Proposed Rule2026-07532
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Pelagic and Demersal Indicator Species Regulations
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
April 17, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Abstract
NMFS is proposing changes to regulations regarding pelagic and demersal indicator species in the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) pelagic and bottom longline fisheries. Specifically, NMFS is proposing to remove the regulations regarding pelagic and demersal indicator species and the list of pelagic and demersal indicator species from the HMS regulations. These proposed changes would directly impact pelagic and bottom longline fishermen who hold Atlantic HMS fishing permits. The purpose of this action is to increase fishing flexibilities, remove regulatory inefficiencies, and optimize the ability of pelagic and bottom longline fisheries to harvest available quotas to the extent practicable while still achieving fishery management and conservation goals.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 74 (Friday, April 17, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20619-20623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-07532]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 260413-0097]
RIN 0648-BN27
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Pelagic and Demersal Indicator
Species Regulations
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is proposing changes to regulations regarding pelagic and
demersal indicator species in the Atlantic Highly Migratory Species
(HMS) pelagic and bottom longline fisheries. Specifically, NMFS is
proposing to remove the regulations regarding pelagic and demersal
indicator species and the list of pelagic and demersal indicator
species from the HMS regulations. These proposed changes would directly
impact pelagic and bottom longline fishermen who hold Atlantic HMS
fishing permits. The purpose of this action is to increase fishing
flexibilities, remove regulatory inefficiencies, and optimize the
ability of pelagic and bottom longline fisheries to harvest available
quotas to the extent practicable while still achieving fishery
management and conservation goals.
DATES: Written comments must be received by May 29, 2026. NMFS will
hold a public hearing webinar on May 21, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
ET. For additional details on the public hearing, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available
at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NMFS-2025-0669">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/NOAA-NMFS-2025-0669</a>. You may
submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2025-0669, by
electronic submission. Submit all electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> and
enter ``NOAA-NMFS-2025-0669'' in the Search box (note: copying and
pasting the FDMS Docket Number directly from this document may not
yield search results). Click on the ``Comment'' icon, complete the
required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Written comments sent by any other method, to any
other address or individual, or received after the close of the comment
period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part
of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise
[[Page 20620]]
sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A''
in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Additional information related to this proposed rule, including
electronic copies of this proposed rule and supporting documents are
available from the HMS Management Division website at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-pelagic-and-demersal-indicator-species-regulations-atlantic-highly-migratory">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-pelagic-and-demersal-indicator-species-regulations-atlantic-highly-migratory</a> or by
contacting Larry Redd, Jr., or Carrie Soltanoff (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Redd, Jr., <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#620e0310101b4c10070606220c0d03034c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4c8c5d6d6dd8ad6c1c0c0e4cacbc5c58ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>,
or Carrie Soltanoff, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a0c3c1d2d2c9c58ed3cfccd4c1cecfc6c6e0cecfc1c18ec7cfd6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82e1e3f0f0ebe7acf1edeef6e3ecede4e4c2ecede3e3ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>, by email or phone at
301-427-8503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal Atlantic HMS fisheries (sharks,
tunas, billfish, and swordfish) are managed under the 2006 Consolidated
HMS Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act; 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
section 3(21) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(21)) and the
provisions for their management are at section 304(g)(1) (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. The procedures established by the HMS FMP and implemented in the
HMS regulations (see Sec. 635.34(b)) allow NMFS to modify management
measures, using a framework adjustment implemented by regulation.
Section 635.21(c) and (d) provide regulations specific to the use of
pelagic and bottom longline gear, respectively.
NMFS has prepared a document that contains a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA), draft Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). This document presents the
alternatives considered for this proposed rule and analyzes their
anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts. A brief
summary of background information and the alternatives considered is
provided below. Additional information regarding this action and HMS
management overall can be found in the draft EA/RIR/IRFA, the HMS FMP
and its amendments, the annual HMS Stock Assessment and Fishery
Evaluation (SAFE) Reports, and online at <a href="https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species">https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species</a>.
Statutory Authority
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, among other things, requires measures
necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery to be
consistent with the ten National Standards set forth in section 301(a)
(16 U.S.C. 1851(a)). While all of the National Standards are relevant,
specific to the objectives of this action, the National Standards state
that measures must: prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield
from the fishery (National Standard 1); be based on the best scientific
information available (National Standard 2); to the extent practicable,
manage the stock throughout its range and manage interrelated stocks as
a unit or in close coordination (National Standard 3); take into
account and allow for variations among fisheries, fishery resources,
and catches (National Standard 6); and minimize bycatch, and to the
extent bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of bycatch
(National Standard 9). Furthermore, the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for
management actions to designate zones where, and periods when, fishing
shall be limited, or shall not be permitted, or shall be permitted only
by specified types of fishing vessels or with specified types and
quantities of fishing gear (Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(b)(2)(A)
or 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(2)(A)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also allows for
management actions to establish specified limitations which are
necessary and appropriate on the catch of fish (based on area, species,
size, number, weight, sex, bycatch, total biomass, or other factors)
(Magnuson-Stevens Act section 303(b)(3)(A) or 16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(3)(A)).
