[Federal Register: November 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 228)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 68784-68793]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28no06-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 061121306-6306-01; I.D. 110206A]
RIN 0648-AU86
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); U.S. Atlantic Swordfish
Fishery Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend regulations governing the U.S. Atlantic
swordfish fishery to enable a more thorough utilization of the U.S.
North Atlantic swordfish quota. The U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota
is derived from the recommendations of the International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and is implemented under
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention
Act (ATCA). For the past several years, the U.S. Atlantic swordfish
fishery has not fully harvested its available quota. The objective of
this proposed action is to provide a reasonable opportunity for U.S.
vessels to fully harvest the ICCAT-recommended U.S. North Atlantic
swordfish quota, as specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in
recognition of the improved stock status of North Atlantic swordfish.
This proposed rule would increase swordfish retention limits for
Incidental swordfish permit holders, and modify recreational swordfish
retention limits for HMS Charter/headboat and Angling category permit
holders. The proposed rule would also modify HMS limited access vessel
upgrading restrictions for pelagic longline (PLL) vessels. These
actions are necessary to address persistent underharvests of the
domestic swordfish quota, while continuing to minimize bycatch to the
extent practicable, so that swordfish are harvested in a sustainable,
yet economically viable manner.
DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by 5 p.m.
on January 31, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the proposed rule or the Draft
Environmental Assessment(Draft EA) may be submitted to Sari Kiraly,
Fisheries Management Specialist, Highly Migratory Species Management
Division, using any of the following methods:
E-mail: SF1.110206A@noaa.gov.
Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Please mark the outside of the envelope ``Comments on Proposed
Swordfish Rule''.
Fax: 301-713-1917.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Include in the subject line the following identifier: ``I.D. 110206A.''
Copies of the Draft EA, the 2006 Final Consolidated Atlantic Highly
Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP) and
other relevant documents are also available from the Highly Migratory
Species Management Division website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms
or by contacting Sari Kiraly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sari Kiraly, by phone: 301-713-2347;
by fax: 301-713-1917; or by e-mail: Sari.Kiraly@noaa.gov,or Richard A.
Pearson, by phone: 727-824-5399; by fax: 727-824-5398; or by e-mail:
Rick.A.Pearson@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery
The U.S. Atlantic swordfish fishery is managed under the
Consolidated HMS FMP. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are
issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
et seq.), and ATCA (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq). Under ATCA, the United
States is obligated to implement the recommendations of ICCAT,
including those for Atlantic swordfish quotas (ICCAT Recommendations
02-02, 03-03, and 04-02). ICCAT is an inter-governmental fishery
organization, currently consisting of 42 contracting parties, that is
responsible for the conservation of tunas and tuna-like species,
including swordfish, in the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas.
In 2001, ICCAT established its ``Criteria for the Allocation of
Fishing Possibilities'' (ICCAT Recommendation 01-25) that included 15
separate criteria to be considered when allocating quota within the
ICCAT framework. The first two criteria relate to the past and present
fishing activity of qualifying participants. These criteria specify
that ``historical catches'' and ``the interests, fishing patterns and
fishing practices'' of qualifying participants are to be considered
when making allocation recommendations. Other criteria, including
conservation measures, economic importance of the fishery,
[[Page 68785]]
geographical occurrence of the stock, compliance with ICCAT management
measures, and dependence on the stocks, must also be considered when
allocating quota.
At its 2002 meeting, ICCAT established an annual Total Allowable
Catch (TAC) for North Atlantic swordfish of 14,000 mt (ww) for the
years 2003, 2004, and 2005 (ICCAT Recommendation 02-02). A 14,000 mt
(ww) TAC was later established for 2006 (ICCAT Recommendation 04-02) as
well. 1,185 mt (ww) of the TAC were allocated to ``other contracting
parties and others,'' with the remainder being distributed to the
European Community (52.42 percent), United States (30.49 percent),
Canada (10.52 percent), and Japan (6.57 percent), using the allocation
criteria described above. This resulted in a baseline U.S. North
Atlantic swordfish quota of 3,907 mt (ww) for the period 2004 [dash]
2006.
