[Federal Register: December 24, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 247)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 78404-78409]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24de02-34]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 001113318-2297-02; I.D. 110200D]
RIN 0648-AO75
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Incidental Catch Requirements
of Bluefin Tuna
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 78405]]
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend regulations governing the Atlantic
bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery as they affect landing of BFT in the
Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. The intent of this action is to
minimize dead discards of BFT and improve management of the Atlantic
pelagic longline fishery, while complying with the National Standards
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and allowing harvest consistent with
recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). NMFS will hold public hearings to receive
comments from fishery participants and other interested members of the
public regarding these issues. Public hearings on this proposed rule
will be announced in a separate Federal Register document.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m.
on February 7, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to, and copies
of the Draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) may be obtained from Brad
McHale, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA, 01930. These
documents are also available from the Highly Migratory Species Division
website at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hmspg.html. Comments also may be sent
via facsimile (fax) to 301-713-1917. Comments will not be accepted if
submitted via e-mail or on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad McHale or Dianne Stephan, 978-
281-9260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Atlantic highly migratory species
(HMS) fisheries are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). Implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the dual authority of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act (codified at 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; codified at 16 U.S.C. 971 et
seq.). Regulations issued under the authority of ATCA carry out the
recommendations of ICCAT.
Management of Bluefin Tuna
The first ICCAT management recommendations for Atlantic BFT were
adopted in 1974, and established a minimum size and limited fishing
mortality to then recent levels. With the passage of ATCA in 1975, the
United States took action to comply with the ICCAT recommendations and
limited U.S. harvest by imposing quotas and size limits. In spite of
the ICCAT recommendations and U.S. compliance with these
recommendations, western Atlantic BFT stock abundance continued to
decline. In 1981, NMFS prohibited the use of longlines for a directed
BFT fishery and implemented an incidental catch limit for two
geographically distinct areas where different BFT catch limits would
apply (46 FR 8012, January 26, 1981). After conducting a series of
stock assessments, ICCAT's scientific body, the Standing Committee on
Research and Statistics, recommended in 1981 that catches from the
western Atlantic stock be severely reduced to as near zero as possible
to stem the decline of the stock. Based on this recommendation,
allowable landings of western Atlantic bluefin have been restricted
since 1982. Also in 1982, an ICCAT consultation among officials
representing the governments of Brazil, Canada, Japan, and the United
States agreed, inter alia, that there be no directed fishery on the
spawning stock of Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico. Domestic
regulations to carry out the ICCAT recommendations were implemented in
1982 and 1983, which included designating authorized gears and quotas
for the established fisheries.
The U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery
The U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is a multi-species
fishery that operates throughout the western Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf
of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Pelagic longline gear is composed of
several parts. The primary fishing line, or mainline of the longline
system, can vary from five to 40 miles in length, with approximately 20
to 30 hooks per mile. Each individual hook is connected by a leader to
the mainline. Pelagic longline gear and fishing method can be modified
to target certain species, most commonly swordfish and yellowfin and
bigeye tunas. At least 30 different species have been recorded as
caught in this gear throughout the range of the fishery. Many of the
non-target species are landed and sold. However, some of those species
are discarded as bycatch (dead or alive) for economic or regulatory
reasons. Bluefin tuna are one such incidentally caught species that are
marketable but may be discarded when required by regulations on
landings restrictions.
Incidental Catch Regulations
Since 1977, NMFS has implemented a series of management measures
designed to regulate the incidental catch of BFT in non-directed
Atlantic fisheries. In 1981, NMFS prohibited the use of longlines for a
directed BFT fishery, implemented incidental catch limits, and
established northern and southern management areas where different
catch limits applied (46 FR 8012, January 26, 1981). Longline fishermen
were restricted to two BFT per vessel per trip in the southern region
and two percent by weight of all other fish on board in the northern
region. In 1982, ICCAT recommended a ban on directed fishing for BFT in
the Gulf of Mexico. Over the following decade, the value of BFT
increased dramatically and fishing practices evolved with respect to
incidental catch of BFT. In response, NMFS established various
strategies to discourage pelagic longline vessels from developing a
target fishery for this valuable species while allowing for the
retention of incidentally caught BFT.
