon, and
East Florida Coast spatial management areas; (6) the requirement to
evaluate the effectiveness of the four spatial management areas
regularly once three years of catch and effort data is finalized and
available, or earlier if warranted; and (7) the addition of regulatory
provisions for creation and review of spatial management areas.
Additionally, NMFS intends to consider the matter of funding of the HMS
EM program (both administrative and sampling costs) fleet-wide, as
appropriate, in a future action.
As described in the Responses to Comments below, NMFS made several
changes to the preferred alternatives between the proposed and final
rule, based in part on public comments. The specific changes are
described below in the section titled ``Changes from the Proposed
Rule.''

Statutory Authority

This final rule to implement Amendment 15 to the HMS FMP is issued
pursuant to, and subject to requirements of, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Specifically, 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(2) provides for the designation of
zones where fishing activities may be limited or prohibited (discussed
throughout this rule as ``spatial management areas'') in an FMP. 16
U.S.C. 1853(a)(1) requires NMFS to include in an FMP measures, such as
those establishing requirements for vessels fishing in the monitoring
areas established in this rule, necessary for the conservation and
management of the fishery that are consistent with the National
Standards (NS) set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1851(a). Among other things, the
NSs state that measures must prevent overfishing while achieving
optimum yield from the fishery (NS1), be based on the best scientific
information available (NS2), and shall minimize bycatch and bycatch
mortality to the extent practicable (NS9). To collect data on catch
(including bycatch) and monitor for potential bycatch or overfishing
issues, this final rule requires industry to pay for electronic
monitoring sampling costs if they choose to fish within two monitoring
areas that had previously been closed to fishing for over 20 years.
This monitoring is authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(8) and (b)(14). See
also 16 U.S.C. 1802 (defining ``observer information''). VMS,
authorized under 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(4), has been a longstanding
requirement in Atlantic HMS fisheries. More information can be found in
Amendment 15 itself.

Response to Comments

During the comment period on the proposed rule, NMFS received 166
written comments from individual members of the public and a variety of
entities including industry associations, environmental organizations,
State agencies, local governments, and members of the U.S. Congress.
All written comments can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/">https://www.regulations.gov/</a> by
searching for ``0648-BI10.'' NMFS also received comments during the
public hearings, including the webinars, the Council meetings, and the
HMS AP meetings. NMFS received three written comments on the FEIS in
the 30 days after publication of the FEIS. Responses to comments are
below and are organized according to subject.

Modification, Data Collection, and Evaluation of the Spatial Management
Areas General Comments

Comment 1: NMFS received comments, including from North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF), Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, and some non-governmental environmental and recreational
fishing organizations that were supportive of evaluating the
effectiveness of the existing bottom longline and pelagic longline
closed areas in meeting conservation and management goals. Some
commenters supported the efforts of evaluating the existing closed
areas and noted that the areas continue to be closed without any
evaluation since implementation. Some commenters supported evaluating
the existing closed areas but expressed concerns with using longline
gear to collect data. Some commenters, including the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Commission, stated that pelagic longline gear should not be
used to collect data in pelagic longline closed areas and that other
gear types with lower bycatch concerns should be used instead. Other
commenters suggested that the Agency use data from recreational gears
that provide long, continuous time series from within the closed areas.
After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment further noting the
importance of utilizing other fishery-dependent sources of catch data
from other gear types. Commenters suggested that NMFS explore ways to
utilize all fisheries dependent data rather than one gear type in the
closed areas.
Response: NMFS agrees that the assessment of and the collection of
data in spatial management areas is critical to ensure that
conservation and management needs are being achieved. As discussed in
the Amendment, many of the existing closed areas have been in place for
approximately 20 years, with little or no evaluation. Understanding
this need, NMFS developed alternatives in the Draft Amendment 15 to
guide data collection efforts to evaluate whether the spatial
management areas are effective in meeting their respective conservation
and management goals.
Based on public comment and further analysis and consideration,
NMFS has different preferred alternatives for the spatial management
areas in the Final Amendment 15 than in the Draft. For the Mid-Atlantic
Shark Spatial Management Area, NMFS is finalizing no change to the area
boundaries and a shift of the closure period to November 1 through May
31 (Sub-Alternative A1b). The Draft Amendment 15 and proposed rule had
preferred the same

[[Page 10698]]

period change, but with extension of the eastern boundary of the area
(Sub-Alternative A1d). For the Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area,
the preferred alternative in the Final Amendment is new Sub-Alternative
A2f, which shifts the eastern boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area
preferred in the Draft Amendment 15 (Sub-Alternative A2c), resulting in
an increase in the monitoring/low-bycatch-risk area. Sub-Alternative
A2f also changes the timing of the high-bycatch-risk area to February 1
through April 30, which retains the timing of the current closed area,
instead of year-round under Sub-Alternative A2c. For the East Florida
Coast Spatial Management Area, the preferred alternative in the Final
Amendment 15 is new Sub-Alternative A3f, which shifts the northeastern
boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area preferred in the Draft (Sub-
Alternative A3d), resulting in an increase in the monitoring/low-
bycatch-risk area. For the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, NMFS
is finalizing no action (Sub-Alternative A4a), instead of modifying the
area boundaries per the Draft preferred Sub-Alternative A4d.
Under the Final Amendment 15 preferred measures, NMFS will evaluate
each spatial management area once three years of catch and effort data
are finalized and available. However, if specific concerns were to
arise, which might include but may not be limited to unexpectedly high
or low bycatch, high or low data collection efforts, temporally or
spatially overly-clustered fishing effort, changed conditions within
the fishery as a whole, or changed status of relevant stocks, NMFS may
review the spatial management areas earlier.
NMFS disagrees that other gear types could be used to characterize
expected pelagic (or bottom) longline catch. In evaluating the
effectiveness of the closures for longline gear, NMFS is not trying to
determine if the bycatch species are present in the closed areas.
Rather, NMFS is evaluating the rate at which various bycatch species
are likely to be caught on longline gear in those areas. As some of the
commenters noted, catch rates of bycatch species are different across
each gear type. Without extensive site-specific calibration
experiments, catch rates across gear types are not directly comparable.
No such calibrations exist between commercial longline and other gear
types, including recreational gears. Without such calibrations, NMFS
could not use recreational or other non-longline gear catch rates or
data to calculate the likely catch rates of longline gear in the closed
areas. Additionally, different gear types have different reporting
requirements and methodologies that could bias data in certain
directions, reducing applicability for cross-fishery conclusions. For
example, rod and reel fishermen are not required to report protected
species interactions, while pelagic longline fishermen are. Therefore,
the only way to accurately assess species catch rates and other
characteristics is to use the specific gear that has been restricted
(in this case longline gear), with additional safeguards to provide for
monitoring and managing of bycatch and incidental catch to the extent
practicable.
Comment 2: NMFS received comments from a commercial fishing
organization expressing concern about the future viability of the
fishery given current declining trends in fishing effort and pointing
out that because of this reduced fishing effort, current bycatch levels
in the fishery are lower relative to historical levels. Some comments
stated that active pelagic longline vessels and effort have dropped
dramatically since the closed areas were implemented and that the
reduction in effort in combination with better fishing techniques have
provided far more bycatch reduction than originally intended when the
areas were implemented.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that there have been changes in the
commercial longline fisheries, including reduced effort, since the
closed areas were originally implemented. These changes, in addition to
biological changes in target and bycatch species populations and
oceanographic changes, further necessitate an evaluation of catch rates
within the spatial management areas. When the closed areas were
implemented, the designs were static, and there was no guidance on how
to review or evaluate the efficacy of the closed areas on bycatch
reduction and environmental conservation. Through the preferred ``C''
and ``E'' alternatives, Amendment 15 provides a flexible framework for
the design, review, and modification of spatial management areas to
respond to the changing environment, developments in fisheries
modeling, dynamic fisheries management, changing regulations, and
changes in the techniques and behavior of the commercial fishing
industry. Within this framework, the reductions in fishing effort and
improved fishing techniques that lead to bycatch reduction can be
incorporated into analyses that provide for more adaptive spatial area
management.
Comment 3: NMFS received comments, including from Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, opposing increased access for pelagic
longline gear and vessels in closed areas to collect data. Many of
these comments pointed to the successful conservation and/or rebuilding
of many species, including swordfish and billfish species, and stated
that increased access for pelagic longlines in currently closed areas
could jeopardize that success. Some commenters stated that allowing
pelagic longline effort in closed areas could affect the conservation
of important recreational target species such as billfish, negatively
affecting recreational fisheries, charter fishing, tourism, and support
services.
Response: NMFS agrees that implementation of the closed areas has
contributed to the conservation and rebuilding of many species.
However, the continued utility of the static areas in meeting current
conservation and management needs, particularly in the context of
changing ocean and fishery conditions, is unknown due to the lack of
data from and formal evaluation of the closed areas. NMFS disagrees
that allowing limited data collection using pelagic longline gear and
vessels in the proposed monitoring areas would jeopardize swordfish and
billfish conservation or would negatively affect recreational fishing
for these species. The stock statuses of some of these species have
improved since the closed areas were established and closed areas are
not the only bycatch mitigation measure. Additional bycatch mitigation
measures, such as circle hook requirements and bait restrictions, have
been implemented. Additionally, pelagic longline fishing effort and
participation has declined dramatically since implementation of the
closed areas. For example, in 2000, there were 11,065 pelagic longline
sets, whereas in 2019 there were only 4,188 sets. Furthermore,
consistent data collection within the footprint of current closed areas
would occur only in low-bycatch-risk areas designated as monitoring
areas and only with enhanced reporting requirements and effort
controls. If the data being collected indicated that bycatch rates were
higher than expected, NMFS could close the monitoring areas and conduct
further review to determine next steps. It is also possible that data
collection could occur in the high-bycatch-risk areas if a researcher
applied for and received an exempted fishing permit (EFP). To be
considered covered under and consistent with the impacts analyses in
the FEIS, an application should

[[Page 10699]]

incorporate effort caps, bycatch caps, monitoring, and other elements
under Alternative B4. Researchers could also apply for and receive a
scientific research permit (SRP). EFPs and SRPs are issued for similar
activities, however, NMFS generally issues an EFP when the research
activity is conducted on a recreational and/or commercial fishing
vessel and issues an SRP when the research is conducted on a scientific
research vessel. See 50 CFR 635.32(b)(SRPs) and 600.10 (defining
scientific research activity, scientific research vessel, and related
terms).
Comment 4: NMFS received a comment that the specific goals,
including specific bycatch level goals, of the original closures need
to be included and analyzed to determine if the closures have achieved
the intended purpose.
Response: Information regarding the original objectives and
specific bycatch goals of the closed areas can be found in Section 4.11
of the Amendment and in the original documents implementing the closed
areas. However, a comprehensive review of the closed areas was needed.
As discussed in the response to Comment 2 above, since the
implementation of the original closures, there have been changes in the
commercial longline fisheries, biological changes in target and bycatch
populations, oceanographic changes, and changes in fishing techniques
(e.g., deep set pelagic longline gear; see Comment 37 below). Thus,
this Amendment considered not only the species addressed when the
current closed areas were adopted (see Section 4.11), but also current
species protection needs, current conditions of the oceanographic
environment, and current fishery conditions (e.g., changes in
regulatory requirements, stock status of managed species, etc.). In
Amendment 15, see Section 2.3 (Selection of Species) and Chapter 2
(Methods and Development of Spatial Management Area Alternatives). One
of the specific goals of Amendment 15 is to provide flexibility to
account for variations and changes in fishery and environmental
conditions. As such, Amendment 15 is designed to allow NMFS to consider
not only the species of concern when the closed areas were implemented,
but also the present and future conditions and critical needs of the
U.S. fisheries and the oceanographic environment, when re-evaluating
various spatial management areas. Furthermore, the approach in
Amendment 15 allows NMFS to consider any ancillary benefits or concerns
associated with the closed areas, which may be relevant regardless of
the stated original objectives of any particular area. As discussed in
Section 9.1.2 of Amendment 15, these aspects of Amendment 15 also help
bring the spatial management areas more in line with Section
303(b)(2)(C) of the MSA.
Comment 5: NMFS received comments that Amendment 15 should undergo
formal review by NMFS's Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC).
Commenters noted that SEFSC review would ensure Amendment 15 is based
on the best scientific information available, consistent with NS2.
Response: As stated in Chapter 9 of the Amendment and consistent
with NS2, Amendment 15 uses the best scientific information available.
Formal review by the SEFSC is not necessary or required to demonstrate
compliance with NS2. NMFS has published guidelines for complying with
NS2 at 50 CFR 600.315. Among other things, these guidelines state that
fishery conservation and management require high quality and timely
scientific information to evaluate the potential impact on living
marine resources, essential fish habitat (EFH), marine ecosystems,
fishery participants, fishing communities, and the nation, and also
require identifying areas where management measures are needed (see
Sec. 600.315(a)(1)). NMFS consulted with and obtained input and
expertise from personnel from several NMFS offices during the
development of Draft and Final Amendment 15, including the SEFSC, and
determined that the amendment is based on the best scientific
information available. More information about the consistency of
Amendment 15 with NS2 may be found in Chapter 9. More information about
the agencies, organizations, and persons consulted may be found in
Chapter 10.
Comment 6: NMFS received a comment stating that Amendment 15
violated the following NMFS Policies: 01-101-01 (Procedures for
Initiating Secretarial Review of Fisheries Management Plans and
Amendments), 01-101-106 (Communication of Regional Fishery Management
Council Meeting Actions), and 01-101-09 (Procedures to Determine Stock
Status and Rebuilding Progress).
Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS Policies 01-101-01 and 01-101-106
are procedures related to regional fishery management councils. The
Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are not developed through
council processes but by the agency itself as provided under sections
304(c) and (g) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS Policy 01-101-09
describes an administrative procedure regarding stock status and
rebuilding progress decisions under Magnuson-Stevens Act section
304(e). Stock status determination and rebuilding progress is not
within the scope of Amendment 15; thus NMFS Policy 01-101-09 does not
apply. As described throughout Amendment 15 and this rule, Amendment 15
is consistent with all required applicable laws and policies.
Comment 7: NMFS received comments about the species that should be
considered when developing spatial management measures in Amendment 15.
Some commenters stated that undersized swordfish and ESA-listed species
such as giant manta rays and oceanic whitetip sharks should be
considered when designing spatial area modifications. The South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) commented that dolphinfish
catch should be considered, especially as the Council considers
stricter regulations given concerns about that fishery.
Response: NMFS has considered the expected ecological impacts on
target and non-target species, including swordfish, dolphinfish, and
ESA-listed species, in the Amendment. For swordfish, the stock is fully
rebuilt and landings are currently far below the scientifically-derived
total allowable catch. Locations of dolphinfish catch were considered
and presented in Sections 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 of Amendment 15 and further
discussed in the response to Comment 10 below, along with potential
impacts to the stock. All HMS commercial fisheries, including pelagic
and bottom longline fisheries, have undergone consultation under
section 7 of the ESA with the most recent Biological Opinions issued in
May 2020. The fisheries operate under a variety of Reasonable and
Prudent Measures (RPMs) and Incidental Take Statements consistent with
the 2020 Biological Opinions. Interactions with ESA-listed species,
including sea turtles, sperm whale, giant manta ray, scalloped
hammerhead shark (Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct Population
Segment), and oceanic whitetip shark are monitored quarterly by the HMS
Management Division in coordination with the SEFSC and the Southeast
Regional Office's Protected Resources Division. On July 8, 2022, the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries requested reinitiation of consultation
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the HMS pelagic
longline fishery due to new information on giant manta ray since
completion of the 2020 Biological Opinion. The consultation is ongoing.
Pending completion of consultation, the fishery continues to operate
consistent with the RPMs and Terms and Conditions specified in the

[[Page 10700]]