Section 304(c) and (g) provides for the promulgation of regulations to
implement an FMP that is prepared by NMFS, such as the HMS FMP (see 16
U.S.C. 1854(c), (g)).
Background
Prior to 2006, NMFS implemented a number of time/area closures (now
referred to as spatial management areas), which include gear restricted
areas in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of America, which applied
specifically to either pelagic longline or bottom longline gear. These
spatial management areas include the Charleston Bump, DeSoto Canyon,
East Florida Coast, and Mid-Atlantic shark closed area (later renamed
the Mid-Atlantic Bottom Longline Gear Restricted Area.
Once these areas were established, NMFS realized that having
quantifiable criteria to differentiate between pelagic longline and
bottom longline fishing gear in gear restricted areas would assist with
effective monitoring of, and compliance with, HMS gear restricted
areas. Moreover, such criteria could assist in removing any ambiguities
by clarifying that pelagic longline gear would logically be expected to
capture pelagic species and vice-versa. As a result, in 2006, NMFS
published the HMS FMP and its final rule which, among other things,
established a 5-percent limit (by weight) on the allowable amount of
pelagic indicator species that bottom longline vessels may possess or
land from pelagic longline gear restricted areas, and established a 5-
percent limit (by weight) on the allowable amount of demersal indicator
species that pelagic longline vessels may possess or land from bottom
longline gear restricted areas (measured relative to the total weight
of all pelagic and demersal indicator species) (71 FR 58058, October 2,
2006). The indicator species were chosen because they constituted the
primary target species in pelagic and bottom longline fisheries in 2000
through 2004. Based on public comment regarding the draft pelagic and
demersal indicator species lists, NMFS modified the list of demersal
indicator species by removing certain sharks (silky and hammerhead
sharks) and by adding several species of tilefish (tilefish, blueline
tilefish, and sand tilefish). These modifications were made because the
aforementioned shark species can be caught on both pelagic and bottom
longlines, and because the tilefish species were indicative of demersal
fishing activity. These species are listed in tables 2 and 3 to
appendix A to part 635.
The 5-percent limit was based on data from 2000 through 2004
analyzed in the HMS FMP that indicated that the 5-percent threshold was
slightly above the average weight of pelagic species that were reported
in the Coastal Fisheries logbook (4.45 percent), and slightly above the
average weight of demersal species that were reported in the Atlantic
HMS logbook (4.52 percent). Within the HMS FMP and final rule, NMFS
further stated that, if necessary, the 5-percent limit (by weight) and
the list of indicator species could be modified in the future based
upon a review of historic and current landings and the effectiveness of
the regulation.
Since 2006, NMFS has implemented additional time/area closures and
gear restricted areas, and backstopped
[[Page 20621]]
regulations related to areas designated by fishery management councils,
including marine protected areas in the South Atlantic, time/area
closures in the Caribbean, and habitat areas of particular concern in
the Gulf of America. Additionally, NMFS has established or improved the
effectiveness of a variety of mechanisms that are used to monitor and
aid in compliance (e.g., vessel monitoring systems (VMS)) of pelagic
and bottom longline vessels fishing within gear restricted areas.
Currently, all vessels with pelagic longline gear on board are required
to install and use a VMS unit, and bottom longline vessels are required
to install and use a VMS unit when bottom longline gear is on board off
South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia between 33[deg]00' N lat.
and 36[deg]30' N lat. from January 1 through July 31. In addition to
ensuring the VMS unit is always on, operating, and reporting position
data, prior to leaving port for any trip, all longline vessels must
declare any HMS the vessel will target on that trip and the specific
type(s) of fishing gear that will be on board the vessel (``hail-
out''). If the vessel is participating in multiple fisheries or
switches to a different gear type or target species group, the vessel
must submit another declaration.
Furthermore, since 2006, there have been changes to the management
of HMS on the pelagic and demersal indicator species lists. Sandbar
sharks cannot be retained in commercial fisheries unless participants
are part of the shark research fishery (73 FR 40658, July 15, 2008).