In 1992, as BFT continued to be released as bycatch in the
longline fishery and most of those fish were reported as being
discarded dead, NMFS determined that existing catch limits in the
southern region (up to two BFT per trip, without any requirement that
BFT be landed in conjunction with other species) were not effective at
reducing the incentive to target BFT, and target catch requirements
were implemented (57 FR 365, January 6, 1992). NMFS required longline
vessels to land, offload, and sell at least 2,500 lbs. (1,136 kg) of
other species as a condition for landing a maximum of one BFT. NMFS
continued to evaluate bycatch in the longline fishery, and, consistent
with objectives of preventing a target fishery while allowing for
retention of incidental catch, moved the boundary line for the northern
and southern areas from 36o N. Latitude to 34o N. Latitude and further
altered the southern area target catch requirements in 1994 (59 FR
2814, January 19, 1994).
The current target catch requirements, unchanged since 1994,
restrict longline vessels to one fish per vessel per trip in the
southern region (south of 34o N. Latitude) with a minimum of 1,500 lbs.
(680 kg) of other fish landings from January through April, and 3,500
lbs. (1,588 kg) of other fish landings from May through December. North
of 34o N. Latitude, BFT landings by longline vessels are restricted to
two percent by weight of all other landed catch. Despite efforts to
alter target catch requirements and adjust geographic management
[[Page 78406]]
areas, bycatch and discards of BFT by U.S. pelagic longline vessels
have continued. Consequently, NMFS has continued to evaluate management
alternatives to achieve a balance between allowing the retention of
truly incidentally caught BFT while preventing a directed fishery and
reducing discards.
Bycatch Reduction
In 1999, NMFS published the HMS FMP and implementing regulations
(64 FR 29090, May 28, 1999), which included a measure to close an area
of ocean off the Mid-Atlantic Bight to longline fishing during the
month of June in an attempt to minimize bycatch of BFT and ensure
compliance with ICCAT recommendations. The HMS FMP also considered, but
did not implement, further modifications to target catch requirements
because of the difficulty in determining catch levels and landings
allowances that would likely reduce dead discards. The lack of
correlation between the level of target catch and bluefin tuna discards
indicated that bluefin tuna catches were truly incidental. While an
area closure was selected as the most expedient means of reducing dead
discards, NMFS also concluded that future analyses of catch rates may
provide guidance for a change in the target catch requirements.
Since that time, NMFS has continued to evaluate alternatives to
achieve a balance between minimizing bycatch (i.e., allowing retention
of BFT) and discouraging directed longline fishing effort on BFT.
Members of the pelagic longline industry have commented that the target
catch requirements are overly restrictive, resulting in excessive dead
discards of incidentally caught BFT. Consequently, the Longline
category BFT quota is not being landed, which then results in
additional mortality as unused Longline category quota is transferred
to other BFT fishing categories.
NMFS analyzed additional data on the landing patterns of longline
vessels, and published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
(65 FR 69492, November 17, 2000). Highly Migratory Species Advisory
Panel (AP) members discussed the target catch requirements at their
meetings in April 2001 and April 2002, and generally favored modifying
the target catch requirements to minimize bycatch of BFT in the pelagic
longline fishery. However, AP members cautioned against adjusting
target catch requirements in such a way that would provide an incentive
to target BFT with pelagic longline gear.
Evaluation of Existing Regulations
In the 2001 and 2002 Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE)
Reports, NMFS evaluated the effectiveness of the June closed area in
minimizing discards of BFT. The available data, based on logbooks
submitted by fishermen, indicate a substantial decline in BFT bycatch
throughout the year, indicating the closed area may be effective at
reducing dead discards.
The BFT Longline category is allocated 8.1 percent of the total
U.S. BFT landings quota. The Longline category quota is split between
northern and southern areas, with 78.9 percent allocated to the
southern area and 21.1 percent allocated to the northern area.