An examination of historical catches reveals that U.S. North
Atlantic swordfish catches, as reported to ICCAT, have declined by
approximately 40 percent from 4,026 mt (ww) in 1995 to 2,424 mt (ww) in
2005, although they have stabilized since 2001. As a percent of the
ICCAT-recommended U.S. quota, the decline in U.S. North Atlantic
swordfish landings is even more apparent. Because landings below the
baseline quota (an ``underage'') in one year may be added to the
subsequent year's baseline quota, the ``adjusted'' U.S. North Atlantic
swordfish quota has continued to increase. The United States has landed
less than its ICCAT-recommended ``baseline'' and ``adjusted'' swordfish
quota since 1997. Based on reported landings to ICCAT, the United
States went from exceeding its ``baseline'' quota in 1996 to landing
only 29 percent of its ``adjusted'' quota in 2005. As indicated above,
reported catches in 2005 were 2,424 mt (ww) versus a 2005 ``adjusted''
quota of 8,319 mt (ww). This trend is likely to continue in 2006
because the ``adjusted'' quota is again significantly higher (9,803 mt
(ww)). U.S. North Atlantic swordfish landings have also been less than
the unadjusted ``baseline'' ICCAT-recommended quota since 1997. The
United States landed approximately 62 percent (2,424 mt (ww)) of its
unadjusted North Atlantic swordfish ``baseline'' quota (3,907 mt (ww))
in 2005.
The ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) just
completed a stock assessment for North Atlantic swordfish in October
2006. The 2006 assessment indicated that North Atlantic swordfish
biomass had improved, possibly due to strong recruitment in the late
1990's combined with reductions in reported catch since then. The SCRS
estimated the biomass of North Atlantic swordfish at the beginning of
2006 ( B2006) to be at 99 percent of the biomass necessary
to produce maximum sustainable yield (BMSY). The 2005
fishing mortality rate (F2005) was estimated to be 0.86
times the fishing mortality rate at maximum sustainable yield
(FMSY). In other words, in 2006, the North Atlantic
swordfish stock is almost fully rebuilt and fishing mortality is low.
NMFS has implemented several important management measures in
recent years, primarily to reduce the bycatch of undersized swordfish,
non-target species, and protected species. These actions have been very
effective at reducing bycatch, but they may also have had the
unintended consequence of contributing to persistent underharvests of
the U.S. swordfish quota, and a precipitous decline in the number of
active PLL vessels (``active'' is defined as vessels that report
landings in the HMS logbook). Some of these measures include: Year-
round closures in the DeSoto Canyon and East Florida Coast areas;
seasonal closures in the Charleston Bump and Northeastern areas;
limited access vessel permits; mandatory utilization of Vessel
Monitoring Systems (VMS); mandatory circle hook and bait requirements;
possession and utilization of release and disentanglement gear;
utilization of non-stainless hooks; and a live bait prohibition in the
Gulf of Mexico.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies that NMFS shall provide a
reasonable opportunity for domestic vessels to harvest quota
allocations that are derived from international fishery agreements,
such as ICCAT recommendations. In this action, NMFS prefers
alternatives that would modify some management measures (swordfish
retention limits and vessel upgrading provisions) to increase domestic
swordfish landings and revenues, but that would also retain important
bycatch reduction provisions. The preferred alternatives are intended
to demonstrate that the United States is committed to revitalizing its
historical swordfish fishery in recognition of the improved stock
status of North Atlantic swordfish, and help to maintain or increase
the historical U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota allocation. These
actions are necessary to address persistent underharvests of the
domestic swordfish quota, while continuing to minimize bycatch to the
maximum extent practicable, so that swordfish are harvested in a
sustainable, yet economically viable manner.
This action would reduce swordfish dead discards by increasing
swordfish retention limits for Incidental swordfish permit holders, and
modify recreational swordfish retention limits for HMS Charter/headboat
and Angling category permit holders. This proposed rule would also
modify HMS limited access vessel upgrading and permit transfer
upgrading restrictions for PLL vessels.
The Agency conducted an Environmental Assessment to analyze
alternatives for increasing incidental and recreational swordfish
retention limits, and modifying HMS limited access vessel upgrading
restrictions, while continuing to minimize the bycatch of target, non-
target and protected species to the maximum extent practicable.
North Atlantic Swordfish Retention Limits
Under current regulations, vessels issued valid Incidental
swordfish limited access permits, other than those in the squid trawl
fishery, are allowed to retain, possess or land no more than two
swordfish per vessel per trip in or from the Atlantic Ocean north of
5[deg] N. lat. Vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access
permits and participating in the squid trawl fishery are allowed to
retain, possess, or land no more than five swordfish per trip from the
same area. HMS Angling and Charter/Headboat vessel permit holders are
allowed to retain one North Atlantic swordfish per person, up to three
per vessel per trip.