May 2020 Biological Opinion. See Section 4.10 of Amendment 15 for more
details. Finally, in 2024, ICCAT adopted Recommendation 24-12 regarding
mobulid rays of the family Mobulidae. As a result, in a separate
action, NMFS will be considering whether to prohibit the retention of
mobulid rays, including giant manta rays, in HMS fisheries, to require
mobulid rays to be released unharmed in HMS fisheries, and to implement
mobulid ray handling practices for vessels fishing with pelagic
longline gear.
Amendment 15 is not expected to increase fishing effort, and in
fact, bottom longline and pelagic longline effort have been declining.
Moreover, nothing in Amendment 15 is expected to change the
characteristics of the fishery such that overfished or ESA-listed
species would be affected in a manner not considered in previous
analyses for the HMS FMP or the 2020 Biological Opinions. Furthermore,
the final action includes numerous measures to continue to monitor and
minimize bycatch, including closing areas if bycatch is higher than
expected.
Comment 8: NMFS received a comment that blue marlin remain
overfished and should receive additional protections. The comment also
opposed the preferred Charleston Bump, East Florida Coast, and DeSoto
Canyon Spatial Management Area modifications in the DEIS, noting that
they do not increase protections for blue marlin. The commenter stated
that Sub-Alternative A3b for East Florida Coast offers better
protection for blue marlin than the Sub-Alternative A3d that was
preferred at the draft stage, but not as good as status quo. After
issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received comments reiterating that the
preferred spatial management area modifications do not offer
protections for blue marlin and another comment stating concerns about
white marlin bycatch in the monitoring areas.
Response: Data collection by pelagic longline vessels in the
preferred monitoring areas will likely improve our understanding of the
contribution of closed areas to reducing blue marlin fishing mortality.
Without this data collection, it is difficult to assess the impact of
closed areas on blue marlin rebuilding. The goal of Amendment 15 is to
collect data on the effectiveness of existing closed areas and improve
the data available for making HMS spatial management decisions, while
continuing to minimize bycatch for multiple species.
As summarized in response to Comment 1, NMFS is preferring
different alternatives in the Final Amendment 15 than in the Draft for
the spatial management areas. NMFS is finalizing no action for the
DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area (Sub-Alternative A4a). This is
due in part to the proposed critical habitat designation for Rice's
whale and also due to public comments expressing concern about reduced
fishing opportunities if the area was expanded.
The East Florida Coast preferred sub-alternative (A3f) shifts the
boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area (year-round) relative to the
sub-alternative preferred at the draft stage (Sub-Alternative A3d) in
response to public comment about encouraging more data collection in
the monitoring/low-bycatch-risk area. In doing so, the scope value
(size of the area x applicable number of months) of the high-bycatch-
risk area decreased to 41 percent, with a corresponding increase in the
low-bycatch-risk area scope value to 41 percent. Even with the
increased effort cap for the monitoring area (Sub-Alternative B3a),
impacts on bycatch species modeled by HMS PRedictive Spatial Modeling
(PRiSM) are generally expected to be moderate beneficial in the short-
and long-term. This is because of the conditions and restrictions
applicable to the monitoring area (Sub-Alternative B3a effort cap, Sub-
Alternative B3e electronic monitoring) and low fisheries interactions
with modeled bycatch species in that area. See Section 5.2.3.1 of
Amendment 15 for further explanation. In addition, fishermen who choose
to fish within the monitoring area will be required to report
interactions with additional species, including blue and white marlin,
via vessel monitoring systems (VMS). If bycatch is higher than expected
in the monitoring area, NMFS will have discretion to close the area. If
additional conservation and management measures become necessary for
blue or white marlin, NMFS may consider these in a future action
evaluating all sources of mortality in commercial and recreational
fisheries.
Metric scores compare the relative impacts of high-bycatch-risk
areas and provide information about conservation and conservation
efficiency in those areas and allow for ranking of options. A higher
score indicates a higher level of conservation protection relative to
the size of the area and effective time period. The species-specific
billfish metric score for the preferred East Florida Coast Spatial
Management Area modification sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A3f) is
lower than the status quo and Sub-Alternative A3b metric scores.
However, the billfish metric scores for all of the sub-alternatives is
low (ranging from 6 to 10 with highest possible score of 48), the
overall metric score for all modeled bycatch species is higher for Sub-
Alternative A3f than the status quo, and the range in overall metric
scores between the sub-alternatives (43 to 49) is small and low
compared to the highest possible overall score of 192. See Sections
5.1.3.7 of Amendment 15 (providing table comparing metric scores) and
5.1.3.6 (providing notes under table explaining highest possible metric
scores). We also note that metric score is not the only consideration
in spatial management modifications. As explained in Section 5.1.3.7,
metric scores do not address or speak to the broader regime of
conservation and management measures--beyond spatial management areas--
implemented under the Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and
implementing regulations. Blue marlin, white marlin, and other billfish
are subject to various conservation and management measures, which are
described at the end of this response. None of the preferred
alternatives that will be implemented through this final rule,
including for the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area, will
allow normal commercial fishing in the low-bycatch-risk areas; instead,
they implement monitoring areas, which are special access areas with
effort limits and enhanced reporting requirements for those who choose
to fish there. Additionally, species-specific metric scores for
leatherback sea turtles and shortfin mako sharks, as well as the
overall metric score, are higher for the Preferred Sub-Alternative A3f
than the no action sub-alternative.
Although NMFS analyzed Sub-Alternative A3b, it was not selected as
a preferred sub-alternative because it would identify low-bycatch-risk
areas close to shore along much of the east coast of Florida,
potentially increasing gear conflict concerns with other fisheries
including offshore recreational fisheries. Furthermore, Sub-Alternative
A3b would only implement a monitoring area during portions of the year,
and year-round data collection is important to assess the areas.
The Charleston Bump preferred sub-alternative (A2f) shifts the
boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area and modifies the timing of the
area to February 1 through April 30, which maintains the same timing as
the current overall closed area. NMFS made these changes in response to
public comment, as the larger, year-round high-bycatch-risk area
designated under the Draft preferred sub-alternative (A2c) would have
unnecessarily resulted in a large

[[Page 10701]]

reduction in fishing opportunities and effort. In comparison to the no
action sub-alternative, Sub-Alternative A2f provides more efficient
conservation protections as despite the change in scope of the area,
the sub-alternative did not result in changes to the metric score (0)
for the billfish species group, which includes blue marlin and white
marlin, had slightly higher scores for leatherback sea turtles, and
overall is expected to have neutral indirect ecological impacts for
billfish and other modeled bycatch species. We note that billfish
metric scores for all the sub-alternatives is low (ranging from 0 to 5
(Sub-Alternative A2c) with a highest possible score of 48). As
explained above, fishermen will also be required to report blue marlin
and other species via VMS, and NMFS has discretion to close the
monitoring area or high-bycatch-risk area as needed.
NMFS notes that spatial management areas are not the only measures
that offer protections for blue marlin and white marlin. The United
States prohibits commercial landings and sale of billfish, including
blue marlin and white marlin (50 CFR 635.19(c), 635.31(b), 600.10
(billfish definition)). In addition, the United States specifies
minimum sizes for billfish (Sec. 635.20(d)), requires circle hooks and
specific baits for tournament participants (Sec. 635.21(e)(1)), and
requires release of billfish without removing them from the water
(Sec. 635.21(a)(1)-(2)). Annually, the United States limits landings
to 250 recreationally-caught Atlantic blue and white marlin/roundscale
spearfish, combined, pursuant to a binding measure that the United
States and other countries adopted at the ICCAT. See Section 1.1 for
more information on ICCAT. International cooperation is needed to
conserve and manage these species, given the number of countries that
catch and land them throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Based on the 2019
white marlin/roundscale spearfish stock assessment and the 2024 blue
marlin stock assessments conducted by ICCAT's Standing Committee on
Research and Statistics, blue marlin and white marlin are overfished
with overfishing not occurring. NMFS domestically manages blue marlin
and white marlin/roundscale spearfish consistent with its ICCAT
obligations, and Amendment 15 does not change the above-described
management measures.
With respect to the comment about white marlin received after
issuance of the FEIS, all of the above existing domestic and
international measures offering protections to blue marlin also provide
protections to white marlin. Additionally, the measures required under
Amendment 15, including near-real time reporting of interactions in
monitoring areas through VMS set reports, also apply to white marlin.
Comment 9: NMFS received comments about changes to spatial
management areas. One comment stated that any increase in the size or
timing of closed areas would destroy the pelagic longline industry.
Other comments stated that caution is warranted when reducing the
spatial or temporal coverage of closed areas so as not to undermine
conservation efforts and progress. One commenter stated general support
for all four of the proposed spatial management area modifications. A
few commenters supported simply reopening all pelagic longline closed
areas.
Response: One of the objectives of Amendment 15 is to augment data
collection in the spatial management areas to improve the ability to
assess and manage these areas. NMFS agrees that caution should be taken
when changing areas and that any changes should be consistent with FMP
objectives and applicable laws, including MSA NSs. As such, NMFS
developed a spatial modeling tool that predicts where and when
fisheries interactions with longline gear are likely to occur. This
tool was needed because longline catch information is lacking within
the closed areas. Based on the model's prediction of fishery
interactions, NMFS is preferring alternatives to implement monitoring
areas in low-bycatch-risk areas of the Charleston Bump (Sub-Alternative
A2f) and East Florida Coast (Sub-Alternative A3f) Spatial Management
Areas. Monitoring areas will have additional reporting requirements and
enhanced monitoring. In the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area
(closed from November 1 through May 31), fishing and data collection
will proceed in the area outside of the closure period and current data
collection programs in the area, including the shark research fishery,
will continue. The DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area will be closed
year-round, but NMFS may consider requests for exempted fishing permits
on a case-by-case basis.
The above-described approaches, coupled with regular evaluations of
the areas, should allow NMFS to make changes as needed based on the
incoming data. Overall, the designation of more efficient spatial
management areas and improved access to pelagic and bottom longline
target species in areas with lower bycatch-risk is expected to help
achieve optimum yield, consistent with NS1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
without jeopardizing sustainability of any species or increasing
bycatch.
Comment 10: The SAFMC expressed concern about conflicting
regulations applicable to pelagic longline HMS and other fisheries.
Currently, the dolphinfish/wahoo pelagic longline closed area
regulations match the HMS pelagic longline closed areas. If they become
misaligned, it could make compliance and enforcement difficult. If
dolphinfish or wahoo are caught on pelagic longline gear in the
monitoring areas, they would have to be discarded, increasing
regulatory discards. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) commented that additional pelagic longline access to closed areas
would negatively affect the dolphinfish stock for which the Commission
has recently implemented more restrictive recreational catch limits in
state waters to address stock status concerns.
Response: NMFS agrees that if dolphinfish or wahoo were to be
caught on pelagic longline gear in the monitoring areas and retention
is not allowed under applicable regulations, those species must be
discarded. Although dolphinfish and wahoo are targeted by some vessels
with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, these species are not managed
under the HMS FMP. Nevertheless, because HMS and dolphinfish/wahoo are
targeted with different pelagic longline gear configurations and
fishing techniques, dolphinfish and wahoo comprise a relatively low
portion (by weight) of the total landings in the HMS pelagic longline
fishery based on 2016 through 2018 pelagic logbook data (6 percent and
1 percent, respectively; Section 2.1.2.3, Amendment 13 to the HMS FMP).
Additionally, a key assumption of the modifications to the spatial
management areas is that overall fishing effort will not change, and
therefore should not result in increased pelagic longline effort
overall. Thus, NMFS does not believe that pelagic longline access to
the monitoring areas, strictly monitored and limited, would result in
large changes to dolphinfish catch and negatively affect the stock,
particularly since total pelagic longline effort is unlikely to
increase and, if recent trends continue, may decrease. However, NMFS
acknowledges that, as has been shown in a variety of existing
regulations, including regulations regarding closed areas and
differences in gear types, mismatches between HMS-specific regulations
and other Federal fishery regulations or state-specific regulations can
make compliance and enforcement more difficult. Such mismatches can
affect

[[Page 10702]]

the efficacy of the regulations. Further consideration of the impacts
of these types of mismatches in light of these comments resulted in
some of the modifications in the Amendment 15 preferred alternatives
regarding geographic and temporal changes to spatial areas as noted in
the responses below. NMFS will continue to work with the councils and
states on developing complementary measures to the extent practicable.
Comment 11: Several commenters suggested that NMFS prohibit pelagic
longline gear in all areas, expressing that longline gear
indiscriminately kills target and non-target species. One commenter
that supported prohibiting longline gear noted the potential impact of
longlines on recreational fishing tournaments on the East Coast. After
issuance of the FEIS, we received a comment expressing concerns that
Amendment 15 does not adequately consider the social or economic
impacts on HMS and non-HMS recreational fishing communities in the
southeastern U.S. Another FEIS commenter disagreed that keeping the
East Florida Coast monitoring area 45 nautical miles (nmi) from shore
was far enough to minimize gear conflict with the recreational
fisheries.
Response: NMFS disagrees with prohibiting pelagic longline gear in
all areas, as this would be inconsistent with the objectives of
Amendment 15 and is not necessary for purposes of compliance with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. As set forth in Section
1.4, the objectives of Amendment 15 include developing methods of
collecting from, and evaluating the effectiveness of, existing spatial
management areas; optimizing fishing opportunities; and minimizing
bycatch and bycatch mortality to the extent practicable. The U.S.
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery has numerous regulations, including
gear restrictions, that conserve and manage target and non-target
species. In Amendment 15, see Sections 6.1.2 (pelagic longline
regulatory history) and 9.1.1 (addressing Magnuson-Stevens Act NS1
(overfishing and optimum yield) and NS9 (bycatch)). NMFS acknowledges
that pelagic longline gear catches non-target finfish with little or no
commercial value as well as species that cannot be retained by
commercial fishermen due to regulations. Pelagic longline gear may also
interact with protected species such as marine mammals and sea turtles.
The pelagic longline fishery has been classified as a Category I
fishery (frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals) with respect to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and is
subject to reporting, monitoring, and other requirements pursuant to
MMPA regulations. Bycatch of ESA-listed species has been evaluated
under section 7 of the ESA, and the pelagic longline fishery operates
under a variety of RPMs and an Incidental Take Statement consistent
with a 2020 Biological Opinion, as noted in the response to comment 7
and in Section 4.10 of Amendment 15. Any catch of non-target species or
undersized permitted species that cannot be landed due to fishery
regulations is required to be released regardless of whether the catch
is dead or alive, and with a minimum of harm if the catch is alive.
Regarding potential impacts of pelagic longline fishing on
recreational fishing, including tournaments, any increased access for
the gear type would occur in two monitoring areas within the Charleston
Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas that are
predominantly further than 45 nmi from shore. Although offshore
recreational fishermen, including tournament participants, can operate
that far offshore, doing so is not as common as near-shore fishing.
Additionally, the pelagic longline and offshore recreational fisheries
have access to the same areas along most of the Atlantic and Gulf of
America coasts, and gear conflicts are not common. Gear conflicts are
possible in some areas where recreational fishing effort is
concentrated such as off of South Florida. However, the Amendment 15
preferred monitoring areas were specifically designed to not include
such locations. For example, Amendment 15 does not change closed areas
south of approximately Sebastian Inlet, FL (see Section 3.4.3). A full
discussion on impacts to recreational fisheries is also available in
Section 5.4.6 in Amendment 15, including impacts to communities in the
southeast U.S. The discussion focuses on HMS recreational fisheries,
though there is significant overlap in recreational fishermen permitted
to fish for HMS and recreational fishermen permitted to fish for
pelagic species managed under other FMPs such as dolphinfish and wahoo.
Given the goals in Amendment 15 to optimize the spatial management
areas to better protect bycatch species, including billfish, NMFS
reiterates its belief that the Amendment's measures should, in the
long-term, provide more fishing opportunities for all fishermen.
With respect to the comment submitted after the release of the FEIS
about gear conflict with recreational fisheries, NMFS understands that
offshore recreational fishermen, including those targeting blue marlin
and other billfish, can operate at distances greater than 45 nmi from
shore. However, the number of recreational vessels operating in an area
decreases the further the distance from shore and NMFS believes that
the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area's distance from shore provides
sufficient balance between minimizing gear conflict and providing areas
for fishing where pelagic longline vessels are likely to voluntarily
collect data--in alignment with the aspect of Objective 1's regarding
optimization of fishing opportunity for U.S. fishing vessels.
Comment 12: The FWC recognized that the current regulations do not
contain provisions for regular review of the spatial management areas,
and that in Amendment 15, NMFS proposed to add factors such as fishery
metrics, social and economic data, biological information, and climate
change impacts to consider when assessing the effectiveness of spatial
management areas (Alternative E2). The FWC stated that they do not have
concerns regarding the inclusion of those factors. They also stated
that they would not support any future modifications that would negate
the benefits the closed areas have had on numerous HMS species,
protected species, and non-HMS species.
Response: NMFS agrees that inclusion of additional factors is
needed. The inclusion of additional factors should help ensure that any
changes to spatial management areas would consider any benefits or
impacts to species and the fishery.

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area

Comment 13: NMFS received several comments, including from the Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in support of the proposed Mid-
Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area (Sub-Alternative A1d). Comments
were received in opposition to the eastern expansion of the proposed
Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area noting the low level of
shark bottom longline effort. Some commenters, including the NCDMF,
asserted that the proposed spatial and temporal modifications for the
Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area could negatively affect
bottom longline fisheries, including those for snowy grouper and
blueline tilefish, that are managed under other FMPs.
Response: Based in part on comments regarding the low level of
shark bottom longline effort and the potential impacts on other bottom
longline fisheries that operate in the Mid-Atlantic, NMFS is

[[Page 10703]]

now preferring Sub-Alternative A1b for the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial
Management Area. This alternative keeps the current footprint and
duration of the closure, while shifting the timing of the closure to
November 1 through May 31. In the Draft Amendment 15, NMFS preferred
Sub-Alternative A1d, which proposed the same shift in timing but with
an extended eastern boundary. Maintaining the current spatial
boundaries will limit impacts to bottom longline fishermen that hold
HMS permits and engage in fishing in the area pursuant to other FMPs'
regulations. Additionally, given the recent low fishing effort of HMS
permit holders using bottom longline gear in the area, NMFS has
determined that expanding the size of the area is not needed at this
time. As supported by some commenters, NMFS continues to prefer a shift
in the timing of the closure by two months to more closely align with
the time period that has the highest likelihood of fishery interactions
with sandbar, dusky, and scalloped hammerhead sharks, as evidenced by
both the spatial model outputs, information from the shark research
fishery, and other supporting information.
Comment 14: NMFS received a comment from the NCDMF encouraging NMFS
to continue the shark research fishery as a means to monitor bycatch
and frequent evaluation of those data to determine the continued
feasibility of the closure and timing.
Response: NMFS agrees with continuing the shark research fishery as
a data collection program. As mentioned in the Amendment, because some
data is currently collected in the area through the shark research
fishery, new data collection programs may not be necessary, and NMFS is
finalizing no action for the data collection suite of alternatives
(``B'' Alternatives) for the Mid-Atlantic area at this time. NMFS will
continue to collect and evaluate data through the shark research
fishery to evaluate the Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area as
needed.

Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area

Comment 15: NMFS received comments, including from the NCDMF and
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), expressing
concerns regarding the proposed Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area
sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A2c). Some commenters noted that
closure of the Charleston Bump year-round or for certain months (i.e.,
May and October through November) would have negative impacts on
businesses. Some commenters noted the preferred sub-alternative would
eliminate access to the western edge of the Gulf Stream along the 100-
fathom shelf break year-round, preventing shorter day trips, increasing
the need for fuel, and forcing fishermen to travel further to fish in
more dangerous areas in the mid-winter months. Some commenters that
operate in the area stated that they would need to relocate to other
areas or exit the fishery completely. Some commenters noted that other
sub-alternatives or a combination of sub-alternatives could allow the
fishery to continue to operate in the area and support data collection,
provided access to the 100-fathom shelf break is maintained. Many
commenters stated that access to that area is critical for target catch
with lower bycatch. Additionally, some commenters suggested using the
100-fathom shelf break as the boundary between high- and low-bycatch-
risk areas instead of a straight line.
Response: Based on public comments and additional analyses, NMFS
reconsidered the boundaries of the Charleston Bump Spatial Management
Area and designed a new sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A2f) that is a
combination of several of the other sub-alternatives considered. Since
effort is unlikely to increase and because any fishing in the newly
designated monitoring area would be closely regulated with enhanced
monitoring and reporting requirements to support data collection,
adoption of Sub-Alternative A2f is likely to have neutral direct and
indirect ecological impacts. This now preferred sub-alternative moves
the eastern boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area, relative to the
current Charleston Bump closed area, westward, inside of the 100-fathom
shelf break, to a diagonal line 45 nmi from shore for the majority of
its length. The western boundary of this management area remains the
same as the current western boundary of Charleston Bump closed area.
The area inshore of the boundary is designated a high-bycatch-risk area
and offshore of that boundary is designated a low-bycatch-risk/
monitoring area. The temporal extent of both the high-bycatch-risk area
and low-bycatch-risk area would be February 1 through April 30, which
is the same time period as under the no action sub-alternative. Sub-
Alternative A2f should not unduly limit fishing access, should reduce
the potential for unintended limitations to fishing, including for
species managed under other FMPs' regulations, and is expected to
encourage data collection by providing access to desired fishing
grounds within the monitoring area. Since Preferred Sub-Alternative A2f
does not change the February 1 through April 30 timing of the
Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area (whereas year-round timing had
been proposed in DEIS preferred Sub-Alternative A2c), there will no
longer be a reduction in fishing access and fishermen operating in the
area will no longer experience negative economic impacts, nor will
there be a need to travel further to access normal fishing grounds,
alleviating safety-at-sea concerns expressed by the commenter.
Furthermore, to the extent that fishermen are interested in fishing in
the monitoring area, there could be fishing opportunities closer to
shore, which would reduce transit times when traveling to and from
fishing grounds. Such a reduction in transit times could reduce fuel
costs and provide fishermen with more flexibility to fish in areas and
at times when ocean conditions are more favorable. Note that with these
changes to the proposed Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area and
East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area (described below), NMFS will
no longer create a single high-bycatch-risk area along the coast, which
was called the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area in the
Draft Amendment and proposed rule. However, the northern boundary of
the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-risk area and the southern boundary
of the Charleston Bump high-bycatch-risk area continue to connect with
the same eastern and western boundary points.
Comment 16: One commenter suggested that the Charleston Bump closed
area should be opened to all pelagic longline vessels and should only
reclose if there is too much bycatch or other conditions prompt a
closure.
Response: NMFS disagrees that it is appropriate to reopen the
entire area without further data collection. Amendment 15 provides a
conservation-oriented, risk-appropriate approach for data collection
for all four of the areas it considered, including the Charleston Bump
Spatial Management Area. The preferred measures will guide data
collection efforts while also providing the ability to make
modifications if there are indications that conservation needs are
being jeopardized or indications that restrictions could be further
reduced.
Comment 17: NMFS received a comment from the SCDNR suggesting
additional analyses for the Charleston Bump comparing the catch per
unit effort (CPUE) for target and bycatch among the different areas
(high-bycatch-risk area, low-bycatch-risk area, and areas outside the
closed area).

[[Page 10704]]

Response: The CPUEs of target species and bycatch for each spatial
management area, not just the Charleston Bump, are listed in Chapter 5
of the Amendment. Comparisons across the reference areas are also
provided in Chapter 5 of the Amendment. As NMFS collects additional
data in portions of the closed areas, there will be more data on which
to base CPUE estimates.
Comment 18: One commenter noted that the Draft Amendment stated
that the scope of the Charleston Bump closed area would increase by 122
percent, but they were concerned that any increase in protection would
not apply to blue marlin. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a
comment expressing concern about the final, preferred alternative
reducing the scope of the high-bycatch-risk area by 68 percent relative
to the current Charleston Bump closed area.
Response: As explained in Section 5.1.2.7 of Amendment 15, NMFS
uses metrics and scope to compare the relative impacts of the spatial
management area sub-alternatives. See Terminology before Chapter 1 and
Chapter 2 (explaining development of sub-alternatives using PRiSM). The
metric scores and scopes do not address or speak to the broader regime
of conservation and management measures--beyond spatial management
areas--under the Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments and
implementing regulations. See response to Comment 8 (summarizing
billfish measures beyond closed areas). In the Draft Amendment, scope
values were only included for high-bycatch-risk areas. As discussed in
Chapter 2, low-bycatch-risk areas have low probabilities of fisheries
interactions with bycatch species modeled through PRiSM. For
information purposes, though, NMFS decided to numerically illustrate
scope values for low-bycatch-risk areas in Amendment 15. In Section
3.4.2 of the Draft Amendment, NMFS described that no areas (high-
bycatch-risk or low-bycatch-risk areas) within the current Charleston
Bump closed area would be fully opened to normal commercial fishing.
Various restrictions and monitoring requirements would apply for low-
bycatch-risk areas.
Regarding blue marlin, preferred Sub-Alternative A2f has the same
metric score of 0 for billfish as the no action Sub-Alternative A2a and
is expected to have neutral indirect ecological impacts on billfish and
other modeled bycatch species. While Sub-Alternative A2c in the Draft
Amendment 15 had a higher metric score of 5 for billfish, we note that
billfish metric scores for all the sub-alternatives was low (ranging
from 0 to 5) compared to the highest possible score of 48. See Section
5.1.2.7 (providing table of metric scores and scopes for the sub-
alternatives). As stated in the response to Comment 8, the goal of
Amendment 15 is to collect data on the effectiveness of existing closed
areas and improve the data available for making HMS spatial management
decisions, while continuing to minimize bycatch for multiple species.
The final preferred alternatives for each of the spatial monitoring
areas, including Charleston Bump, will allow for such data collection
in a manner that is unlikely to increase blue marlin (or other species)
bycatch. Data collection by pelagic longline vessels choosing to fish
within in the preferred monitoring areas will likely improve our
understanding of the contribution of closed areas to reducing blue
marlin fishing mortality and provide NMFS with the ability to assess
any impacts, positive or negative, that closed areas may have on blue
marlin rebuilding. If the data indicates that additional conservation
and management measures may be necessary for blue marlin, NMFS will
evaluate all sources of mortality in commercial and recreational
fisheries and address them in a future action.

East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area

Comment 19: NMFS received comments concerned that the proposed East
Florida Coast Monitoring Area did not include the western edge of the
Gulf Stream along the 100-fathom shelf break where fishing often
results in high target catch CPUEs and low bycatch rates. Similar to
the comments received regarding the 100-fathom shelf break and the
Charleston Bump, these commenters noted the importance of that shelf
break to the fishing industry. These commenters suggested preferring a
different modification sub-alternative or combination of sub-
alternatives to allow for some data collection along the 100-fathom
shelf break, particularly in the winter months when target fish are
larger, bycatch is lower, and the area is closer to shore during bad
weather. Some commenters stated that the southern boundary of the
monitoring area could be moved north to around Ponce Inlet to reduce
gear conflict with other fisheries.
Response: Based on public comments and additional analyses, NMFS
reconsidered the boundaries of the East Florida Coast Monitoring Area
and designed a new sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A3f) that is a
combination of several of the other sub-alternatives considered. Since
effort is unlikely to increase and because any fishing in the newly
designated monitoring area will be closely regulated by enhanced
monitoring and reporting requirements to support data collection,
adoption of Sub-Alternative A3f is likely to have short- and long-term
moderate beneficial indirect impacts to modeled species as evidenced by
the higher overall metric score. This sub-alternative will move the
eastern boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area, relative to the current
East Florida Coast closed area, westward, to a diagonal line beginning
inside of the 100-fathom shelf break in the north, extending southeast
to a point at the eastern edge of the current closure around Sebastian,
Florida. The area inshore of the boundary will be designated a high-
bycatch-risk area and offshore of that boundary will be designated a
low-bycatch-risk/monitoring area. This sub-alternative will not extend
the monitoring area south of Sebastian Inlet, FL, where fishing gear
conflict is more of a concern as multiple fisheries are operating in
the same area and Federal waters, for purposes of fisheries management,
are narrower due to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary between
the United States and the Bahamas. Note that with the changes to the
preferred Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management
Areas, NMFS is also no longer creating a single high-bycatch-risk area
along the coast that would include the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-
risk area (called the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area
in the Draft Amendment and proposed rule). However, the northern
boundary of the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-risk area and the
southern boundary of the Charleston Bump high-bycatch-risk area
continue to connect with the same eastern and western boundary points.
Comment 20: NMFS received several comments from the FWC in
opposition to the East Florida Coast preferred sub-alternative in the
Draft Amendment asserting that that alternative would not achieve
objectives 1, 2, and 4 of Amendment 15. Specifically, the comments
stated that the small increase in revenue from reopening the offshore
portion of the East Florida Coast would not have significant impact on
the future success of the pelagic longline fishery, but reopening the
area to pelagic longline is likely to have large negative impacts on
HMS and non-HMS bycatch species. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS
received comments from the FWC and other groups expressing concern
about the final, preferred

[[Page 10705]]

alternative expanding the monitoring area to 41 percent (up from 26
percent in the proposed rule) of the current East Florida Coast closed
area and the potential for high levels of bycatch and impacts to
protected resources caught in pelagic longline gear. In their original
comments on the Draft Amendment and proposed rule, the FWC also
commented that the East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area is
located in EFH for many HMS species that are either overfished and/or
experiencing overfishing. Their comment further noted that the East
Florida Coast Spatial Management Area is within federally-designated
critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles. The comment also stated
that allowing use of pelagic longline in this area would likely
increase bycatch and bycatch mortality of these species, counter to
Amendment 15 Objective 1. The comment asserted that the creation of the
South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area would not ease
confusion or aid in enforcement since the Charleston Bump and East
Florida Coast areas are well-known and that combining the areas would
actually cause confusion.
Response: NMFS disagrees that Amendment 15 would not achieve
Objectives 1, 2, and 4, which 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; and (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. No negative
impacts on target and non-target species are anticipated from Sub-
Alternative A3f since data collection-related fishing activities would
be allowed only within low-bycatch-risk/monitoring areas within the
East Florida Coast and Charleston Bump Spatial Management Areas with
strict effort controls and enhanced reporting and monitoring.
Furthermore, pelagic longline effort is unlikely to increase and, if
current trends continue, may decrease, thus likely limiting negative
impacts to target and non-target species. As described in all three of
those objectives, the purpose of Amendment 15 is to collect data
necessary to better characterize the impact of closed areas on target
and non-target species. With this data, NMFS can assess the performance
of closed areas in meeting conservation and management goals,
consistent with the objectives of Amendment 15.
The preferred alternative in Final Amendment 15 for the East
Florida Coast Spatial Management Area, Sub-Alternative A3f, increases
the scope of the low-bycatch-risk area to 41 percent of the existing
area. See Amendment 15 at Section 3.1.3 (providing table comparing
scopes of A3 sub-alternatives). This area has low probabilities of
fisheries interactions with bycatch species modeled through PRiSM.
Moreover, metric scores across all six of the A3 Sub-Alternatives are
similar: leatherback sea turtles ranged from 21-23 (compared to the
highest possible score of 48), shortfin mako shark ranged from 12-18,
and billfish species ranged from 6-10. See Section 5.1.3.7 in Amendment
15 (providing table comparing metric scores). As explained above in the
response to Comment 8, Sub-Alternative A3f has a lower metric score (6)
for billfish species in comparison to the no action alternative (10)
and Sub-Alternative A3b (10), but the metric scores for all of the sub-
alternatives are low for billfish, and metric scores and scopes do not
speak to the broader regime of conservation and management measures in
effect. Response to Comment 8 summarizes existing measures for billfish
and also the conditions and restrictions applicable to the low-bycatch-
risk/monitoring area. Given the above and other considerations, Sub-
Alternative A3f is expected to have neutral ecological impacts on
target species and generally moderate beneficial indirect impacts for
bycatch species modeled by PRiSM. See Sections 5.1.3.6 and 5.4.3 of
Amendment 15 for further explanation of impacts of the sub-alternative.
Per the 2020 Biological Opinions, the HMS pelagic longline fishery
is not likely to cause an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of
either the survival or recovery or to jeopardize the continued
existence of the loggerhead sea turtle. Additionally, after inter-
office discussions between the Atlantic HMS Division and the Southeast
Regional Office's Protected Resources Division, NMFS determined that
the preferred measures in Amendment 15 finalized through this final
rule will not affect ESA-listed species or their critical habitat in a
manner or to an extent beyond those effects considered in the 2020
Biological Opinions. The EFH for relevant HMS with an overfished or
experiencing overfishing status extends far beyond the boundaries of
the existing closed areas into areas where normal commercial fishing is
allowed; there is no inherent link between the presence of EFH and
closed areas. See Amendment 15 Sections 4.1 (describing HMS managed
species and habitat) and 4.1.1 (providing information on HMS EFH and
FMP amendments). Amendment 10 to the HMS FMP found that since most HMS
reside in the upper part of the water column and habitat preferences
are likely influenced by oceanic factors such as current confluences,
temperature edges, and surface structure, most HMS gears do not pose
any adverse effects on HMS EFH. For overfished stocks or stocks
experiencing overfishing, NMFS utilizes a broad range of tools, beyond
closed areas, notably rebuilding plans for overfished stocks and annual
catch limits and accountability measures to prevent overfishing. See
Amendment 15 Chapter 9.1.1 (providing references to relevant FMP
amendments under NS1 discussion). Amendment 15 does not modify such
measures and is not expected to affect efforts to prevent overfishing
and rebuild overfished stocks. Chapter 5 provides detailed ecological
impact analyses for all of the alternatives and sub-alternatives
considered in Amendment 15. Regarding the proposed South Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Restricted Area, with the preferred changes to the
Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas, NMFS
is also no longer creating a South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted
Area. However, the northern boundary of the East Florida Coast high-
bycatch-risk area and the southern boundary of the Charleston Bump
high-bycatch-risk area continue to connect with the same eastern and
western boundary points.
NMFS notes that vessels choosing to fish in the designated
monitoring areas under Amendment 15 may gain revenue depending on the
catch rates in the specific portions of the monitoring area they fish
in. However, revenue increases as a result of that fishing are not a
primary objective. Rather, an important objective is the data
collection that results from that fishing in order to assess the
performance of overall spatial management areas; as discussed in
Section 3.2.3 of Amendment 15, controlled fishing activity in the
monitoring area is an effective way to get the data needed to assess
the spatial management areas. In the case of the East Florida Coast
Spatial Management Area, the preferred modification sub-alternative,
Sub-Alternative A3f, is not expected to provide much additional revenue
for vessels that choose to fish in the relevant monitoring area. Due to

[[Page 10706]]

the calculated decrease in tuna catch, Sub-Alternative A3f is estimated
to result in -$10,453 total revenue fishery-wide compared to the no
action sub-alternative. However, fishermen are unlikely to fish in
portions of the areas with lower catch rates, so reductions in revenue
may not be realized. Revenue estimates used a single calculated CPUE
across the entire monitoring area because catch rates are not available
in areas that are currently closed to fishing. In reality, CPUEs likely
differ across the area with, for example, higher CPUEs near important
bathymetric features. Thus, vessels fishing in the monitoring area and
thereby supporting data collection due to the relevant requirements
would likely fish in portions of the monitoring area with a profitable
CPUE and avoid those portions with a lower CPUE.

DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area

Comment 21: NMFS received comments about the proposed DeSoto Canyon
Spatial Management Area modification sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative
A4d). Some commenters stated that access for pelagic longlines in the
southern half of the southern box of the current closure would allow
fishermen to target larger swordfish in the loop current. Other
commenters stated that new closures in the areas between the two boxes
would significantly limit productive fishing grounds and that access to
portions of the southern box was not worth the trade-off. Some
commenters requested shifting the proposed southern boundary of the
DeSoto Canyon high-bycatch-risk area further north to allow for
additional pelagic longline access.
Both the Gulf Fishery Management Council (GFMC) and the FWC
requested more information about how the proposed sub-alternative would
affect species, including king mackerel and cobia, that are managed
under other FMPs.
The FWC commented that they do not support the DeSoto Canyon
proposed sub-alternative because it would allow increased pelagic
longline effort in areas that are currently closed. The FWC asserted,
similar to their comment regarding the East Florida Coast sub-
alternative (see Comment 20 above), that the areas that would be opened
include EFH for some HMS, many of which are overfished, experiencing
overfishing, and/or prohibited.
The FWC cautioned that the proposed DeSoto Canyon Spatial
Management Area modification would negatively affect many HMS and non-
HMS tournaments which are important economic drivers in coastal
communities.
The Environmental Protection Agency, noting the possible adverse
economic impact of the DeSoto Canyon spatial management area
modification in the Draft Amendment 15, commented that additional
analyses should be done to determine how the reduction in revenue, if
realized, would affect fishermen and to identify potential mitigation
strategies for the loss of income.
Response: In Amendment 15, NMFS is preferring no action (Sub-
Alternative A4a) for the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, instead
of the Sub-Alternative A4d, which was preferred in the Draft Amendment.
NMFS made this change in response to public comments and other
considerations, including the proposed rule for designation of Rice's
whale critical habitat. NMFS issued a proposed rule regarding the
critical habitat designation for Rice's whale (88 FR 47453, July 24,
2023), and the proposed critical habitat extends across the DeSoto
Canyon Spatial Management Area. NMFS may revisit potential changes to
the DeSoto Canyon area after finalization of the designation of
critical habitat. Because NMFS now prefers the no action modification
sub-alternative for the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, there
will be no impacts to current pelagic longline fishing opportunities,
other HMS fisheries including offshore recreational tournaments, or
species managed under other FMPs' regulations. Nevertheless, see
response to Comment 20 addressing EFH and describing measures other
than closed areas for species that are overfished and experiencing
overfishing.
Comment 22: The GFMC also asked if the proposed sub-alternative
would overlap with the closures of Madison-Swanson, Steamboat Lumps,
and the Edges.
Response: Preferred Sub-Alternative A4a will not affect or overlap
Madison-Swanson, Steamboat Lumps, or the Edges 40 Fathom Contour closed
areas in the Gulf of America. All three of these areas prohibit all HMS
fishing, except surface trolling in Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps
from May through October, and lie wholly outside of the area under Sub-
Alternative A4a. Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps were originally
established to protect Gulf reef fish in 2000 with a four year
expiration date, though they were permanently implemented on May 2,
2004 (69 FR 24532). Edges 50 Fathom Contour closed area was implemented
on June 24, 2009 (74 FR 30001). After considering a request from the
GFMC, NMFS implemented compatible regulations for HMS fisheries in the
three areas (74 FR 66585, December 16, 2009). Since then, all fishing
managed under Gulf FMPs has been prohibited in these three areas,
including surface trolling, and the GFMC has requested NMFS to consider
compatible regulations for HMS fisheries to prohibit surface trolling.
The Agency may consider the request after Amendment 15 (which includes,
under the ``E'' alternatives as described below, criteria to consider
when reviewing spatial management areas) is finalized.
Comment 23: The FWC disagreed with the assertion in the Draft
Amendment that the proposed DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area
modification would achieve Amendment 15 objectives 1, 2, and 4.
Response: Although NMFS is finalizing the no action modification
sub-alternative for the DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area, progress
will still be made in meeting objectives 1, 2, and 4 (see response to
Comment 20 for the objectives). In the DeSoto Canyon area, the entire
footprint of the spatial management area will be designated a high-
bycatch-risk area, and NMFS is finalizing data collection Alternative
B4 regarding cooperative research via an EFP. EFPs are a mechanism used
by NMFS to allow highly controlled and monitored fishing activities
that would otherwise be prohibited. EFPs are therefore useful for
conducting research and collecting data in a very precautionary manner.
Conducting research and data collection in spatial management areas
under an EFP may be especially useful in areas of higher ecological
concern, including those areas designated by PRiSM as high-bycatch-risk
areas. Such data could assist NMFS in ensuring the DeSoto Canyon
Spatial Management Area is meeting conservation and management goals,
consistent with the objectives of Amendment 15.

Data Collection Alternatives (``B'' Alternatives)

Comment 24: Several commenters, including the SCDNR and the NCDMF,
stated that the calculated effort caps in the proposed monitoring areas
are too low to collect adequate data to inform an assessment of the
area. Some commenters stated that most of the sets would be made in a
short period of time providing limited information over the duration of
the monitoring area timing. Furthermore, once the effort cap is close
to being reached, fishermen would be unlikely to embark on additional
data collection trips to avoid broken trips

[[Page 10707]]

(i.e., the effort cap is reached on the way to the fishing grounds or
while fishing), reducing the effective size of the effort cap. The
SCDNR stated that the effort cap calculation is slightly flawed and
offered two suggestions for a more appropriate effort cap calculation:
(1) an average of monthly sets in the monitoring area during open times
could be applied to the monitoring area or (2) the reference area in
the current calculation could exclude areas that are not fished,
including the closed areas within the reference area. The FWC commented
that effort caps should not be calculated based on the ratio of
monitoring area to reference area and instead should be based on an
analysis determining minimum sample size to meet program goals. After
issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment requesting an explanation
about the final, preferred alternative to expand the effort cap for the
Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast monitoring areas.
Response: Based in part on public comments and through inter-office
coordination within NMFS, including with the SEFSC, NMFS refined the
effort cap calculations. For the Charleston Bump, we used fishing
effort data from January and May, the months surrounding the time when
the spatial management area has been closed (February through April).
For the East Florida Coast, similar data are not available given that
the area has been closed year-round for over 20 years. As such, we
modified the proposed calculations so that the reference area included
only areas open for fishing. See Sections 3.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.1 of the
Final Amendment for details and explanations on effort cap
calculations. NMFS considered sample size analyses similar to that
suggested by the SCDNR but determined that they were not feasible. In
consultation with the SEFSC, it was determined that without fishery-
dependent data from the areas, it is not possible to calculate minimum
sample size of effort caps a priori at a sufficient level to
characterize the fishery. Once some data is collected, NMFS can
consider whether adjustments to effort caps are warranted. Under the
preferred alternative, NMFS will use effort caps (Sub-Alternative B3a)
in combination with real-time reporting (Alternative B3 and Sub-
Alternatives B3a and B3e) to allow for real-time monitoring of bycatch.
As a special access area, monitoring areas could be closed early and/or
not reopened if conditions warrant, and real-time bycatch monitoring
will provide critical data to inform such decisions. The revised
calculations, described above, resulted in higher effort caps than what
was proposed. For the Charleston Bump monitoring area, the effort caps
increased from a proposed 69 sets (February 1 through April 30/each
year) to 380 sets (same time period). For the East Florida Coast
monitoring area, the effort caps increased from a proposed 124 sets per
year to 250 sets per year. Additionally, we have modified the preferred
alternative to provide that, through separate rulemaking, NMFS may
consider apportioning effort caps across different time frames (e.g.,
quarterly or monthly) to ensure enough data to assess the areas
throughout the time frame of the relevant spatial area is collected.
See Section 5.2.3.1 in Amendment 15 for further explanation. The
ecological impacts of the changes in effort caps levels in monitoring
areas are likely to be neutral because of the conditions and
restrictions associated with the monitoring areas and the fact that the
spatial and temporal aspects of the monitoring areas are specified
locations and times for which the risk of interactions with the PRiSM-
modeled bycatch species are relatively low. See Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.6
in Amendment 15 for more information on the ecological impacts of
effort caps in monitoring areas.
Comment 25: NMFS received a comment that effort caps (Sub-
Alternative B3a) should not be implemented in the monitoring areas and
that more direct bycatch controls such as bycatch caps (in other words,
a bycatch threshold level for closing the monitoring area) (Sub-
Alternative B3b) or per-trip set limits (Sub-Alternative B3c) should be
used instead. Bycatch caps in particular would more closely match those
of the Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area and
the Spring Gulf of America Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area. After
issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment expressing concerns that
the FEIS did not include bycatch caps or threshold levels that would
trigger closure of the monitoring areas.
Response: NMFS disagrees. While bycatch caps worked for the
Northeastern United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area and the
Spring Gulf of America Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area, bycatch caps
would not work for preferred monitoring areas that would be established
under Amendment 15 for a number of practical reasons. First,
interactions between the pelagic longline fishery and bycatch species
are relatively rare events in comparison to interactions with target
species, and the rate of interactions varies. The uncertainty regarding
the likelihood of interactions with various species makes it difficult
to select which species should have bycatch caps and to determine the
appropriate level of each bycatch cap. As more species are included, as
is the case in these monitoring areas, the complexity and difficulty of
monitoring and administering bycatch caps increases. Second, the
calculated bycatch caps for some species are so small as to not be
practical. For example, the calculated bycatch cap for some species,
such as longbill spearfish, would be one fish in some areas. It is
likely that species would not be encountered for multiple years, but in
the instance where it was, the area would close contrary to the goals
of Amendment 15. In other words, such a small bycatch cap would be
difficult to enforce even with the enhanced rate of EM monitoring in
the monitoring areas under this action and would not provide
flexibility for rare events. In a situation where there are bycatch
caps for several species, and the catch of any of the caps would result
in terminating access to the area, the smallest cap would function as
the default cap. Third, although VMS reporting of catch is relatively
quick, other reporting methods that may need to be used to corroborate
VMS reports have a longer time frame. Data from logbooks, observer
reports, or electronic monitoring systems are not available until well
after the trip has been completed. Given that there may be incentives
to underreport bycatch, corroboration of VMS data may be required to
provide a full accounting of bycatch events. If there is a time delay
between the catch events and full accounting for bycatch, the
effectiveness of a specific numerical bycatch cap at actually limiting
catch would be reduced. If attainment of a bycatch cap were to result
in closing access to the monitoring area, highly mobile species may no
longer be in the area by the time the monitoring area is closed. While
the above issues were also considered when developing the Northeastern
United States Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area and the Spring Gulf of
America Pelagic Longline Monitoring Area, in those areas, NMFS was
primarily concerned with one species, bluefin tuna. Because of the
single-species application of the stringent reporting requirements for
fishermen and dealers regarding bluefin tuna compared to other pelagic
longline catch, bycatch caps (called incidental catch limits in the
case of bluefin tuna) were a reasonable option at that time. With the
breadth of species that need to be monitored in the areas under

[[Page 10708]]

consideration in Amendment 15 and the small bycatch caps for some
species, bycatch caps are not practicable at this time.
Trip-level effort controls in monitoring areas (i.e., limiting the
number of hooks and sets an individual vessel operator may take in a
monitoring area), as with bycatch caps, would also be impracticable at
this time. While the trip-level effort controls would likely be set at
a level near the average number of hooks per set and sets per trip,
NMFS found that these limits could still result in data collection that
does not match normal fishing practices. This mismatch could reduce the
utility of comparing spatial management catch rates and composition
with those that occur outside the area. Trip-level effort controls also
do not limit total effort; rather, they slow the rate of effort, and
they may limit target catch, contrary to the intention of Amendment 15.
Regarding the FEIS comment, NMFS emphasizes that the use of effort caps
in combination with VMS reporting still provides NMFS the ability to
monitor bycatch in near real-time. As stated in Amendment 15, as a
special access area, monitoring areas could be closed early, even
before relevant effort caps are reached and even without a numerical
bycatch cap, if warranted by conservation and management needs such as
unexpectedly high bycatch. The various reporting requirements
associated with the monitoring areas will provide critical data to
inform such early closure decisions, as well as potential decisions to
not reopen the monitoring areas, or modify their effective time
periods, in following years. Further, as described in Amendment 15, the
preferred E alternative, in conjunction with the preferred C
alternatives, provides for NMFS to further modify of the spatial
management areas as needed based on ongoing review of bycatch levels
through the data that comes out from the monitoring areas.
Comment 26: NMFS received comments supporting the use of
cooperative EFP research in high- and low-bycatch-risk areas to collect
data for analysis.
Response: NMFS agrees that EFPs provide opportunities for high
quality data collection while ensuring conservation goals are met. NMFS
is finalizing Alternative B4, which would allow for EFP research in
high- and low-bycatch-risk areas of Charleston Bump and East Florida
Coast Spatial Management Areas and the entirety of the high-bycatch-
risk DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area. Alternative B4 sets forth
elements for such EFPs, including effort caps, bycatch caps, a study
plan, and observer or EM coverage. To be considered covered under and
consistent with the Amendment 15 impacts analyses for Alternative B4,
an EFP application should incorporate these elements. This final rule
also continues the shark research fishery and issuance of shark
research permits (Alternative B1) and allows EFPs and SRPs for the Mid-
Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area.
Comment 27: NMFS received comments that NMFS would not be able to
issue cooperative research EFPs (Alternative B4) in high-bycatch-risk
areas since they have been unable to issue EFPs for closed area
research in the past.
Response: NMFS disagrees. As described in Chapters 1 and 4 of the
Amendment, from 2008 through 2010, NMFS approved a 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. Additionally, NMFS
regularly issues shark research fishery permits, which are a type of
cooperative research EFP, for research in the Mid-Atlantic Shark closed
area. As stated in the Amendment and in preferring Alternative B4, NMFS
is willing to consider applications for and issuance of EFPs and SRPs
that meet the appropriate requirements for research in closed areas.
Comment 28: NMFS received comments stating that closed area EFP
research should employ proper experimental design and be subject to
robust scientific review to ensure projects provide useful results.
Response: NMFS agrees. Under preferred Alternative B4, NMFS will
accept EFP applications to perform gear-specific research in a spatial
management area to gather data that would be useful in assessing
spatial management areas. The current application and reporting forms
would not change and applicants would use the same procedure for
application submission. However, consistent with Amendment 15,
applicants would be informed that, in order to be considered covered
under and consistent with the FEIS impacts analyses, an EFP application
should incorporate elements set forth in Alternative B4 (i.e., effort
caps, bycatch caps, etc.). These elements ensure research activities do
not jeopardize conservation goals or result in excessive gear conflicts
with other user groups. As with the current EFP program, submission of
an application would not guarantee approval. Instead, each application
would be considered independently and in the context of Agency
objectives and other research applications.
Comment 29: NMFS received comments, including from the FWC,
asserting that the proposed cooperative EFP data collection alternative
circumvents the established public review and comment process for EFPs,
reducing transparency. The FWC commented in opposition of reopening any
formerly closed areas for pelagic longline harvest for the purpose of
data collection, stating that the fishery-dependent data that would be
collected under the EFP program would not provide sufficient data to
assess the performance of spatial management areas given the effort
caps. The FWC also commented that previous EFP research in closed areas
has been insufficient to inform spatial management area performance.
The FWC also stated that there has not been an adequate NEPA review of
impacts to streamlining the EFP process as provided in the proposed
rule. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment reiterating
concerns that preferred Alternative B4 reduces public transparency and
scrutiny of EFP proposals in spatial management areas.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the proposed cooperative EFP data
collection alternative circumvents the established public review and
comment process for EFPs. The preferred cooperative EFP data collection
alternative (Alternative B4) will follow the established public review
and comment process that applies to all HMS EFPs under regulations at
50 CFR 600.745 and 635.32. NMFS publishes a notice of intent to issue
EFPs and similar permits for research annually with opportunity for
public comment. This annual notice is general and provides information
on the types of EFP applications NMFS expects to receive (e.g., tagging
of HMS, capture of HMS for public display, collection of biological
samples). The HMS FMP and its amendments anticipate and include
analyses for routine EFPs. For example, some EFPs request exemptions
from specific regulations but result in catch within established
quotas. Ecological, economic and social impacts of the quotas were
addressed in the HMS FMP and its amendments and the associated NEPA
analyses. If NMFS receives EFP applications that are consistent with
the analyses in Amendment 15 but are known to be controversial or
sensitive in nature, due in part to public comment on the annual
notice, NMFS

[[Page 10709]]