Estimates of dead discards for 2000 fishing year totaled 30 metric
tons (mt). In 1997 and 1998, discards were higher proportionally (dead
discards to BFT landed) in the northern area compared to the southern
area (mostly Gulf of Mexico), but this relationship changed in 1999 and
2000, where a higher proportion of the dead discards being reported
through the pelagic logbook occurred in the southern area.
NMFS evaluated observer data for 1998-2000, which indicate that two
or less BFT were caught on 88 percent of all longline trips. In
addition, over this same time period, median values for landed catch
(not including BFT) by pelagic longline vessels were approximately
3,000 lbs. (1,361 kg) in the southern region in the winter and early
spring (January through April) and 3,500 lbs. (1,588 kg) in that area
in May through December. Median landings in the northern area
throughout the year were 3,800 lbs. (1,724 kg). Target catch and dead
discards information was used in developing potential alternatives to
the current target catch requirements.
Alternatives Considered
In addition to taking no action at this time, NMFS considered
various combinations of catch limits for the northern and southern
areas including: (1) requiring 3,500 lbs. (1,588 kg) of catch for one
BFT to be landed in the northern area but no change to the southern
area requirements; (2) requiring 3,500 lbs. (1,588 kg) of catch for one
BFT to be landed, and 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) of other catch to land two
BFT in the northern area, but no change to the southern area
requirements; (3) the same as (2) for the northern area, but also
allowing two BFT to be landed on a trip with 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) of
other catch in the southern area; (4) lowering minimum target catch
requirements in all areas, at all times, to 2,000 lbs. (907 kg) to
retain one BFT and 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) to retain two BFT (the
preferred alternative); and (5) lowering minimum target catch
requirements in all areas, at all times, to 1,500 lbs. (680 kg) to
retain one BFT and 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) to retain two BFT.
NMFS prefers to alter the target catch requirements for both
geographic management areas to reduce dead discards of BFT in all
areas. NMFS therefore does not prefer alternatives which take no action
or do not affect the southern area limit. In addition, landings per
trip do not differ between the southern and northern areas as much as
they have in the past, and similar retention limits for the different
areas now seem warranted. The alternative that would lower the target
catch requirements to 1,500 lbs. (680 kg) in all areas at all times may
result in the longline incidental catch quota of BFT being filled
quickly, which could lead to subsequent discarding of BFT, and is
therefore is not preferred. The preferred alternative would require
2,000 lbs. (907 kg) of other fish landings to retain one BFT, and 6,000
lbs. (2,722 kg) of other fish landings to retain two BFT, in all areas.
The preferred alternative would maintain a boundary line between
the northern and southern areas to account for seasonal differences in
the fisheries and prevent one area from consuming all the incidental
longline quota, but would move the boundary line to an area with little
longline fishing activity nearby and adjust the longline quota
subdivision to reflect the change in areas. Seasonal differences in
bluefin tuna migration patterns between northern feeding migrations and
southern spawning migrations affect fishing interaction rates and the
condition of the fish in terms of fat content and ability to survive
the capture experience. Any division line should account for such
seasonal differences in the fisheries and correspond with interaction
rates to ensure that catches are incidental and do not result in excess
discards. In addition, any division line should not be near an area
where fish are usually landed, i.e., it should be clear that fish
caught in a particular area will be landed in that area. The North/
South boundary line is proposed to be moved to 31&00' N. Latitude, near
Jekyll Island, Georgia, and the North/South quota subdivision within
the Longline category would be adjusted to allocate 30 percent to the
northern area and 70 percent to the southern area.
[[Page 78407]]
Impacts of the Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative would likely result in a reduction in BFT
discards in all areas, and would allow longline fishermen fishing in
the northern area to retain a BFT on more trips. It would also allow
more BFT to be landed by fishermen in the southern area, but only if
they retain 6,000 lbs. (2,722 kg) of other fish species on a trip. The
preferred alternative is estimated to reduce discards of BFT by
longline vessels by 23.5 percent on a coastwide basis. In addition, it
is estimated that the preferred alternative would allow longline
vessels to retain an additional 38 mt of BFT coastwide, an increase of
approximately 60 percent from 2000 levels but still within the quota
allocated for incidental catch.