The retention and sale of oceanic whitetip sharks were prohibited when
caught in association with ICCAT fisheries (76 FR 53652, August 29,
2011). Porbeagle sharks can be retained on pelagic longline gear only
when they are dead at haulback (81 FR 57803, August 24, 2016). The
commercial retention limit for shortfin mako sharks has been set at
zero since 2022 (87 FR 39373, July 1, 2022). Oceanic whitetip shark was
removed from the pelagic species list and placed on the prohibited
sharks list, following the Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing as
threatened and subsequent consultations on HMS fisheries (89 FR 278,
January 3, 2024).
In recent years, NMFS has received numerous requests from both
pelagic and bottom longline fishermen, including HMS Advisory Panel
members, to remove both the pelagic and demersal indicator species
regulations and corresponding pelagic and demersal indicator species
lists as a way to provide increased flexibility to operate more
efficiently. For example, pelagic and bottom longline fishermen have
found that these regulations hinder their ability to lawfully retain
non-HMS while fishing with appropriate gear in gear restricted areas.
These fishermen have pointed out inequities in the various fishing
regulations, (i.e., that fishermen who do not hold HMS permits on their
vessels are not required to follow the Federal HMS regulations when
fishing for non-HMS in the same areas with the same fishing gears).
Furthermore, some species on pelagic and demersal indicator species
lists may no longer be retained under Federal regulations for Fishery
Management Council managed species, and at a minimum, the species lists
may need to be updated.
NMFS presented on this topic at the fall 2021 HMS Advisory Panel
(AP) Meeting and solicited recommendations for maintaining, updating,
or removing the indicator species lists and/or associated gear
regulations. The HMS AP was generally supportive of removing these
species lists and regulations.
Proposed Measures
As stated above, the purpose of this action is to increase fishing
flexibilities, remove regulatory inefficiencies, and optimize the
ability of pelagic and bottom longline fisheries to harvest available
quotas to the extent practicable while still achieving fishery
management and conservation goals in the HMS pelagic and bottom
longline fisheries. To achieve these goals, NMFS considered three
alternatives regarding the pelagic and demersal indicator species
regulations and indicator species lists. These alternatives included
both no action and the preferred alternative.
Specific to the preferred alternative, Alternative 3, NMFS is
proposing to remove the current regulations at 50 CFR 635.21(c)(1)(i)
and (d)(2) implementing a 5-percent limit (by weight) on the allowable
amount of indicator species that pelagic longline and bottom longline
vessels may possess or land when fishing in pelagic and bottom longline
gear restricted areas. NMFS would also remove the pelagic and demersal
indicator species lists (tables 2 and 3 of appendix A to 50 CFR part
635).
This alternative would likely provide HMS permitted longline
fishermen with more fishing flexibility. HMS pelagic and bottom
longline fishermen who hold permits for HMS and Council-managed species
at the same time would be able to land the allowable amount of pelagic
and demersal species under those permits without the restrictive five-
percent weight limit. Increased flexibility would allow HMS pelagic and
bottom longline fishermen the opportunity to use fishing gears (i.e.,
bandit gear) authorized under regulations for Council-managed species
in the same way as fishermen that hold permits for only Council-managed
species, noting that HMS fishermen cannot retain bluefin tuna with a
gear type onboard the vessel that is not authorized for bluefin tuna
retention under an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit. This
alternative may allow for additional opportunities to harvest available
quotas for both HMS and non-HMS (e.g., grouper, snapper, tilefish) and
thus generate some additional revenue on HMS trips.
Other Alternatives Analyzed
NMFS also analyzed a no action alternative (Alternative 1) that
would maintain the status quo. NMFS does not prefer the no action
alternative as it would continue to maintain pelagic and demersal
indicator species regulations that may be outdated, difficult to
enforce, and no longer necessary to determine the gear types being used
by either pelagic or bottom longline fishing vessels in HMS gear
restricted areas. Alternative 1 could contribute to inequitable fishing
opportunities for HMS pelagic and bottom longline fishermen who hold
permits for both HMS and Council-managed fisheries.
NMFS also considered another alternative that would update the
lists of pelagic and demersal indicator species (tables 2 and 3 of
appendix A to 50 CFR part 635) and maintain the current regulations at
50 CFR 635.21(c)(1)(i) and (d)(2) implementing a five-percent weight
limit on possessing or landing indicator species (Alternative 2). NMFS
does not prefer Alternative 2 because, although this alternative would
update the pelagic and demersal indicator species lists, the current 5-
percent limit would continue to be in effect thus limiting the
flexibility of pelagic and bottom longline fishermen.