may provide an opportunity for additional public comment on that
specific EFP application. However, if the EFP requires consideration
and analyses beyond what has already been reviewed by the public in the
HMS FMP and its amendments (including Amendment 15), NMFS will conduct
those analyses and provide an opportunity for public comment. These are
the same steps NMFS takes for every EFP application and are the steps
that would be used for the EFPs discussed above in the response to
Comment 27. The preferred Alternative B4 will facilitate the
consideration of research and data collection EFPs in spatial
management areas by standardizing components that applicants must
address in their applications. However, the EFP regulations at 50 CFR
600.745 and 635.32, including the requirements related to public review
and comment, still apply. Note that, while Amendment 15 refers to EFPs
under the preferred Alternative B4, as discussed in Comment 3, such
activities also include those permitted through EFPs and SRPs, which
are issued for similar activities. NMFS generally issues an EFP when
the research activity is conducted on a recreational and/or commercial
fishing vessel and issues an SRP when the research is conducted on a
scientific research vessel. See 50 CFR 635.32(b)(SRPs) and 600.10
(defining scientific research activity, scientific research vessel, and
related terms).
Comment 30: Several comments were submitted about using monitoring
areas to collect data within existing closed areas. NMFS received
comments stating that modifications to spatial management areas should
be accompanied by enhanced monitoring and data collection. Commenters
stated that monitoring areas should be implemented in any newly-opened
areas with 100-percent EM coverage, effort caps, bycatch caps, and
trip-level effort controls to reduce the potential for negative
conservation impacts. One commenter stated that Sub-Alternatives B3d
(100-percent observer coverage in monitoring area) and B3e (100-percent
EM in monitoring areas) would be important to collect timely, high-
quality data. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment
requesting justification on the final, preferred alternative to
implement a 50-percent video review rate in monitoring areas.
Response: NMFS agrees that monitoring areas provide an opportunity
for data collection within currently closed areas while ensuring
management and conservation goals are not jeopardized. NMFS also agrees
that enhanced monitoring ensures conservation and management goals are
not compromised and provides opportunities for enhanced data
collection. NMFS is using the term ``monitoring area'' to describe
spatial management areas that allow commercial fishing and have
associated restrictions that result in a relatively high level of
information and precautionary management. Under the preferred
alternatives, monitoring areas would be designated within low-bycatch-
risk areas (i.e., areas with low fisheries interactions with bycatch
species modeled using PRiSM) of the Charleston Bump and East Florida
Coast Spatial Management Areas (Sub-Alternatives A2f and A3f).
Commercial pelagic longline vessels who choose to fish inside the
monitoring areas will be permitted to do so, subject to certain
conditions and other applicable regulations. The purpose of a
monitoring area is to collect data from within the spatial management
area and provide fishing opportunities consistent with the objectives
of the spatial management area. More specifically, access to the area
is intended to provide data on the costs and benefits of the spatial
management area and the status of achievement of relevant objectives.
To the extent practicable, the monitoring area would allow commercial
fishing gear and practices similar to that employed outside the area,
in order to be comparable to fishing using routine practices. Because
fishing has not occurred in the monitoring area during the closure
months, there is uncertainty regarding the type and level of bycatch
that may occur if normal commercial fishing were to occur there.
Therefore, fishing in the monitoring area will be subject to conditions
and restrictions to ensure that bycatch and bycatch mortality is
minimized to the extent practicable and incidental catch is monitored
and managed. Various tools to ensure that the monitoring area meets its
objective will be implemented, including enhanced EM video review and
effort caps.
In the Draft Amendment, the preferred alternative provided for
video data from 100 percent of sets to be reviewed, as this would
provide the most detailed level of information and the cost of video
review ($1,680 per vessel for a typical ten day trip/six sets) was not
expected to deter interest in fishing. However, as described in Comment
31 below, NMFS received a number of comments that indicated that
because of costs, fishermen would not fish in the monitoring areas if
they had to pay for 100 percent of the EM video review. After
considering public comment and consistent with the goal of data
collection, NMFS is lowering the EM video review rate in the monitoring
areas to 50 percent to ensure that conservation and management
objectives in Amendment 15 are met. Under the revised Sub-Alternative
B3e, NMFS anticipates that some vessels will choose to fish in the
monitoring areas, and the 50-percent video review rate will provide
detailed information on bycatch and incentivize accurate bycatch
reporting by fishermen. Before deploying sets in a monitoring area,
vessel owners and/or operators will be required to indicate their
intention to do so during the pre-trip or in-trip VMS hail-out. The
agency has the authority to further restrict or end access to the
monitoring areas for those vessels 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. Based on these
concerns, access to the monitoring areas could be prohibited during its
effective time period in a given calendar year, and the Agency could
choose to keep the area closed during its effective time period in the
following calendar year as well if the concerns still exist. Final Sub-
Alternative B3e (the establishment of monitoring areas with EM and 50-
percent video review) is expected to have neutral short-term and minor
beneficial long-term ecological impacts for bycatch and incidentally
caught species. This is because of the conditions and restrictions also
associated with the monitoring areas (effort caps under preferred Sub-
Alternative B3a and cooperative research via exempted fishing permit
under preferred Alternative B4) and the fact that monitoring areas are
specified locations and times for which the risk of interactions with
the PRiSM-modeled bycatch species are relatively low. See Ecological
Impacts in Section 5.2.3 of Amendment 15 for other ecological impacts;
Section 5.1 of Amendment 15 for detailed analyses of ecological,
economic and social impacts of spatial management areas; and Section
2.5 of Amendment 15 for explanation of identification of high-bycatch-
risk areas.
Comment 31: The SCDNR commented that the requirement to pay for
expanded EM review in the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area may dissuade
fishermen from collecting data in the area. They suggested looking for
ways to decrease the cost through a lower review rate or a combination
of

[[Page 10710]]

observers and EM on a subset of trips. NMFS received a comment that the
100-percent EM video data review requirement in monitoring areas (Sub-
Alternative B3e) would be too expensive and would result in low data
collection because less fishing would occur. Another commenter noted
that, because the costs are unsustainable for smaller operations, Sub-
Alternatives B3d (100-percent observer coverage paid by the vessel) and
B3e are inconsistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 13985: Advancing
Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the
Federal Government.
Response: NMFS acknowledges that the requirement for fishermen to
pay for expanded EM review if choosing to fish within monitoring areas
may dissuade individuals from entering into the East Florida Coast or
Charleston Bump monitoring areas. Monitoring areas provide
opportunities for voluntary access for vessels to fish in previously
closed areas. NMFS believes that owners of vessels choosing to fish in
these monitoring areas should pay for the additional review that is
required for the benefit of special access. As described above in
Comment 33, NMFS has lowered the EM video review rate in the monitoring
areas to 50 percent to ensure that conservation and management
objectives are met. Monitoring areas are special access areas, wholly
located within currently closed areas. Any fishing that would occur
there is different from the fishing practices of the past 20 years
while the spatial management areas were completely closed to fishing.
Those vessels that wish to fish in monitoring areas would need to
comply with the applicable requirements. Thus, any vessel owner who
does not wish or is not able to incur the costs of enhanced EM video
review could avoid such costs by maintaining current fishing practices
and locations. On January 20, 2025, E.O. 13985 was rescinded and
succeeded by E.O. 14151, which renounced the reasoning of E.O. 13985
and established the current directive against all ``equity'' actions,
initiatives, and programs.
Comment 32: NMFS received a comment suggesting monitoring of
shortfin mako shark and leatherback sea turtle bycatch year-round in
the Charleston Bump Monitoring Area.
Response: Monitoring shortfin mako shark and leatherback sea turtle
bycatch is important. However, NMFS does not agree that those species
warrant extending portions of the Charleston Bump Spatial Management
Area to year-round monitoring. Fishermen are already required to report
catches of these species year-round in logbooks, regardless of where
they are caught. They are also required to carry observers (if
selected) who collect information on those species. Additionally,
vessels must have working EM installed and powered on at all times when
fishing to monitor shortfin mako shark disposition in addition to
bluefin tuna interactions. As such, there are currently a number of
ways for NMFS to collect data on those species in all areas, not just
in the Charleston Bump. Additional monitoring is not needed at this
time.
Comment 33: NMFS received comments that data collection activities
should include backstops to reverse course in the event of unexpected
conservation impacts. After issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a
comment stating that the FEIS was unclear in how frequently bycatch in
the monitoring areas would be reviewed.
Response: NMFS agrees that there should be backstops in case of
unexpected conservation impacts. As discussed in Comments 3 and 25, the
preferred alternatives for all the monitoring areas include ways for
NMFS to monitor the data in near real-time via VMS reports and to close
the relevant monitoring area in the event of unexpected conservation
impacts such as high levels of bycatch (Alternative B3). Additionally,
NMFS will review all the data (e.g., logbooks, EM video reports,
observer reports) more fully at least every three years (Alternative
C2) or sooner if specific concerns such as unexpectedly high bycatch
arise (Alternative C4) and could initiate rulemaking to modify the
areas if appropriate.
Comment 34: NMFS received a comment that low-bycatch-risk areas
should be opened to normal commercial pelagic longline fishing.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the areas should be opened without
further data collection and backstops. The Charleston Bump, East
Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Areas were closed
to reduce bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery over 20 years ago.
Since that time, as described in the Amendment, there have been many
changes in the environment, the species involved, fishing methods, and
regulations. While NMFS developed a predictive spatial modeling tool
(PRiSM) to assist in identifying low-bycatch-risk areas, NMFS requires
data to confirm the results of the model. As data are collected, the
model will be improved. Those improvements to the model will provide
information that NMFS will use to inform pelagic longline access in the
future. Over time, if the data collected confirm that fishing in the
areas would not hinder conservation needs, NMFS could consider
reopening the areas. Alternatively, the data could show that the areas
continue to remain important in reaching the conservation and
management goals of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and NMFS could modify the
areas or keep the areas closed.

Evaluation Timing Alternatives (``C'' Alternatives)

Comment 35: Some commenters, including the SCDNR and the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, indicated support for NMFS's preferred
approach of Alternative C2 to evaluate spatial management areas once
three years of data are available.
Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS believes scheduling regular evaluations
of spatial management areas would allow for more adaptive management
and ensure that the objectives of the monitoring area are met on a
continuing basis. Specifying a time for a future evaluation addresses
the future status of a spatial management area and reduces uncertainty.
An interval of three years between evaluations, which is relatively
short, would address potential concerns that spatial management areas
would be in place for long periods of time before the costs and
benefits are evaluated. The three-year evaluation time interval would
be used in combination with triggered evaluation to more frequently
assess spatial management areas if conservation concerns arise.
Comment 36: NMFS received a comment that future analyses of spatial
management areas should include target-to-bycatch ratio goals in each
area to allow for comparison across areas on bycatch impacts.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the recommendation to include target-
to-bycatch ratios and will consider this suggestion when evaluating
spatial management areas in the future.

The Spatial Model, PRiSM

Comment 37: NMFS received comments that the time series of catch
data inputs used in the predictive spatial modeling tool, PRiSM, ends
in 2019 and does not incorporate more recent changes in fishing
techniques since that time. Specifically, some pelagic longline
fishermen have, since 2019, begun deploying deep-set pelagic longline
gear in deeper water below the thermocline. Some fishermen report
better target catch and reduced bycatch when deploying deep sets, and
such changes in catch are not incorporated into the model. Other
commenters noted that COVID-related impacts, particularly landings and
fishing effort in 2020,

[[Page 10711]]

could impact model predictions and impacts assessments.
Response: As explained in Section 2.1 of Amendment 15, PRiSM is a
modeling tool that uses fishery observer data and environmental data to
make predictions about fishery interactions with modeled bycatch
species. NMFS agrees that because this fishing practice is relatively
new, few deep-set pelagic longline observer reports were included in
the model, and changes in catch composition due to the new fishing
technique may not be included. This would be the case even if NMFS used
fishery observer data from after 2019 since use of the technique was
adopted by only a few fishermen at first, and the use expanded in
subsequent years. For pelagic longline, NMFS used observer data that
was available when the agency conducted its PRiSM modeling work. NMFS
believes that this data from a 20+ year period (1997 through 2019) is
appropriate for purposes of predictive modeling in PRiSM and consistent
with MSA requirements under NS2. The recent use of deep setting the
longline is one of many changes in techniques that has occurred in the
fishery since the areas were first closed. These types of changes
constitute one of the reasons why Amendment 15 prefers alternatives
that would allow for both evaluation of the efficacy of the areas on a
regular basis and modification of the areas depending on the results.
If vessels that choose to fish in the newly established monitoring
areas under Amendment 15 use the deep-set technique, and if the deep-
set technique shows lower bycatch, then future analyses of the data
from the monitoring areas would likely show lower bycatch rates, and
any future management changes would take them into consideration.
COVID-related changes to landings and fishing effort are evident in
the data, particularly in 2020. However, those changes are unlikely to
affect the analyses in Amendment 15. While PRiSM analyses and
predictions used data from 1997 through 2019, impacts analyses for the
spatial management area sub-alternatives used more recent information
(including 2020 information) (Chapter 5) on effort, CPUE and catch
estimates, in order to inform the agency's understanding of potential
economic and social impacts. Even before COVID-related interruptions to
the fishery, there was a trend of declining effort. See Section 4.5.3
for more information about pelagic longline effort.
Comment 38: NMFS received comments that PRiSM is complicated, may
not be fully understood by the public, and should not be used as the
sole scientific basis for management changes. The commenter further
stated that predictive spatial models are not usually applied in HMS
management, but one was used in Amendment 15 without explanation. After
issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received an additional comment further
noting that PRiSM should not be used as the sole scientific basis for
management changes.
Response: NMFS agrees that spatial modeling is complicated, as are
many other statistical analyses and models used for fisheries
management (e.g., stock assessments). Although the models in PRiSM are
complex, the science behind spatial modeling is not new, nor is its
application in fisheries management. For example, NOAA has used similar
spatial models including EcoCast in NOAA's West Coast Regional Office
and Distribution Mapping and Analysis Portal in NMFS's Office of
Science and Technology to identify the distribution of a variety of
species, including bycatch species that fishermen should avoid.
Additionally, NMFS has used other types of spatial models over the
course of decades in order to define EFH or when first establishing the
closed areas discussed under Amendment 15. Recognizing that this
particular use may be unfamiliar to many, NMFS created a series of
additional outreach materials, beyond those typically prepared for
management actions, to better inform the public. These materials
include a PRiSM manuscript explainer, a detailed spatial management
StoryMap, and an additional chapter in the Amendment (Chapter 2).
StoryMaps are an interactive, multimedia presentation that uses maps to
provide a narrative, often helping to communicate complex spatial
information. See Chapter 2, paragraph 2 for information about
communication and outreach about PRiSM for a wide range of audiences,
including links to the website explaining PRiSM and the StoryMap
website.
PRiSM is not the sole scientific basis for management changes in
Amendment 15. As described in Chapter 2 of the Amendment, PRiSM was
used as a tool to help define potential options to consider for initial
changes to the spatial management areas. As described in Chapter 5 of
the Amendment, NMFS used other data and analyses to determine the
impacts of the alternatives analyzed and made final decisions after
considering potential impacts and public comment. NMFS disagrees that
PRiSM was used in Amendment 15 without explanation. As described above
and in Amendment 15, NMFS began this rulemaking with scoping, including
public hearings, in 2019. PRiSM was developed after scoping based on
the need identified in the comments received during scoping. During its
development, NMFS presented the idea and the results several times to
the HMS Advisory Panel and considered their concerns and comments to
further develop the model. After publication of Draft Amendment 15,
NMFS continued to provide information about PRiSM at Advisory Panel
meetings and during public hearings and webinars. Lastly, both the
scientific journal (Marine Biology) article that describes PRiSM and
Amendment 15 itself describe the need for PRiSM and how it was used.
See Amendment 15 Section 2.9 (providing citation to Marine Biology
article).
Comment 39: NMFS received a comment that the pelagic longline
interaction rate table in Appendix 1 gives an inaccurate representation
of the pelagic longline fishery's impact on billfish. NMFS received a
separate comment that cited this table to support a request for
increased protections for billfish since the interaction rate for those
species is higher than those for shortfin mako sharks, leatherback sea
turtles, and loggerhead sea turtles.
Response: The interaction rates in the Appendix 1 tables in
Amendment 15 do not speak to and are not intended to make inferences
about impacts on species. The purpose of the table is to demonstrate
which species have a large enough sample size so that the relationship
between environmental variables and catch could be calculated. In order
to determine a relationship between two variables, a minimum sample
size must be used. The minimum sample size largely depends on the
variance of the data, but generally, a larger number of samples would
more robustly establish the relationship between two variables then a
smaller number of samples. To that end, the pelagic longline
interaction rate table in Appendix 1 simply lists the occurrence rate
(proportion of sets in which at least one individual was caught) of
each species in observed pelagic longline sets (15-year time series) in
the Atlantic and Gulf of America regions without breaking out
locations, months, or years. As described in Section 2.3, the
occurrence rate was used to select species that could be modeled
through PRiSM, and the purpose of the table is to demonstrate which
species have a large enough sample size that the relationship between
environmental variables and catch can be calculated. No further
inferences from the tables regarding the

[[Page 10712]]

conservation or sustainability impact of the pelagic longline fishery
are appropriate. In addition, the billfish interaction rate reflects
the total occurrence rate of five species (blue marlin, white marlin,
roundscale spearfish, longbill spearfish, and sailfish), which can make
the rate seem higher. Individually, billfish species occurrence rates
are much lower. In the Atlantic, occurrence rates for individual
billfish species are 14 percent for blue marlin (meaning that 14
percent of all observed pelagic longline sets across all areas from
1997 through 2018 had a catch of at least one blue marlin), 25 percent
for white marlin/roundscale spearfish, 1 percent for longbill
spearfish, and 9 percent for sailfish. As described in more detail in
Comment 40 below, billfish were aggregated in PRiSM to improve the
sample size. See response to Comment 8, which provides information on
existing billfish conservation and management measures.
Comment 40: NMFS received a comment that billfish should not be
combined and modeled together in PRiSM since all five species have
unique behaviors and distribution. One commenter expressed concerns
that blue marlin were grouped together with other billfish species
since it is the only billfish species that is overfished. After
issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received comments reiterating concerns
regarding the grouping of blue marlin with other billfish species.
Response: NMFS agrees that all five billfish species have unique
behaviors and distribution, though blue marlin is not the only
overfished billfish species (white marlin, roundscale spearfish, and
sailfish are also overfished). However, as described in the response to
Comment 39 above, not all of the billfish species have a high enough
occurrence rate to calculate the relationship between environmental
variables and catch. Combining all five species improves the sample
size for modeling and provides for more statistical confidence in the
results. Additionally, combining all five species generally results in
a more temporally and spatially expansive (i.e., more conservative)
high-bycatch-risk area, providing more conservation-cautious
interaction predictions. Based on a 2024 stock assessment, the status
of blue marlin is now overfished with no overfishing occurring; this
status is a change from the status during the comment period, which was
overfished with overfishing occurring. The white marlin/roundscale
spearfish stock assessment is ongoing, and the results are expected at
the 2025 ICCAT annual meeting in November. Blue marlin and other
billfish are subject to various measures, beyond spatial management
areas, that conserve and manage the species. Amendment 15 does not
change those management measures. See response to Comment 8, which
provides information on existing conservation and management measures
for blue marlin and other billfish.
Furthermore, as described in the response to Comment 38 above, the
preferred management actions are not based solely on PRiSM results.
Instead, PRiSM was used only as a tool to help define potential options
to consider for initial changes to the spatial management areas.
Comment 41: NMFS received comments stating that PRiSM should
incorporate fishery-dependent data from other gear types, including
recreational hook and line.
Response: NMFS disagrees. Because the four spatial management areas
considered in Amendment 15 (Mid-Atlantic Shark, Charleston Bump, East
Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon closed areas) are all specific to
commercial longline gear, gear-specific fishery interaction predictions
are necessary. Recreational gear (or other gear types) are not directly
comparable to pelagic or bottom longline gear; therefore, their use in
PRiSM to measure longline interactions would be inappropriate. In other
words, if fishery managers want to know what would be caught on pelagic
longline gear, catch data from pelagic longline gear (derived from
logbooks, observers, EM, and other reporting) would be more informative
than catch data from rod and reel gear since each gear type is fished
differently and catches different species at different rates. See
generally Section 4.9.1 of Amendment 15 (describing use of survey- and
census-based approaches, as well as tournaments information, to
estimate recreational landings). Furthermore, there is no source of
recreational fishery-dependent data off the southeastern United States
that would be comparable to the commercial fishery observer data used
in PRiSM. In the context of Amendment 15, PRiSM helps guide
conservation-risk-appropriate, gear-specific consideration of areas of
high and low bycatch risk. For example, PRiSM informs preferred pelagic
longline data collection inside the Charleston Bump closed area where
pelagic longline is prohibited during portions of the year. For this
purpose, it is critical that PRiSM provides pelagic longline-specific
fishery interaction predictions.
Comment 42: NMFS received a comment that the PRiSM metrics used two
different time periods without explanation (1997 through 2019 and 2017
through 2019) and raised questions about the validity of the model and
metrics.
Response: As explained in Section 2.1 of Amendment 15, PRiSM used
two different time periods: (1) a longer period was used to address
environmental variables and variability, and (2) a shorter, recent
period was used to address current fishery conditions. First, as fully
described in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal (Marine Biology)
article regarding PRiSM and in Chapter 2 of the Amendment, NMFS used
observer data from 1997 through 2019 to calculate the relationship
between environmental variables and catch. These data can be considered
a source of actual catch data because these data are not predictions or
model outputs. Once the relationship between environmental variables
and catch is established, the model can predict fishery interactions in
any area or time period. Second, in the context of Amendment 15, PRiSM
is used to predict what fishery interactions would be if longline
fishing were allowed in areas and times that currently prohibit
longline fishing. Since we want to better understand what fishery
interactions would be now, we need to apply the model relationships to
more recent environmental conditions to understand recent fishery
conditions and predicted catch. Additionally, due to natural
fluctuations in environmental conditions (e.g., warmer and cooler
years), using an average across multiple years smooths out anomalies.
To accommodate the need for recent environmental data across multiple
years, PRiSM used average conditions across 2017 through 2019 to
provide current predicted fishery interactions. In summary, metrics
that compare actual catch data to predicted fishery interaction will
necessarily, and appropriately, use different time periods.
Comment 43: One commenter suggested that instead of solely using
interactions, PRiSM should incorporate mortality to allow for refined
predictions on impacts to target stocks and bycatch populations. After
issuance of the FEIS, NMFS received a comment suggesting that the
number/frequency of interactions with bycatch species from the video
monitoring data be compared to the PRiSM interaction frequencies in
each spatial management area.
Response: Incorporating mortality could further refine PRiSM and
provide usable information for future iterations and related management
decisions. NMFS may consider this suggestion in