The positive economic impacts of this alternative are likely to be
felt by pelagic longline fishermen in all areas. Gross revenues and net
revenues to pelagic longline vessels would increase as a result of the
increased landings of BFT. While revenues from BFT would increase by an
amount similar to the increase in landings, the overall increase in
revenues to the longline fishery would be relatively small (about 1.1
percent), as BFT make up only a small percentage of longline catch and
landings. However, overall, no net increase in BFT revenues is expected
because total BFT landings for all fishing categories will not
increase. In past years, the BFT quota not actually landed by pelagic
longline vessels has been transferred to and landed by vessels in other
fishing categories but total BFT landings are limited by the overall
total allowable catch (TAC) system through which the United States is
issued annual quotas.
This alternative may have some positive impacts on the western
Atlantic BFT stock because total mortality should decrease. The
preferred alternative would maintain BFT landings by pelagic longline
vessels within the previously established Longline category BFT quota.
However, because discards would likely decrease, the United States
would use less of its dead discard allowance, which would have positive
impacts on the stock as, per the ICCAT recommendation, half the unused
portion of the dead discard allowance cannot be carried over to future
years and is, in that sense, invested in stock rebuilding. The
preferred alternative would also likely reduce the extent of
reallocating unused longline BFT quota to other categories, as the
longline fishery will likely land more of its quota. Such reallocation
is consistent with legislative requirements to allow U.S. fishermen the
opportunity to land the U.S. quota, but has led to increased overall
mortality, as BFT that could not be landed (and a proportion were
discarded dead) by pelagic longline vessels were transferred to and
landed by other fishing categories.
Because pelagic longline fishermen routinely catch BFT incidental
to other fishing operations, this alternative would not likely result
in increased pelagic longline effort and therefore would not affect
catches or discards of other managed finfish species or increased
interaction with protected species.
Inseason Adjustments
Currently, regulations provide the authority for NMFS to adjust the
BFT retention limits in the Angling and General categories during the
fishing season by publishing a notice in the Federal Register and
providing three days advanced notice. The preferred alternative would
provide NMFS with similar authority for BFT retention limits in the
Longline category. Specifically, NMFS could adjust the BFT retention
limits for pelagic longline vessels by number over a range from zero to
three fish per trip and/or by weight within 25 percent of the target
catch requirements (e.g., 2,000 lbs. to 2,500 lbs.).
The purpose of providing NMFS inseason adjustment authority for BFT
retention by longline vessels would be to increase the likelihood of
meeting the management objectives for the BFT fishery on an inseason
basis. This authority would provide NMFS with the additional ability to
achieve a balance between allowing the retention of truly incidentally
caught BFT while preventing a directed fishery, reducing discards, and
keeping all BFT fisheries within their allocated quotas. This balance
can be affected by variation in BFT abundance and migration patterns.
Thus, inseason adjustment authority would enhance NMFS' ability to
reduce discards while ensuring that landings are maintained within the
quota.
Classification
This proposed rule is published under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. The Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NOAA (AA), has preliminarily determined that the regulations
contained in this rule are necessary to implement the recommendations
of ICCAT and to manage the domestic Atlantic highly migratory species
fisheries.
NMFS has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
for this proposed rule and has requested comments from the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A summary of
the IRFA follows:
The annual gross revenues from the Atlantic pelagic longline
fishery are approximately $29 million. There are approximately 171
pelagic longline vessels that are permitted to retain Atlantic tunas
and swordfish, all of which are considered small entities, and
average annual gross revenues per vessel are approximately $168,000.