In addressing swordfish retention limits, three preferred
alternatives were identified. One preferred alternative would increase
the North Atlantic swordfish retention limit for vessels issued valid
Incidental swordfish limited access permits to 30 fish per vessel per
trip; and, for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access
permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery, would increase the
limit to 15 fish per vessel per trip. This alternative would allow
vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits to
land incidentally caught swordfish that might otherwise be discarded
under the current two-fish limit. Also, it provides a reasonable
opportunity for swordfish Incidental permit holders to harvest the U.S.
swordfish quota, but prevents a large increase in additional directed
fishing effort on swordfish. This alternative is expected to have
limited adverse ecological impacts because vessel operators are not
expected to substantially alter their fishing practices for the
opportunity to land 28 additional swordfish.
[[Page 68786]]
A second preferred alternative would allow HMS Charter/headboat
vessels to retain one fish per paying passenger (i.e., not including
the captain or crew), up to six swordfish per trip for charter vessels,
and 15 swordfish per trip for headboat vessels. This alternative would
maintain the current recreational limit of one swordfish per person,
but increase the allowable upper retention limit from three fish per
vessel. A six-fish upper vessel retention limit for charter vessels was
the only alternative analyzed for this sector, besides the no action
alternative, because these vessels are licensed to carry a maximum of
six passengers per trip. Although headboats can carry upwards of 50
passengers, a 15-fish retention limit was analyzed because it would
provide a better opportunity for anglers on headboats to land a
swordfish while maintaining a recreational aspect to the charter/
headboat fishery. In addition, given the lack of data for swordfish
retention by anglers, a 15 fish limit is in keeping with a
precautionary approach in that this limit is five times the limit now
allowed, but is still conservative enough so as to preclude potential
negative effects on the swordfish stock. This alternative is preferred
in recognition of the fact that charter and headboat vessels may carry
many paying passengers, and because it could provide additional U.S.
swordfish landings with limited adverse ecological impacts.
A third preferred alternative would allow HMS Angling category
vessels to retain one fish per person, up to four swordfish per vessel
per trip. This alternative maintains the current recreational limit of
one swordfish per person, but increases the upper retention limit from
three fish to four fish per vessel per trip. A four-fish upper vessel
retention limit for angling vessels was the only alternative analyzed
for this sector, besides the no action alternative, because it would
provide a modest increase in the opportunity to land a swordfish, while
maintaining a recreational aspect to the fishery. Because there were
25,238 vessels issued HMS Angling category permits, as of February 1,
2006, an increase in the upper retention limit of more than one fish
per angling vessel was considered, but rejected, due to concerns about
potentially excessive recreational landings. HMS Angling category
vessels do not carry paying passengers, so a higher limit based on the
number of paying passengers onboard was considered, but rejected. This
alternative is preferred because it could provide additional U.S.
swordfish landings, with limited adverse ecological impacts.
NMFS does not expect significant adverse ecological impacts to
result from the proposed regulations to increase swordfish retention
limits. The ecological impacts would vary based upon the resulting
level of fishing effort. Currently, the U.S. swordfish fleet has been
unable to catch the entire U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota, causing
significant amounts to be carried over to the subsequent fishing years.
Adjusting incidental and recreational swordfish retention limits would
allow swordfish that otherwise may have been discarded to be landed,
thereby providing economic benefits while contributing to domestic
swordfish landings. The proposed measures are not expected to
significantly increase fishing effort because other management measures
to mitigate adverse ecological impacts would remain in place. These
include PLL time/area closures, mandatory PLL circle hook and bait
requirements, mandatory PLL possession and use of release and
disentanglement gear, a PLL live bait prohibition in the Gulf of
Mexico, PLL VMS requirements, species-specific quotas, retention
limits, minimum size limits, authorized gears, dealer and vessel
logbook reporting, observer requirements, and HMS limited access vessel
permits.
The social and economic impacts associated with the proposed
regulations to increase swordfish retention limits would vary based
upon the amount of swordfish kept minus any additional costs associated
with catching the additional swordfish. The potential economic benefits
associated with increased retention limits for Incidental swordfish
permit holders are estimated by taking the difference between the value
of two swordfish and the value of 30 swordfish, approximately $7,864
per vessel per trip. For Charter/headboat vessels, the economic benefit
would be derived from an increased perceived value of a for-hire or
private trip for an angler, due to the ability to land more fish.