[[Page 10713]]

future iterations of PRiSM. At this time, Amendment 15 uses the less
complex presence/absence information since a mortality-specific model
is unlikely to produce widely different relative predictions on
interaction locations and times. A mortality-specific model would
likely have nearly identical interaction location and time predictions
as the current iteration of PRiSM but would add additional prediction
information about catch disposition and/or post-release mortality. NMFS
may consider the utility of such predictions in future iterations of
PRiSM.
As suggested in the comment submitted after release of the FEIS,
NMFS intends to further validate PRiSM using actual catch data from the
monitoring areas. Such data will provide increased tuning of the model
and will further inform future iterations of the model and spatial
management measures.
Comment 44: One commenter stated that PRiSM is used only to narrow
the scope of closed areas and not to expand them into areas of high
billfish bycatch. Another commenter stated that PRiSM was used to
rationalize reintroducing pelagic longline gear into closed areas
rather than to rationalize expanding the closed areas into areas with
high bycatch risk. The commenter noted that PRiSM predicted a higher
rate of billfish interactions with pelagic longline gear outside of the
Charleston Bump closed area compared to within it. The commenter
questioned the intention of using PRiSM to inform broadening or
shrinking the boundaries of closed areas.
Response: At the draft stage, NMFS preferred some sub-alternatives
that considered expanding the closed areas. After considering public
comment, including comments that provided information on locations
within the spatial management areas that could incentivize data
collection, NMFS changed those sub-alternatives. As a result, the final
preferred sub-alternatives in Amendment 15 focus on data collection
inside low-bycatch-risk areas of the Charleston Bump and East Florida
Coast Spatial Management Areas to improve spatial management in the
future and maintain the status quo for the DeSoto Canyon and Mid-
Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Areas. PRiSM model outputs provided
bycatch predictions for areas both inside and outside of spatial
management areas; however, Amendment 15 focuses on assessing bycatch
risk within spatial management areas during times when they are closed.
As data is collected within spatial management areas, NMFS will have
more information to compare relative bycatch risk among different areas
including inside and outside closed areas. Preferred Alternatives C2
and C4 provide for the timing of such analyses and Alternative E2
provides considerations for the review of spatial management areas. We
note that billfish are subject to various measures, beyond spatial
management areas, that conserve and manage the species. See response to
Comment 8 (providing information on existing billfish measures).
Comment 45: NMFS received a comment that the rulemaking process is
too slow to employ PRiSM since dynamic ocean conditions change by the
time actions are implemented.
Response: PRiSM is capable of providing valuable information and
predictions in light of the duration of the rulemaking process. In
Amendment 15, PRiSM was used to help assess closed areas that have not
been changed in decades. The flexible design of PRiSM allows for
fishery interaction predictions across a range of time periods,
including near real-time predictions, which will be more responsive to
dynamic ocean conditions. Even at slightly longer time scales than near
real-time (such as recent average conditions over three years), PRiSM
predictions can provide more responsive management to changes in
bycatch locations in comparison to the static closure of areas that
have been in effect. Additionally, as detailed in the ``C'' and ``E''
alternatives, Amendment 15 establishes a flexible framework that will
give NMFS the ability to make adjustments to the spatial management
areas as a result of a changing environment or changes in the industry
in a timelier manner than was previously available.
Comment 46: NMFS received comments that PRiSM is a valuable tool to
assess and modify areas. One commenter said that PRiSM is a
scientifically-sound tool to help evaluate and modify spatial
management areas. Other commenters noted that the pelagic longline
fishery uses sophisticated software to avoid bycatch, similar to the
information provided by PRiSM.
Response: NMFS agrees that PRiSM and similar spatial models are
valuable tools for fishery management. Such models use many of the same
environmental data and principles employed by the fishing fleet to
select fishing locations.
Comment 47: NMFS received a comment that publication of the PRiSM
methodology paper in the journal, Marine Biology, raises conflict of
interest questions because one of the authors is an Associate Editor at
the journal.
Response: NMFS disagrees. It is common practice for associate
editors to continue to publish in journals they serve, and doing so in
no way represents a conflict of interest so long as they are not
assigned to handle the review of their own papers, which is a basic
practice at any reputable journal, including Marine Biology. The author
complied with the journal's Submission Guidelines regarding Competing
Interests, which state: ``Where an Editor or Editorial Board Member is
on the author list they must declare this in the competing interests
section on the submitted manuscript. If they are an author or have any
other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another
Editor or member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to assume
responsibility for overseeing peer review. These submissions are
subject to the exact same review process as any other manuscript.
Editorial Board Members are welcome to submit papers to the journal.
These submissions are not given any priority over other manuscripts,
and Editorial Board Member status has no bearing on editorial
consideration.'' NMFS reviewed the PRiSM methodology paper and
determined that it is consistent with NS2 (best scientific information
available) and, after the independent peer review described in comment/
response 48, determined that application of the PRiSM approach in
Amendment 15 is also consistent with NS2.
Comment 48: NMFS received comments about the Center for Independent
Experts (CIE) review of sections of the Amendment. The comments stated
that CIE review does not lend credibility to Amendment 15 since the
reviewers were instructed to not focus on the PRiSM methodology.
Additionally, the commenters identified several suggestions and
comments from the reviewers that appeared to be serious concerns and
that NMFS did not address or respond to.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the CIE review was inappropriately
focused and that the agency failed to address reviewer suggestions and
comments. On July 8, 2022, NMFS submitted portions of the Draft
Amendment 15 to CIE for review by three independent experts. NMFS
requested that the reviewers provide comments on the description and
communication of the spatial management alternatives and the
application of the analytical approach including PRiSM's use in
developing the alternatives and analyzing impacts. The portions of the
Amendment

[[Page 10714]]

selected for CIE review were those applicable to this request for
reviewer comment. Because the PRiSM methodology had already been peer-
reviewed and published in the scientific journal Marine Biology, we
requested that reviewers not focus on the specific PRiSM methodology.
However, NMFS did provide background material and answered questions to
ensure the reviewers had a complete understanding of the spatial
modeling tool. On August 24, 2022, NMFS received review reports from
the three CIE-selected independent experts. In general, all three
reviewers were supportive of the analytical approach in Amendment 15.
Each reviewer also found that the approach was well-described and
communicated. In addition to the overall supportive findings, each
reviewer also provided suggestions for near-term and long-term
improvements in the approach and communication of the alternatives.
Most of the suggestions were incorporated into the Amendment. Appendix
6 to Draft and Final Amendment 15 provides responses and/or actions
taken to address each of the comments, suggestions, or questions in the
reviewer reports.
Comment 49: NMFS received a comment expressing concern that PRiSM
was intended to benefit recreational fishing at the expense of pelagic
longline fishing.
Response: The intent of using PRiSM was not to reduce pelagic
longline fishing access. Rather, NMFS used PRiSM as a tool to help
define potential options to consider for initial changes to the pelagic
and bottom longline spatial management areas.

Electronic Monitoring Cost Allocation

Comment 50: NMFS received many comments, including from state
agencies, local governments, U.S. Senators, pelagic longline industry
groups, EM vendors, and pelagic longline fishermen, expressing concerns
with the proposed EM alternative (Alternative F2) and the practicality
of the proposal. Generally, commenters noted that requiring pelagic
longline owners to fund the EM program fleet-wide could have negative
economic impacts, and one commenter stated that the proposed measure
would likely ``devastate local, state, and coastal communities along
the east coast'' and Gulf of America. Many commenters suggested that
NMFS either continue to fund the EM program or remove the requirement
from the current HMS regulations (Alternative F3), with several
commenters stating that the EM Cost Allocation Policy appears
inconsistent with various NSs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act Limited Access
Privilege Program cost recovery threshold, and E.O. 13985.
The Environmental Protection Agency, noting the adverse economic
impact of the fleet-wide EM cost allocation preferred alternative (F2)
in the draft Amendment 15, commented that additional analyses should be
done to determine how the reduction in revenue, if realized, would
affect fishermen and to identify potential mitigation strategies for
the loss of income.
Response: The proposed EM cost allocation alternative (Alternative
F2) was changed to no action (Alternative F1) based in part on public
comment. As noted in Section 3.6.1, many of these comments,
particularly from industry participants and representatives and from EM
vendors, indicated that the proposed alternative to modify the EM
program fleet-wide presented practical implementation impediments that
NMFS believes warrant further consideration. For example, commenters
noted fleet-wide implementation difficulties like billing individual
vessel owners and on-vessel support with a dispersed fleet. With
respect to Alternative F3, the EM program continues to be needed to
support compliance with the bluefin tuna IBQ program. Thus, NMFS is not
requiring fleet-wide vessel owner payment for EM at this time
(Alternative F3 is not preferred) due to uncertain impacts on
compliance with IBQ reporting requirements. NMFS may initiate future
rulemaking to consider modifications to the HMS EM program as
appropriate. Additionally, as described in numerous comments above, the
FEIS preferred alternative to implement monitoring areas inside the
Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast Spatial Management Areas
requires pelagic longline vessels voluntarily choosing to fish in
monitoring areas to abide by enhanced EM requirements and for vessel
owners to pay the associated sampling costs. On January 20, 2025, E.O.
13985 was rescinded and succeeded by E.O. 14151, which renounced the
reasoning of E.O. 13985 and established the current directive against
all ``equity'' actions, initiatives, and programs.

General Miscellaneous Comments

Comment 51: Many commenters, both in support of and in opposition
to Amendment 15, stated that the U.S. pelagic longline industry
provides U.S. and international consumers access to important food
sources. Many commenters noted that the pelagic longline fishery is
already heavily regulated and that Amendment 15 would add more and
unsustainable regulations. Some of these commenters requested that NMFS
not add more regulations on the pelagic longline industry and/or lift
regulations. Some commenters noted NOAA's National Seafood Strategy and
encouraged NMFS to prioritize the resilience and longevity of the
pelagic longline fleet. Other commenters noted that Amendment 15 would
likely lead to a decrease of seafood exports and an increase of
imported seafood. One commenter noted that NMFS created an unfair
marketplace by importing seafood from foreign countries that do not
meet U.S. standards. One commenter requested that NMFS improve
regulations in other countries outside of the United States for better
environmental conditions. One commenter noted that the United States
imports over 90 percent of its seafood. One commenter noted that
declining U.S. catch will lead to a reduction of U.S. quota and more
imports from foreign countries resulting in a decrease of price for
U.S. fishermen.
Response: The seafood supplied by the pelagic longline fleet is
valuable as both a source of food and income supporting local jobs,
communities, and the broader economy. The context in which vessels
operate, including current regulations, was a relevant factor NMFS
considered in determining whether new regulations are justified. NMFS
took into consideration many factors in selecting preferred measures
that address the diverse objectives of Amendment 15 in a balanced
manner. Chapter 6 of the Amendment contains a cumulative impacts
analysis which is broad in scope and takes into consideration past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable factors. In addition, Chapter 2 of
the Amendment contains a description of methods used to develop the
spatial management alternatives, and Chapters 3 and 5 describe and
provide analysis of the impacts of the alternatives. The Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis includes a description of the steps
taken to minimize the economic impacts on small entities, and the
reasons for the preferred measures. The United States manages fisheries
within its EEZ in accordance with applicable U.S. laws and in response
to the unique characteristics of its fisheries, and therefore the U.S.
regulations regarding Atlantic HMS are different from the rules
affecting citizens of other countries, which operate under different
laws and circumstances. NMFS also actively engages in international
fora, such as ICCAT, where decisions

[[Page 10715]]

regarding HMS conservation and management are agreed to, and is
dedicated to improving sustainable fishing practices beyond the U.S.
EEZ.
Comment 52: NMFS received comments noting that Amendment 15 would
decrease the viability of the pelagic longline industry and that such a
decrease would also have a resulting significant negative impact on
shoreside businesses (including restaurants and supply shops) and
fishing businesses overall along the coast. Commenters suggested that
vessel owners are proactively trying to sell boats and remove
themselves from the fishery before the implementation of Amendment 15.
Response: Comments referencing adverse economic impacts largely
focused on impacts from the Draft Amendment 15 preferred EM cost
allocation alternative (Alternative F2) and preferred Charleston Bump
and DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area Sub-Alternatives A2c and A4d
that would have reduced fishing access. Amendment 15 preferred
alternatives have changed to Alternative F1 (no action for EM cost
allocation fleet-wide) and Sub-Alternatives A2f (Charleston Bump
Spatial Management Area) and A4a (no action for DeSoto Canyon Spatial
Management Area). As a result, the large economic impacts described in
the Draft Amendment regarding alternatives preferred therein are no
longer expected. In the Final Amendment, NMFS has updated the economic
analyses for the preferred spatial management areas and for the
sampling costs of EM for owners of vessels that choose to fish in the
monitoring areas (See Sections 5.2.3 and 5.6 of Amendment 15 for those
economic analyses). Those analyses found that more limited industry
funding of voluntary fishing and data collection would provide net
economic benefits to those fishermen that choose to engage in
monitoring area data collection. A future rulemaking will likely
consider the cost of shifting the sampling costs of EM to the pelagic
longline fishery fleet-wide.
Comment 53: NMFS received mixed comments regarding the complexity
of Amendment 15. Numerous commenters stated that Amendment 15 contained
too much information, was too complex, and was difficult to understand.
Others were concerned that the online version of Amendment 15 was
unusable and limited the ability for stakeholders to provide comments,
suggesting that NMFS should have provided hard copies of the Amendment
to pelagic longline constituents, particularly those in rural
communities with more limited internet access. Other commenters stated
that the complexity is indicative of a well-considered action with
clear logic, strategy, and thorough consideration of a range of
alternatives that would result in a high likelihood achieving the
diverse objectives of the Amendment. Some environmental organizations
expressed appreciation of the Agency's outreach and communication
efforts, particularly the StoryMap, and requested that NMFS use
StoryMaps more frequently in the future.
Response: Recognizing that Amendment 15 is a complex and nuanced
action, at the draft stage, NMFS created several supporting outreach
materials to simplify and more effectively communicate the contents of
the action. These materials included a StoryMap, an electronic
monitoring cost allocation infographic, and public hearing posters. All
of these materials were accessible on the NMFS Amendment 15 website.
See Chapter 2, paragraph 2 for information about communication and
outreach about PRiSM for a wide range of audiences, including links to
the website explaining PRiSM and the StoryMap website. Posters and hard
copies of the Amendment were provided at the four in-person hearings
held in Manteo, NC; Jupiter, FL; Panama City, FL; and Houma, LA. These
locations for public hearings were selected to provide as broad
outreach as possible to communities in proximity to the spatial
management areas and in areas with a large number of affected permit
holders. Additionally, per usual practice, NMFS printed and shipped
numerous hard copies of the Amendment to stakeholders in response to
specific requests. NMFS conducted several public hearings, both in
person and via webinar. These hearings were designed to inform the
public of the proposed measures in a readily understandable format, as
well as provide opportunities for the public to comment and ask
questions. To the extent possible, NMFS facilitated communication with
the public via the internet and website and, where specifically
requested, had individual discussions with stakeholders to walk through
the Amendment and the proposed measures. The amount and complexity of
information in the Amendment reflect the scope of the objective of
Amendment 15 and the number of alternatives analyzed. The complexity is
also due to the diversity of the pelagic and bottom longline fisheries
and the number of applicable laws and processes. In finalizing the
Amendment, NMFS has attempted to describe things more simply in
response to these comments. NMFS will also be providing a small entity
compliance guide (as required under the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act) and will be updating some of the outreach
materials created for the Draft Amendment and proposed rule. NMFS will
consider using StoryMaps more in the future as needed.
Comment 54: A commenter requested that the Agency withdraw Draft
Amendment 15 and restart the rulemaking process with an Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). Some commenters requested that NMFS
extend the public comment period to allow more time to understand the
Draft Amendment 15 and to provide public comment. After issuance of the
FEIS, NMFS received a comment requesting that NMFS re-propose Amendment
15 with a revised DEIS.
Response: NMFS disagrees that withdrawing or re-proposing Amendment
15 and restarting the rulemaking process is needed. On May 16, 2019,
NMFS provided formal notice to the public that NMFS intended to prepare
an environmental impact analysis, announced the availability of an
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). NMFS held five scoping meetings,
including a webinar, and conducted scoping during the spring HMS
Advisory Panel meeting pertaining to spatial management research.
During the development of the proposed rule, NMFS considered public
comments received on the Issues and Options paper, including comments
provided at the May 2019 HMS Advisory Panel Meeting. Between 2019 and
the release of the proposed rule in 2023, NMFS developed the PRiSM
spatial model and presented it several times to the HMS Advisory Panel
(Fall 2020, Fall 2021, Spring 2023, and Fall 2023 HMS Advisory Panel
Meetings), which is conducted in meetings open to the public. In 2020
and 2021, the meetings were fully online; the meetings in 2023 had both
in-person and online options. Transcripts of all meetings are available
online (see ADDRESSES). Those Advisory Panel discussions helped NMFS
develop the proposed rule and Draft Amendment. NMFS published the
proposed rule and Draft Amendment 15 on May 5, 2023 (88 FR 29050). In
that proposed rule, NMFS announced that the public comment period would
end on September 15, 2023. Due to requests from multiple constituents,
NMFS extended the comment period for this