The analyses for the IRFA assume that all pelagic longline vessels
have similar levels of catch and gross revenues. While this may not
be true, the analyses are sufficient to show the relative impact of
the various alternatives on vessels. NMFS considered five
alternatives regarding changing the target catch requirements for
bluefin tuna retention by pelagic longline vessels: (1) no action/
status quo; (2) adjusting the target catch requirements to allow
pelagic longline vessels landing north of 34o N. latitude to land
one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land 3,500 lbs. of
other catch from the same trip; (3) adjusting the target catch
requirements to allow pelagic longline vessels landing north of 34o
N. latitude to land one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also
land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two bluefin
tuna per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch
from the same trip; (4) adjusting the target catch requirements to
allow pelagic longline vessels in all areas to land one bluefin tuna
per trip, provided they also land 3,500 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip, or two bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land
6,000 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, with pelagic longline
vessels landing south of 34o N. latitude allowed to land their one
bluefin tuna per trip with only 1,500 lbs. of other fish from the
same trip from January through April; (5) adjusting the target catch
requirements to allow pelagic longline vessels in all areas and
times to land one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land
2,000 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two bluefin tuna
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip (preferred alternative); and (6) adjusting the target
catch requirements to allow pelagic longline vessels in all areas
and times to land one bluefin tuna per trip, provided they also land
1,500 lbs. of other catch from the same trip, or two bluefin tuna
per trip, provided they also land 6,000 lbs. of other catch from the
same trip.
NMFS separated out pelagic longline vessels into three groups:
vessels homeported in the northern area that landed more than one
bluefin tuna on an individual trip during 1998-2000; vessels
homeported in the northern area that landed one or less bluefin tuna
on individual trips during 1998-2000; and vessels homeported in the
southern area. Northern area vessels were separated into two groups
because Alternative 2 would have a negative impact on the vessels
that landed more than one bluefin tuna on a particular trip, as it
would only allow retention of one bluefin tuna per trip in the
northern area, whereas the status quo does not limit the number of
bluefin tuna so long as the percentage of bluefin tuna did not
exceed
[[Page 78408]]
two percent of the weight of the other landings. During 1998-2000,
six vessels landed more than one bluefin tuna on individual trips,
and two vessels landed two bluefin tuna twice (total of eight
trips). For these analyses, NMFS assumed that these six vessels
would each have a trip in which they would have been able to land
two bluefin tuna under the status quo.
The change in annual gross revenues for pelagic longline vessel
as a result of the various alternatives to adjust the target catch
requirements was estimated by calculating the difference in the
number of bluefin tuna that could be retained by the particular
group of vessels, multiplying that number of fish by the average
weight and price per pound for that area during 2000. In the
northern area, the average weight of bluefin tuna landed by longline
vessels in 2000 was 456 lbs., and the average per pound was $5.56,
for an estimate of $2,535 per fish. In the southern area, the
average weight of bluefin tuna landed by longline vessels in 2000
was 537 lbs., and the average price per pound was $5.31, for an
estimate of $2,851 per fish.
For Alternative 2, vessels in the northern area would land 72
bluefin tuna, 16 more than were landed in 2000. Using the average
weight and price information for the northern area, the revenues
from the additional 16 fish were divided among the 102 vessels in
the northern area, for an average increase in gross revenues of
$398. For the six vessels that could have landed two bluefin tuna on
a trip however, these vessels would lose the revenues from the
second bluefin tuna, $2,535. Thus, the change in gross revenues for
each of these six vessels would be -$2,137 ($398 - $2,535),
approximately a -1.2% change. Vessels in the southern area would not
experience any change in revenues under this alternative, as the
target catch requirements would not change. The impacts on revenues
for the other alternatives were estimated in a similar manner. Other
than Alternative 2, no alternative would have a negative impact on
any vessel in the pelagic longline fishery, but even Alternative 2
would have a positive impact on all but a few vessels. Alternatives
4, 5 (preferred alternative), and 6 would have a positive impact on
revenues for vessels in all areas. Thus, only one non-preferred
alternative considered would have negative economic impacts; all
preferred alternatives would minimize current negative impacts such
that consideration of significant alternatives to minimize impacts
to small entities is unnecessary.
NMFS considered three alternatives regarding moving the North/
South division line and reallocating Longline category bluefin tuna
quota including (1) no action/status quo; (2) moving the Longline
category North/South division line to 31[deg]00' N. latitude near
Jekyll Island, Georgia, and adjusting the Longline category
subquotas to allocate 70 percent to the southern area and 30 percent
to the northern area (preferred alternative); and (3) eliminating
the Longline category North/South division line and establish one
quota for the Longline category for all areas. Alternatives 1 and 2
should not have any direct impact on small entities, although
Alternative 2 should address current confusion regarding
applicability of regulations and could help prevent negative impacts
on small entities due to closures. Alternative 3 could have negative
impacts if a fishery closure occurred.