Request for Comments
NMFS is requesting comments on this proposed rule, which may be
submitted via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or at the public hearing (see below).
NMFS solicits comments on this action by May 29, 2026 (see DATES and
ADDRESSES).
During the comment period, NMFS will hold a public hearing via
webinar for this proposed action on May 21, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
ET. Further information on how to attend the webinar can be found at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/proposed-rule-pelagic-and-
demersal-indicator-species-regulations-atlantic-
[[Page 20622]]
highly-migratory. Requests for sign language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to Larry Redd, Jr.,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5935382b2b20772b3c3d3d1937363838773e362f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d4d9cacac196cadddcdcf8d6d7d9d996dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>, or Carrie Soltanoff at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#690a081b1b000c471a06051d0807060f0f2907060808470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f5f7e4e4fff3b8e5f9fae2f7f8f9f0f0d6f8f9f7f7b8f1f9e0">[email protected]</span></a>,
by email or by phone at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the
meeting. In addition, any requests for in-person public hearings during
the comment period should be directed to Larry Redd, Jr., or Carrie
Soltanoff.
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public
hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each
public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules
(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room, attendees will be
called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to
speak, each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak, and
attendees should not interrupt one another). At the beginning of each
webinar, the moderator will explain how the webinar will be conducted
and how and when participants can provide comments. The NMFS
representative(s) will attempt to structure the webinar so that all
attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so
choose, though time limits or restrictions on back-and-forth discussion
may be necessary to ensure everyone in the queue has an opportunity to
speak. Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and if they
do not, they may not be allowed to speak during the webinar.
Classification
Rulemaking Authority
NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 304(c) and (g) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined
that this proposed rule is consistent with the HMS FMP and its
amendments, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and
other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public
comment.
Executive Order 12866
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192
This proposed rule is expected to be an Executive Order 14192
deregulatory action.
Executive Order 13175
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 Executive
Order 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b)
and (5)(c) of Executive Order 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary
impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of
Executive Order 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact that this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description
of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this
action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble
and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis
follows, and a copy of the entire analysis is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
Section 603(b)(1) of the RFA requires agencies to describe the
reasons why the action is being considered. The purpose of this action
is to increase fishing flexibility, remove regulatory inefficiencies,
and optimize the ability of pelagic and bottom longline fisheries to
harvest available quotas to the extent practicable while still
achieving fishery management and conservation goals in the HMS pelagic
and bottom longline fisheries.
Section 603(b)(2) of the RFA requires agencies to state the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed action. The objective
of this proposed rulemaking is to modify or remove inefficient and
outdated regulations to allow for additional fishing opportunities in
HMS pelagic and bottom longline fisheries. The legal basis for the
proposed rule is the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA.
Section 603(b)(3) 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) has established size criteria
for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish
harvesters. SBA's regulations authorize other agencies to develop their
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)). NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those
established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by
NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic
effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To
utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the
Federal Register, which NMFS did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194). In
that final rule, effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS 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.
NMFS completed a review of the small business size standard on November
24, 2025 (90 FR 52917) that resulted in maintaining the existing size
standard.
The proposed rule would apply to the permit holders of 164
Swordfish Directed, 63 Swordfish Incidental, 188 Shark Directed, 221
Shark Incidental, and 223 Atlantic Tunas Longline category limited
access permits. NMFS considers all commercial HMS permit holders to be
small entities because they have average annual receipts of less than
their sector's standard of $11 million. NMFS has determined that the
proposed rule would not likely affect any small governmental
jurisdictions. More information regarding the description of the
fisheries affected, and the categories and number of permit holders can
be found in the HMS SAFE Report.
Section 603(b)(4) of the RFA requires agencies to describe any new
reporting, record-keeping, and other compliance requirements. This
proposed rule does not contain any new collection of information,
reporting, or record-keeping requirements.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the
extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed action. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in
these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements,
domestic laws, and other fishery management measures. These include,
but are not limited to, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, the High Seas
Fishing Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This
proposed action has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with any Federal rules.
Under section 603(c) of the RFA, agencies must describe any
significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the
stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize
[[Page 20623]]
any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.
The analysis shall discuss significant alternatives such as: (1)
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; (3) use of performance rather than design standards; and (4)
exemptions from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities. These categories of alternatives are described at 5 U.S.C.
603(c)(1)-(4). NMFS examined each of these categories of alternatives.