[[Page 10716]]

action to October 2, 2023 (88 FR 62044, September 8, 2023). The five-
month duration of the comment period provided reasonable opportunity
for the public to comment on the proposed management measures.
As stated in Amendment 15 and this final rule, the preferred
modifications to the Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial
management areas in this action were developed based on public comments
and additional analyses and is a combination of modification sub-
alternatives analyzed in Draft Amendment 15. These measures strike a
balance between collecting fishery-dependent data to assess closed
areas, minimizing bycatch, and reducing gear conflict while increasing
access to productive fishing grounds in order to fulfill Amendment 15's
objectives. Given the robust public comment on the Draft Amendment 15
alternatives and proposed rule, which directly led to the development
of the Final Amendment 15-preferred alternatives, NMFS does not believe
re-proposal of the Amendment is necessary.
Comment 55: Noting the complexity of the document, some commenters
stated that Amendment 15 should be split into separate actions. One
commenter suggested that NMFS implement the EM Cost Allocation policy
prior to establishing the spatial management areas.
Response: NMFS included spatial management areas and EM cost
allocation components together in Amendment 15 because of the link
between the monitoring areas and EM. In Final Amendment 15, NMFS is
finalizing changes to spatial management areas, including enhanced EM
requirements in the East Florida Coast and Charleston Bump Monitoring
Areas. To monitor those areas, many of the proposed EM cost allocation
measures (Alternative F2) are being finalized in Amendment 15. NMFS is
not finalizing the broader EM measures to switch sampling costs to the
pelagic longline fleet overall. See response to Comment 50 for further
explanation.
Comment 56: NMFS received comments noting the proposed measures
protect fish stocks ocean-wide. Some commenters suggested that NMFS
maintain the current closed areas to allow fish stocks to continue to
rebound. One commenter noted that tuna are abundant. Another commenter
stated that Amendment 15 fails to protect Atlantic billfish, including
marlins.
Response: NMFS agrees that these closed areas have played an
important role in rebuilding overfished species, conserving protected
species, and maintaining sustainable stocks. The goal of this Amendment
is to enhance management and conservation goals of existing closed
areas by collecting data and reassessing the areas. As described in
Amendment 15, in the future, NMFS will regularly, and on an as-needed
basis, evaluate these areas to consider what potential modifications
need to be made to balance conservation and management requirements,
including any conservation needs of tunas and billfish. See response to
Comment 8 for information on billfish conservation and management
measures.
Comment 57: NMFS received a comment expressing concern that the
Agency has not provided the stock assessment status of sailfish. This
comment further noted that the stock assessment worked on in 2023 was
not released to the public.
Response: West Atlantic sailfish is assessed internationally
through the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS), the
scientific body of ICCAT, a regional fishery management organization
established by treaty of which the United States is a member. U.S.
scientists participate in SCRS stock assessments. The most recent stock
assessment for West Atlantic sailfish was conducted at the 2023
Atlantic Sailfish Data Preparatory and Stock Assessment Meeting held in
June 2023, which was during the proposed rule comment period for
Amendment 15. The results were not formally accepted until the annual
ICCAT meeting in November 2023. No new measures regarding sailfish were
adopted at the 2023 ICCAT annual meeting; the current measure adopted
in 2016 (Recommendation 16-11) remains in place. The results of the
stock assessments indicated that the West Atlantic sailfish stock is
overfished with B2021/BMSY = 0.96 (0.59-1.49), but not experiencing
overfishing with F2021/FMSY = 0.59 (0.36-0.95). More information
regarding the 2023 Atlantic Sailfish stock assessment can be found in
the 2023 ICCAT SCRS Report available at <a href="https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2023/REPORTS/2023_SCRS_ENG.pdf">https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2023/REPORTS/2023_SCRS_ENG.pdf</a> and the stock
assessment meeting report available at <a href="https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2023/REPORTS/2023_SAI_ENG.pdf">https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2023/REPORTS/2023_SAI_ENG.pdf</a>. The schedule of all SCRS
meetings as well as meeting reports are made publicly available on the
ICCAT website (<a href="https://www.iccat.int/">https://www.iccat.int/</a>). In addition, SCRS stock
assessment results and scientific advice were presented during the
October 2023 U.S. ICCAT Advisory Committee meeting, during the session
open to the public (88 FR 67731, October 2, 2023). There were no
changes to the Amendment 15 analyses needed based on the Atlantic
sailfish stock assessment.
Comment 58: Comments were submitted stating that the recreational
fishery has a larger impact on billfish than the pelagic longline
fleet.
Response: The purpose of Amendment 15 is to address spatial
management regulations on the commercial longline fishery. Management
of the recreational billfish fishery is outside the scope of this
action. While this Amendment would not change any regulatory
requirements for recreational fishermen, NMFS recognizes and describes
potential impacts on and by recreational fisheries in Chapter 4 of the
Amendment.
Comment 59: NMFS received a comment opposed to Amendment 15
asserting that offshore wind farms cause ecosystem effects that can
benefit and harm marine environments, and undersea cables from wind
farms have the potential to alter the movements and migrations of fish.
The comment stated that resources should be directed toward studying
environmental stressors and assess the physiological and behavioral
responses of fish to offshore wind farms.
Response: Amendment 15 considers the modification, data collection,
and assessment of longline spatial management measures in the Atlantic
and Gulf of America, as well as changes to the administration and
funding of the HMS EM program. This comment is outside the scope of
this action. However, information about related potential impacts to
HMS can be found in Chapter 6 on cumulative impacts. Information
regarding renewable energy, including offshore wind energy, can be
found at <a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy</a>. NMFS agrees that
resources should be directed towards studying the impacts of offshore
wind on fish, and information regarding NMFS's role in offshore wind
development, including various research efforts, can be found at
<a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/offshore-wind-energy">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/offshore-wind-energy</a>.
Comment 60: NMFS received several comments that Amendment 15 is
unconstitutional.
Response: The commenters do not specify what constitutional concern
they believe Amendment 15 raises. NMFS disagrees that Amendment 15 is
unconstitutional. It complies with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws as described in Chapter 9 of Amendment 15.
Comment 61: NMFS received a comment requesting a moratorium on

[[Page 10717]]

new recreational vessels entering the fishery.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of this action. The
purpose of Amendment 15 is to collect data to assess whether spatial
management measures are meeting conservation and management goals.
Comment 62: Some commenters noted that reporting requirements for
pelagic longline fishermen are unfair compared to those for other
commercial and recreational HMS fisheries.
Response: This comment is outside of the scope of this action. The
purpose of Amendment 15 is to collect data to assess whether certain
spatial management measures affecting longline gear are meeting
conservation and management goals. NMFS has undertaken separate actions
to address reporting more broadly. On May 12, 2023, NMFS released and
took comment on an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking regarding
electronic reporting (88 FR 30699). Furthermore, on September 6, 2024,
NMFS published a proposed rule regarding electronic reporting (89 FR
72796) which considers the reporting requirements across all HMS
fisheries, both commercial and recreational.

Changes From the Proposed Rule (88 FR 29050, May 5, 2023)

This section explains the changes in the regulatory text from the
proposed rule to the final rule. The changes are being made in response
to public comment and/or refined analyses or to clarify text. For the
Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast spatial management areas, we
developed new sub-alternatives A2f and A3f, respectively, based on
public comment and additional analyses, that are combinations of other
sub-alternatives analyzed in Draft Amendment 15. These new sub-
alternatives and modifications to other proposed measures, which are
finalized in this rule, fall within the scope of, or are a logical
outgrowth of, the alternatives in the proposed rule and Draft Amendment
15. The changes from the proposed rule include changes to the
boundaries and/or timing of the Mid-Atlantic shark, Charleston Bump,
East Florida Coast, and DeSoto Canyon spatial management areas, changes
to the monitoring area requirements, removal of the proposed fleet-wide
vessel owner payment for of EM program sampling costs, and revisions to
the proposed EM requirements for application within monitoring areas.
The changes from the proposed rule text in the final rule are described
below.

1. Modification to the Spatial Management Areas (Sec. Sec. 635.2,
635.9, 635.35)

Mid-Atlantic Shark Spatial Management Area
NMFS proposed modifications to both the geographic boundary and
closure timing of the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area. These
proposed modifications extended the eastern boundary of the current
closed area and shifted the closure timing to begin on November 1 of
one year and end on May 31 of the following year. This proposed area
was designated as a high-bycatch-risk area named the ``Mid-Atlantic
Bottom Longline Restricted Area.'' This final rule maintains the
current geographic boundary of the existing Mid-Atlantic shark closed
area as a high-bycatch-risk area and finalizes the proposed shift in
timing (November 1-May 31) and name change. There will be no new data
collection methods instituted through this final rule for the Mid-
Atlantic area, with data collection continuing to be conducted as it is
currently via shark research permits and exempted fishing permitted
activities under the scope of Sec. 600.745. Such activities include
EFPs and SRPs per Sec. 635.32.
Charleston Bump Spatial Management Area
NMFS proposed modifications to both the geographic boundary and
closure timing of the current Charleston Bump closed area. The proposed
geographic modifications included delineating high- and low-bycatch-
risk areas with a diagonal bisect from the northeastern corner of the
current closure southwest to a point near the Charleston Bump
bathymetric feature on the southern boundary; the overall footprint of
the current Charleston Bump closed area was not proposed to change. The
area inshore of the boundary was proposed to be designated as a high-
bycatch-risk area. As proposed, this area would have been closed to
pelagic longline gear year-round (as opposed to the current closure of
February 1 through April 30 of every year) and would have been combined
with the high-bycatch-risk area of the East Florida Coast closed area
to create the ``South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area.'' The
area offshore of the boundary was proposed to be designated as a low-
bycatch-risk area named the ``Charleston Bump Monitoring Area.'' In
this area, fishermen with HMS permits who were fishing with pelagic
longline gear could have fished with additional restrictions and
requirements from February 1 through April 30. These additional
requirements included limiting the level of fishing effort in the
Monitoring Area. Specifically, NMFS proposed setting an effort cap of
69 pelagic longline sets from February 1 through April 30 and requiring
that vessels arrange and pay for an enhanced EM video review rate of
100 percent of all sets if choosing to fish in the monitoring area.
As described in the response to comments, we have modified this
measure in several ways. First, the final rule shifts the proposed
boundary between the high- and low-bycatch-risk areas to a diagonal
line approximately 45 nautical miles from shore at the northern and
southern extents within the 100-fathom bathymetric line. The area
inshore of the boundary, designated as a high-bycatch-risk area, will
now be named the ``Charleston Bump Pelagic Longline Restricted Area,''
and will be closed to pelagic longline gear from February 1 through
April 30. This high-bycatch-risk area will no longer be combined, as
proposed, with the East Florida Coast high-bycatch-risk area to create
the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area. Second, the final
rule increases the pelagic longline effort cap in the Charleston Bump
Monitoring Area to 380 pelagic longline sets from February 1 through
April 30. Through separate rulemaking, NMFS may consider apportioning
these effort caps across different time frames to ensure enough data to
assess the monitoring area throughout its effective time period. Third,
the final rule establishes an enhanced EM video review rate of 50
percent at the vessel owner's expense if their vessels choose to fish
in a monitoring area. Lastly, NMFS is clarifying in this final rule
that should reopening of a monitoring area, after its initial closure
during that calendar year, be warranted due to the original reasons
prompting closure no longer being valid (e.g., effort cap has not
actually been reached or conservation and management concerns no longer
exist), NMFS will file for publication with the Office of the Federal
Register an action to reopen the monitoring area. For instance, if NMFS
closed an area due to an effort cap but later determined that the cap
was not in fact reached, NMFS would file an action with the Federal
Register to reopen the monitoring area for the remainder of its
effective time period during that calendar year. If the effort cap was
reached later that year, NMFS has authority to close the area again.
As proposed, this final rule provides that data collection in the
high-bycatch-risk area will be available through issuance of EFPs for
research. While Amendment 15 refers to EFPs in

[[Page 10718]]

Alternative B4, such activities include those permitted through EFPs
and SRPs (see 50 CFR 635.32(b)). EFPs and SRPs are issued for similar
activities; however, NMFS generally issues an EFP when the research
activity is conducted on a recreational and/or commercial fishing
vessel and issues an SRP when the research is conducted on a scientific
research vessel (as defined by 50 CFR 600.10). For the low-bycatch-risk
area, in addition to enhanced EM review (described above), the final
rule provides (as proposed) that vessels that choose to fish in the
area would be subject to enhanced vessel monitoring system (VMS)
reporting requirements (hail-out and reporting on specific bycatch
species within 12 hours after completion of each set). NMFS will also
consider applications for EFPs or SRPs in the low-bycatch-risk area.
East Florida Coast Spatial Management Area
NMFS did not propose changes to the overall footprint of the East
Florida Coast closed area. Similar to the proposed changes for the
Charleston Bump closed area, the proposed rule would establish high-
and low-bycatch-risk areas along a diagonal boundary within that
footprint. The proposed area inshore of the boundary would have been
designated as a high-bycatch-risk area. As noted earlier, this area
would have been combined with the proposed Charleston Bump high-
bycatch-risk area to create the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline
Restricted Area. The area offshore of the boundary would have been
designated as a low-bycatch-risk area named the ``East Florida Coast
Monitoring Area.'' Within this monitoring area, fishermen with HMS
permits who are fishing with pelagic longline gear could have fished in
the area year-round with additional restrictions and requirements. To
limit the level of fishing effort in the monitoring area, NMFS proposed
setting an effort cap of 124 pelagic longline sets per year. NMFS also
proposed requiring that vessels arrange and pay for enhanced EM video
review rate of 100 percent of all sets if they choose to fish in the
monitoring area.
As described in the response to comments, NMFS has modified this
measure in several ways. First, the final rule shifts the diagonal
boundary to a diagonal line beginning inside of the 100-fathom shelf
break in the north, extending southeast to a point at the eastern edge
of the current closure around Sebastian, Florida. The area inshore of
the boundary, designated as a high-bycatch-risk area, will now be named
the ``East Florida Coast Pelagic Longline Restricted Area'' and will be
closed to pelagic longline gear year-round. The high-bycatch-risk area
will no longer be combined with the Charleston Bump high-bycatch-risk
area to create the South Atlantic Pelagic Longline Restricted Area.
Second, the final rule increases the pelagic longline effort cap in the
East Florida Coast Monitoring area to 250 pelagic longline sets per
year. Through separate rulemaking, NMFS may consider apportioning
effort caps across different time frames to ensure enough data to
assess the monitoring area throughout its effective time period. Third,
the final rule establishes an enhanced EM video review rate of 50
percent within a monitoring area. This enhanced rate will be at the
vessel owner's expense if their vessels choose to fish within a
monitoring area. Data collection and reporting within the high- and
low-bycatch-risk areas would be the same as described for the
Charleston Bump spatial management area. Lastly, the final rule makes
the same clarifications regarding potential reopening of the monitoring
area after initial closure during the calendar year as with Charleston
Bump spatial management area.
DeSoto Canyon Spatial Management Area
NMFS proposed modifications to the geographic boundary of the
current DeSoto Canyon closed area. This modification changed the
overall footprint of the DeSoto Canyon closed area to create a
parallelogram, designated as a high-bycatch-risk area named the
``DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted Area,'' which would have
been closed year-round to pelagic longline gear. The areas outside the
parallelogram that are currently closed year-round would have been
designated as low-bycatch-risk areas and would have been open to normal
commercial pelagic longline fishing activities.
As described in the response to comments, in this final rule, we
are maintaining the status quo for the boundaries and timing of the
existing DeSoto Canyon closed area. The current DeSoto Canyon closed
area will be fully designated as a high-bycatch-risk area named the
``DeSoto Canyon Pelagic Longline Restricted Area.'' As with all the
high-bycatch-risk areas, this final rule provides that data collection
would be available via EFPs and SRPs.
In summary, for the regulatory text related to the spatial
management areas (Sec. 635.35), NMFS has made changes from the
proposed regulatory text to (1) implement the final modifications
detailed above, (2) change the current names of the areas from
``closed'' to ``gear restricted'' as relevant, (3) separate out the
requirements between gear restricted areas and monitoring areas, (4)
reorder monitoring area paragraphs to consolidate information related
to effort caps and the effective period of a monitoring area and to
reiterate other applicable requirements from other sections, (5) delete
proposed Sec. 635.35(f)(ii) (usefulness of information from catches)
as it overlaps with other spatial management area review factors, and
(6) make minor clarifications or changes to other factors based on
consultations with the SEFSC and as a result of Executive Orders that
have been added or revoked since January 20, 2025.