NMFS considered three alternatives regarding providing NMFS with
inseason authority to modify bluefin tuna retention limits by
pelagic longline vessels including (1) no action/status quo; (2)
providing NMFS with authority to adjust the bluefin tuna retention
limits for pelagic longline vessels from a range of zero to three
fish per trip; and (3) providing NMFS with authority to adjust the
bluefin tuna retention limits for pelagic longline vessels by number
from a range of zero to three fish per trip and by weight within 25
percent of the target catch requirements (preferred alternative).
None of these three alternatives should have any direct impact on
small entities because the total bluefin tuna quota is not changed.
The preferred alternative, however, which would provide NMFS with
inseason authority, could help prevent negative impacts on small
entities due to closures.
NMFS prepared a draft EA for this proposed rule, and the AA has
preliminarily concluded that there would be no significant impact on
the human environment if this proposed rule were implemented. The EA
presents analyses of the anticipated impacts of these proposed
regulations and the alternatives considered. A copy of the EA and other
analytical documents prepared for this proposed rule, are available
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
On September 7, 2000, NMFS reinitiated formal consultation for all
HMS commercial fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
A Biological Opinion (BiOp) issued June 14, 2001, concluded that
continued operation of the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery is likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and threatened sea
turtle species under NMFS jurisdiction. On July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45393),
NMFS implemented the reasonable and prudent alternative required by the
BiOp. None of the actions in this proposed rule are expected to have
any additional impact on sea turtles as these actions are not likely to
increase or decrease pelagic longline effort, nor are they expected to
shift effort into other fishing areas.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Statistics, Treaties.
Dated: December 17, 2002.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
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.
2. In Sec. 635.23, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.23 Retention limits for BFT.
* * * * *
(f) Longline category. Persons aboard a vessel permitted in the
Atlantic Tunas Longline category may retain, possess, land, and sell
large medium and giant BFT taken incidentally in fishing for other
species. For vessels fishing North or South of 31[deg]00' N. lat.,
limits on retention, possession, landing and sale are as follows:
(1) One large medium or giant BFT per vessel per trip may be
landed, provided that at least 2,000 lb (907 kg) of species other than
BFT are legally caught, retained, and offloaded from the same trip and
are recorded on the dealer weighout slip as sold. Two large medium or
giant BFT per vessel per trip may be landed, provided that at least
6,000 lb (2,727 kg) of species other than BFT are legally caught,
retained, and offloaded from the same trip and are recorded on the
dealer weighout slip as sold.
(2) NMFS may increase or decrease the Longline category retention
limit of large medium and giant BFT over a range from zero to a maximum
of three per trip, or, for a given BFT retention limit, increase or
decrease the target catch requirement by 25 percent from the level
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section. Such increase or
decrease in the BFT retention limit or target catch requirement will be
based on a review of dealer reports, observer reports, vessel logbooks,
landing trends, availability of the species on the fishing grounds, and
any other relevant factors, and will consider the likelihood of
increasing dead discards of BFT and/or exceeding the incidental
landings quota established for the pelagic longline fishery. Such
adjustments may be made separately for vessels fishing North or South
of 31[deg]00' N. lat. NMFS will adjust the retention limits and target
catch requirements specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section by
filing with the Office of the Federal Register for
[[Page 78409]]
publication notification of the adjustment. Such adjustment will not be
effective until at least 30 calendar days after notification is filed
with the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 635.27, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.27 Quotas.
(a) * * *
(3) Longline category quota. The total amount of large medium and
giant BFT that may be caught incidentally and retained, possessed, or
landed by vessels for which Longline category Atlantic tunas permits
have been issued is 8.1 percent of the overall U.S. BFT quota. No more
than 70.0 percent of the Longline category quota may be caught,
retained, possessed, or landed in the area south of 31[deg]00' N. lat.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-32431 Filed 12-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S