Regarding the first, second, and fourth categories, NMFS cannot
establish differing compliance or reporting requirements for small
entities or exempt small entities from coverage of the rule or parts of
it because all of the businesses impacted by this rule are considered
small entities and thus the requirements are already designed for small
entities. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards
that would satisfy the aforementioned objectives of this rulemaking
while, concurrently, complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As
described below, NMFS analyzed several different alternatives in this
proposed rulemaking, and provided rationales for identifying the
preferred alternatives to achieve the desired objectives. The
alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The IRFA
assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross revenues to
show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels.
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, the no action alternative, NMFS would maintain
the current regulations at 50 CFR 635.21(c)(1)(i) and 635.21(d)(2). As
part of this alternative, NMFS would also keep the lists of pelagic and
demersal indicator species (tables 2 and 3 to appendix A to 50 CFR part
635). Under this alternative, NMFS would continue to differentiate
between vessels using pelagic and bottom longline gear based upon the
percentages of pelagic and demersal indicator species catch onboard or
landed. Maintaining the status quo would continue to restrict the
ability of pelagic and bottom longline fishermen to switch gears in
gear restricted areas to possibly fish for non-HMS, thus resulting in a
missed opportunity to earn revenue from their non-HMS catch.
Furthermore, this alternative would likely not change fishing rates and
efforts by pelagic and bottom longline fishermen from current levels.
Thus, Alternative 1 would likely result in neutral to minor adverse
economic impacts on small entities participating in HMS pelagic and
bottom longline fisheries.
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2, NMFS would update the lists of pelagic and
demersal indicator species (tables 2 and 3 of appendix A to 50 CFR part
635). As part of this alternative, NMFS would also maintain the current
regulations at 50 CFR 635.21(c)(1)(i) and (d)(2) implementing a 5-
percent weight limit on possessing or landing pelagic and demersal
indicator species. Under this alternative, NMFS would update the
pelagic and demersal indicator species lists based on several factors
including, but not limited to, determination of the primary species
landed in pelagic and bottom longline fisheries, consideration of HMS
that are prohibited or have no retention or limited retention, or
consideration of species that are prohibited or have no retention in
areas under the relevant fishery management councils. This alternative
would continue to restrict the ability of pelagic and bottom longline
fishermen to switch gears in gear restricted areas to possibly fish for
non-HMS, thus resulting in a missed opportunity to earn revenue from
their non-HMS catch. Furthermore, this alternative would likely not
change fishing rates and efforts by pelagic and bottom longline
fishermen from current levels. Thus, Alternative 2 would likely result
in neutral to minor adverse economic impacts on small entities
participating in HMS pelagic and bottom longline fisheries.
Alternative 3
Under preferred Alternative 3, NMFS would remove the current
regulations at 50 CFR 635.21(c)(1)(i) and (d)(2) implementing a 5-
percent weight limit on the allowable amount of indicator species that
pelagic longline and bottom longline vessels may possess or land when
fishing in pelagic and bottom longline gear restricted areas. NMFS
would also remove the pelagic and demersal indicator species lists
(tables 2 and 3 of appendix A to 50 CFR part 635). The goal of this
action is to increase fishing flexibility, remove regulatory
inefficiencies, and optimize the ability of pelagic and bottom longline
fisheries to harvest available quotas to the extent practicable while
still achieving fishery management and conservation goals in the HMS
pelagic and bottom longline fisheries. Under this alternative, HMS
pelagic and bottom longline fishermen would have more fishing
flexibility that may allow for additional HMS and non-HMS landings. HMS
pelagic and bottom longline fishermen who hold permits for HMS and
Council-managed species at the same time will be able to land the
allowable amount of pelagic and demersal species under those permits
without the restrictive 5-percent weight limit. Increased flexibility
would allow HMS pelagic and bottom longline fishermen the opportunity
to use fishing gears (i.e., bandit gear) authorized under regulations
for Council-managed species in the same way as fishermen that hold
permits for only Council-managed species, noting that HMS fishermen
cannot retain bluefin tuna with a gear type onboard the vessel that is
not authorized for bluefin tuna retention under an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit. This alternative may allow for additional
opportunities to harvest available quotas for both HMS and non-HMS
(e.g., grouper, snapper, tilefish) thus generating some additional
revenue on HMS trips. Thus, NMFS believes Alternative 3 would likely
result in neutral or minor beneficial economic impacts on small
entities participating in HMS pelagic and bottom longline fisheries.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Statistics,
Treaties.
Dated: April 13, 2026.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50
CFR part 635 as follows:
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 635.21, remove and reserve paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (d)(2).
0
3. Remove and Reserve Table 2 of Appendix A to Part 635.
0
4. Remove and Reserve Table 3 of Appendix A to Part 635.
[FR Doc. 2026-07532 Filed 4-16-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js" defer></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 17, 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.