2. Modification of the Electronic Monitoring Cost Allocation (Sec.
635.9)

NMFS proposed requiring pelagic longline vessel owners fleet-wide
to pay sampling costs associated with the EM program. Vessels under the
program currently have NMFS-provided EM systems. The proposed rule
provided that NMFS would continue funding the administrative portions
of the EM Program. The proposed payment requirements would have been
phased in over a three-year period and would have included 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, the proposed rule included requirements for (1) the EM vendor
application and approval process, (2) EM vendor requirements (including
developing vessel monitoring plans in consultation with vessel owners),
(3) vessel owner and operator requirements, and (4) modification of
current IBQ Program's EM spatial/temporal requirements to require EM
within EM Data Review Areas in order to operationalize the sampling
plan design. Additionally, due to the proposed fleet-wide requirement
for vessel owners to pay for EM sampling costs, NMFS did not
differentiate between the necessary EM system requirements inside and
outside the monitoring areas. At this time, NMFS is not requiring the
pelagic longline industry fleet-wide to pay for EM sampling costs.
Thus, the final rule retains existing EM regulations at Sec. 635.9(a)-
(g) with some revisions, explained below, and is not finalizing the
proposed EM Data Review Areas. However, vessel owners would be required
to pay for EM sampling costs if their vessels choose to fish in the
Charleston Bump Monitoring Area or the East Florida Coast Monitoring
Area. Thus, this rule adds a new paragraph (h)

[[Page 10719]]

related to EM within monitoring areas, which includes requirements for
EM vendors and vessel owners and operators from the proposed rule. As
described above, the required EM video review rates in monitoring areas
are now 50 percent of all sets, a change from the 100-percent rate that
was originally proposed.
Current Sec. 635.9(d) requires an EM system to allow authorized
NMFS or U.S. Coast Guard officers or any NMFS-approved contractor to
observe live video on the system monitor. Proposed Sec. 635.9(g)
replaced ``NMFS-approved contractor'' with ``approved EM vendor'' and
added state law enforcement officers and a citation to the MSA
confidentiality of information provision, 16 U.S.C. 1881a(b)(1). To
simplify the text, the final rule deletes the citation to 16 U.S.C.
1881a(b)(1). Because vessel owners will not be required to pay for EM
sampling costs fleet-wide, final rule Sec. 635.9(d) retains the
reference to ``NMFS-approved contractor;'' clarifies that vessel owners
or operators must provide access to EM systems, including data, upon
request, ``to any NMFS-approved contractor;'' clarifies ``authorized
officers'' consistent with the MSA, 16 U.S.C. 1861; and adds text to
address EM systems used for monitoring areas and certified EM vendors
who provide services for those areas. Final Sec. 635.9(e)(4) clarifies
that the hard drive mailing requirement applies regardless of whether a
vessel fished inside or outside of a monitoring area.
New paragraph Sec. 635.9(h) sets forth EM requirements for
monitoring areas: EM cost responsibilities, the EM vendor application
and approval process, EM vendor requirements, EM system requirements,
and vessel owner and operator requirements from proposed Sec.
635.9(b), (c), (d), and (e) with revisions to tailor the proposed
fleet-wide provisions to just the monitoring areas. Sampling costs
(vessel owner responsibility) include, but are not limited to, the
costs of enhanced EM video review described above, data transmittal,
and equipment and equipment maintenance and upkeep. At this time,
vessel owners that choose to select an EM vendor that is different from
the EM vendor that NMFS uses for the fleet-wide EM Program may need to
purchase additional cameras or other equipment, if different cameras or
equipment are required by their EM vendor. The final rule refers to
approved vendors as ``certified'' (see Sec. 635.9(h)(2)(ii)-(iv),
(3)).
Paragraph Sec. 635.9(h)(3)(ii) acknowledges that a certified EM
vendor may determine that a part of, or none of, the NMFS-provided EM
system is compatible with the vendor's equipment, software, etc., and
may require a vessel owner whose vessel chooses to fish in a monitoring
area to buy or lease EM system components. Thus paragraph (h)(3)(ii)
clarifies the necessary EM system capabilities for monitoring areas.
Section 635.9(c) sets forth EM system components and capabilities for
EM systems used fleet-wide. For the monitoring areas, the final rule
would require the same capabilities as in paragraph (c) (e.g.,
camera(s) with sufficient resolution to determine the number and
species of fish caught, ability to initiate video recording at the time
gear retrieval starts, etc.), but not the exact components currently
required (e.g., removable hard drives are not required). Because hard
drives are not required, final Sec. 635.9(h)(3)(ii) adds that the EM
system must be capable of protecting all electronic data (video,
metadata, and sensor data if any) from tampering and collecting and
sending all electronic data to the vessel's EM vendor. NMFS is not
requiring vessel owners to pay for the sampling costs of the EM Program
fleet-wide at this time. NMFS may initiate a future rulemaking to
consider modifications to the HMS EM program as appropriate.

3. Technical Adjustments (Sec. Sec. 635.21, 635.71, and Other Sections
Throughout the Rule)

In addition to the changes described above, the final rule makes a
number of technical changes throughout the existing regulations both to
clarify the language as needed and to correct cross-references or other
inconsistencies for paragraphs that are changing based on the changes
in this final rule. These changes can be found throughout the
regulatory text and do not affect the substance of the final rule or
the existing regulations. In Sec. 635.9(h)(3)(i), the final rule
streamlines the text by deleting details about vessel monitoring plans
(VMPs) and cross-referencing paragraph (e), which contains those
details. In Sec. 635.21, given the number of cross-reference
corrections, we are simplifying the amendatory instructions for
paragraphs (c) and (d) regarding existing sea turtle provisions by
including entire paragraphs even when no changes are made to the
existing text. Additionally, we are clarifying at Sec. 635.35(c)(4)
that research activities can be conducted within the Northeast Distant
gear restricted area (NED) via EFPs or SRPs. Such permits are currently
issued to fishing vessels participating in specific research authorized
under Sec. 635.32. In this action, NMFS is clarifying such research
activities for public transparency. These changes are editorial in
nature.

Classification

The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this final
rule is consistent with section 304(g) and other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the HMS FMP and its amendments, ATCA, and other
applicable law.
As described above, NMFS prepared an FEIS for Amendment 15. The
Notice of Availability for the FEIS was published in the Federal
Register on May 10, 2024 (89 FR 40481). In approving Amendment 15, NMFS
issued a Record of Decision identifying the selected alternatives. A
copy of the Record of Decision for the FEIS, which includes detailed
analyses of a reasonable range of alternatives to meet rulemaking
objectives, is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175
is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of
E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under
section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 is not
required and has not been prepared.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A FRFA was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised
by the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS responses to those
comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the
action. A summary of the FRFA, which must address each of the
requirements in 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)-(5), is below. The entire FRFA is
included in Amendment 15 and is available as provided in the ADDRESSES
section above. Some clarifications regarding the preferred alternatives
and Small Business size standards that differ from the standalone FRFA
are included in the summary below.

[[Page 10720]]

Section 604(a)(1) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires
agencies to state the objective of, and legal basis for, the action.
The objectives of, and legal basis for, this final rule are set forth
in the Background section above.
Sections 604(a)(2) and (3) of the RFA requires that a FRFA include
a summary of significant issues raised by public comment or by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
response to the IRFA and proposed rule, a summary of the assessment of
the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
rule as a result of such comments. NMFS did not receive any comments on
the proposed rule from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. Additionally, NMFS did not receive any public
comments specifically on the IRFA; however, the agency did receive some
comments regarding the anticipated or perceived economic impact of the
rule. Below is a summary of those comments and responses that pertain
specifically to such economic impacts. A summary of all of the comments
received and the Agency's responses are provided above.
NMFS received comments that closure of the Charleston Bump year
round or for certain months would have negative impacts on businesses.
Some commenters noted the Draft Amendment 15-preferred alternative
would eliminate access to the western edge of the Gulf Stream along the
100-fathom shelf break year-round, preventing shorter day trips,
increasing the need for fuel, and forcing fishermen to travel further
to fish in more dangerous areas in the mid-winter months. Some
commenters that operate in the area stated that they would need to
relocate to other areas or exit the fishery completely. Based on public
comments and additional analyses, NMFS reconsidered the boundaries of
the high-bycatch-risk area of the Charleston Bump spatial management
area and designed a new preferred sub-alternative (Sub-Alternative A2f)
that is a combination of several of the other sub-alternatives
considered. The new preferred Sub-Alternative A2f moves the eastern
boundary of the high-bycatch-risk area, relative to the current
Charleston Bump closed area, westward, inside of the 100-fathom shelf
break, to a diagonal line 45 nmi from shore at the northern and
southern extents. The western boundary of this management area remains
the same as the current western boundary of Charleston Bump closed
area. The area inshore of the boundary is designated high-bycatch-risk
area and offshore of that boundary is designated low-bycatch-risk area.
The temporal extent of both the high-bycatch-risk area and low-bycatch-
risk area is February 1 through April 30. This modification of the area
and temporal extent of the closure is consistent with the intention to
not limit fishing access, should reduce the potential for unintended
limitations to fishing, including on species managed under other FMPs,
since no new areas/times would be closed to pelagic longline fishing.
Additionally, this modification is expected to encourage data
collection by providing access to desired fishing grounds, based on
public comment stating that the 100-fathom depth contour is one of the
most productive fishing grounds in the area and that it becomes less
productive further offshore.
In another comment, the FWC cautioned that the proposed DeSoto
Canyon Spatial Management Area modification would impact many HMS and
non-HMS tournaments which are important economic drivers in coastal
communities. In response to this comment, NMFS has reconsidered the
proposed changes to the shape of the DeSoto Canyon spatial management
area. The new preferred alternative would maintain the current
footprint of the closed area. Thus tournaments should not be affected
by the preferred alternative in Final Amendment 15.
Several comments noted that the requirement for vessel owners
choosing to fish in monitoring areas to pay for expanded EM review in
the proposed Charleston Bump and East Florida Coast monitoring areas
would be expensive and may dissuade fishermen from collecting data in
the areas. They suggested looking for ways to decrease the cost through
a lower review rate or a combination of observers and EM on a subset of
trips. NMFS acknowledges that the requirement for fishermen to pay for
expanded EM review if they choose to fish in a monitoring area may
dissuade individuals from entering into the relevant monitoring areas.
Monitoring areas provide special access for vessels to fish under
certain requirements in currently closed areas that vessels would
otherwise be prohibited from fishing in. These requirements include
data collection. Any vessel owner who does not wish or is not able to
incur the costs of enhanced EM video review could avoid such costs by
maintaining current fishing practices and locations. After considering
public comment and consistent with the goal of data collection, NMFS
has lowered the EM video review rate for vessels choosing to fish in
the monitoring areas to 50 percent to ensure that conservation and
management needs are met. Under the revised Sub-Alternative B3e, NMFS
anticipates that some vessels will choose to fish in the monitoring
areas, and the 50-percent video review rate will provide detailed
information on bycatch and incentivize accurate bycatch reporting by
fishermen. The amount of fishing effort in a monitoring area will
reflect commercial fishermen's decisions to fish in the area based on
market conditions, fish availability, and the restrictions of the
monitoring area (see Amendment 15 Section 5.2.3).
NMFS received many comments expressing concerns with the proposed
EM Alternative (Alternative F2) and the practicality of the proposal.
Generally, commenters noted that transitioning the cost of EM from the
agency to the pelagic longline fleet could have negative economic
impacts that would likely devastate local, state, and coastal
communities along the east coast and Gulf of America. Based in part on
these public comments, NMFS changed the proposed EM cost allocation
alternative to maintain the status quo (Alternative F1) since many of
these comments, particularly from industry participants and
representatives and from EM vendors, indicated the proposed alternative
to modify the EM program presented practical implementation impediments
that could warrant further consideration. While the final rule does not
require vessel owners fleet-wide to pay for sampling costs of the EM
program, NMFS intends to initiate future rulemaking to consider
modifying the HMS EM program as appropriate. Additionally, this final
rule provides that vessel owners are responsible for EM sampling costs
if their vessels choose to fish in the monitoring areas.
Many commenters, both in support of and in opposition to Amendment
15, stated that the U.S. pelagic longline industry provides U.S. and
international consumers access to important food sources, and they are
concerned about fairness in the marketplace and the effects this rule
and Amendment 15 may have on imports and exports of seafood. NMFS notes
that seafood supplied by the pelagic longline fleet is valuable as both
a source of food and for the generation of local jobs, communities, and
the broader economy. The context in which vessels operate, including
current regulations, was a relevant factor NMFS considered in
determining whether new regulations are justified. NMFS took into
consideration many factors in selecting preferred measures that address
the diverse objectives of Amendment 15 in a balanced manner. The FRFA
includes a description of the steps taken to minimize the economic

[[Page 10721]]

impacts on small entities and the reasons for the preferred measures.
Steps taken to minimize economic impacts on small entities include
increased access to potentially productive fishing grounds and reduced
EM costs relative to the proposed rule to access those grounds. Vessel
that do not wish to incur additional EM costs can continue to fish in
areas and times that have been authorized prior to this final rule.
NMFS received comments noting that Amendment 15 would decrease the
viability of the pelagic longline industry and that such a decrease
would also have a resulting significant negative impact on shoreside
businesses (including restaurants and supply shops) and fishing
businesses overall along the coast. Commenters suggested that vessel
owners are proactively trying to sell boats and remove themselves from
the fishery before the implementation of Amendment 15. Comments
referencing adverse economic impacts largely focused on impacts from
the preferred EM cost allocation alternatives and the Charleston Bump
and DeSoto Canyon spatial management area modifications that would have
reduced fishing access. Preferred alternatives for those portions of
Amendment 15 have changed. As a result, the large economic impacts
described in the Draft Amendment regarding those alternatives are no
longer expected. In the Final Amendment, NMFS has updated the economic
analyses for the preferred spatial management areas and EM. The updated
analysis considers the costs to vessel owners whose vessels choose to
fish in the monitoring areas and who would, therefore, still incur the
costs related to paying for the sampling costs of EM for voluntary
trips in the monitoring areas. A future rulemaking will likely consider
the cost of requiring all pelagic longline vessels to pay for EM
sampling costs.
Section 604(a)(4) of the RFA 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 (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
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 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. In 2020, NMFS conducted an informal review
of the small business size standards and determined that no changes to
the 2016 standards were needed at that time. In 2025, NMFS completed a
review of the small business size standard on that resulted in
maintaining the existing size standard (90 FR 52917, November 24,
2025).
NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because
they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for
commercial fishing. None of the commercial fishing business owners
reported having more than $11 million in gross receipts on the annual
Federal permit application form for their limited access fishing permit
renewal. Regarding those entities that would be directly affected by
the measures implemented by this final rule, 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. Therefore, this final rule will directly
affect 95 small entities (the number of active vessels permitted in the
pelagic and bottom longline fisheries).
NMFS has determined that the final rule measures will 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 604(a)(5) of the RFA requires Agencies to describe any new
reporting, record-keeping and other compliance requirements. This final
rule contains revised or new collection-of-information requirements
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). See FRFA in Final
Amendment 15 at Section 8.5 for further details. Public reporting
burden for these collections of information, including the times for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information, are estimated below (see Paperwork Reduction Act).
Under section 604(a)(6) of the RFA, agencies must describe the
steps to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities
consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including
a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the
measures adopted in the final rule and why the agency rejected each one
of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the
agency that affect the impact on small entities. These elements are
summarized below. The full text of the FRFA is contained in the Final
Amendment 15, Chapter 8.

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 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 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 to $1,192 in inflation adjusted 2020 dollars). Estimated
total ex-vessel revenue from sharks in 2020 is $2,311,319. Based on
permit and target species, some fishermen direct effort on sharks while
others retain only 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, the preferred sub-alternative, will maintain
the current Mid-Atlantic shark closed area with respect to its spatial
extent as a high-bycatch-risk area 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 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

[[Page 10722]]

open time periods, including and adjacent to the area defined by this
spatial management area. Effort is low enough that data regarding
totals for the area, even during open time periods, cannot be provided
due to confidentiality concerns. This sub-alternative will maintain the
recent catch levels and revenues, and there will 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.
In the Draft Amendment, NMFS preferred Sub-Alternative A1d. While
NMFS received several comments in support of Sub-Alternative A1d, NMFS
also received comments in opposition to the eastern expansion of the
proposed preferred alternative in the Draft Amendment both because of
the low fishing effort overall and because of concern that the
expansion could impact bottom longline fishermen that hold HMS permits
and fish in the area under other FMPs, including those that fish for
snowy grouper and blueline tilefish. In part because of these comments,
NMFS is no longer preferring Sub-Alternative A1d and is instead
preferring Sub-Alternative A1b, thereby reducing impacts on small
entities. Based on permit and target species, some fishermen direct
effort on sharks while others retain only 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 wou

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 4, 2026.

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.