Recreational anglers might take more trips, which could also lead to
some multiplier benefits to tackle shops, boat dealers, hotels, fuel
suppliers, and other related businesses.
HMS Limited Access Vessel Upgrading Restrictions
Under current regulations, owners may upgrade vessels or transfer
permits to another vessel only if the vessel upgrade or permit transfer
does not result in an increase in horsepower (HP) of more than 20
percent, or an increase of more than 10 percent in length overall
(LOA), gross registered tonnage (GRT), or net tonnage (NT), relative to
the respective specifications of the first vessel issued the initial
limited access permit (the baseline vessel). If any of the three vessel
size specifications is increased, any increase in the other two must be
performed at the same time. The current regulations also specify that
vessel horsepower and vessel size may be increased only once. However,
vessel size may be increased separately from an increase in vessel
horsepower.
The proposed regulations establish new HMS limited access vessel
upgrading and permit transfer upgrading restrictions only for HMS
vessels that are authorized to fish with pelagic longline gear for
swordfish and tunas, equivalent to 35 percent LOA, GRT, and NT, as
measured relative to the baseline vessel specifications (i.e., the
specifications of the vessel first issued an HMS limited access
permit), and removes HP upgrading and HP permit transfer upgrading
restrictions for these vessels. The proposed regulations also specify
that vessel size may be increased only once subsequent to publication
of the final regulations. This alternative is preferred because it
could improve the ability of U.S. vessels to fully harvest the domestic
ICCAT recommended North Atlantic swordfish quota, but imposes some
limits on vessel upgrading by restricting the universe of potentially
impacted entities only to PLL vessels, and limits the magnitude of
allowable upgrades.
Under the proposed measures, fishing effort could potentially
increase. However, any potential adverse ecological impacts associated
with an increase in effort are expected to be mitigated by existing PLL
management measures that would remain in effect, and which have
significantly reduced bycatch in recent years. These include PLL time/
area closures, PLL circle hook and bait restrictions, and all of the
other measures that were described above. Because these existing
management measures would remain in effect, and because of the limits
on the magnitude and number of vessels affected by the upgrading
modifications, NMFS does not expect significant adverse ecological
impacts from the proposed regulations to modify PLL vessel upgrading
restrictions.
Under the proposed regulations, positive social and economic
impacts are anticipated. Vessel owners would gain economic benefits by
having increased flexibility to adjust their vessel configurations to
better fit their business needs. In addition, they would have a better
ability to safely carry observers. The ability to upgrade could
[[Page 68787]]
also enhance the quality of life for crew and captains by providing
larger, more comfortable, and more modern vessels. Finally, the
potential to lengthen vessels and upgrade engine horsepower might have
important positive safety implications, especially for smaller vessels
operating far offshore in areas prone to extreme weather. The preferred
alternative is not expected to adversely affect recreational fishing,
as larger PLL vessels may be more likely to fish further offshore, and
away from ecologically sensitive nearshore areas.
NMFS intends to hold public hearings to receive comments from
fishery participants and other members of the public regarding the
proposed swordfish regulations. The public hearing dates and locations
will be announced in a forthcoming notice to be published in the
Federal Register.
Classification
This proposed rule is published under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA. NMFS has preliminarily determined that
this action is consistent with section 304(b)(1) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, including the national standards, and other applicable
law.
An EA has been prepared that describes the impact on the human
environment that could result from the implementation of alternative
management measures to provide a reasonable opportunity for U.S.
fishing vessels to harvest the ICCAT recommended domestic swordfish
quota allocation by increasing recreational and incidental swordfish
retention limits, and modifying HMS limited access vessel upgrading
restrictions. Based on the EA, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, and a review of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) criteria for significance evaluated above (NAO 216-6 Section
6.02), no significant effect on the quality of the human environment is
anticipated from this action.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
In compliance with Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared for this rule.
The IRFA analyzes the anticipated economic impacts of the preferred
actions and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that
could minimize economic impacts on small entities. A summary of the
IRFA is below. The full IRFA and analysis of economic and ecological
impacts are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
In compliance with Section 603(b)(1) and (2) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, the purpose of this proposed rulemaking is, consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and ATCA, to modify North Atlantic
swordfish incidental and recreational retention limits and HMS limited
access vessel upgrading restrictions to provide a reasonable
opportunity for U.S. vessels to fully harvest the ICCAT recommended
domestic swordfish quota.
Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The proposed
actions to modify recreational swordfish retention limits could
directly affect approximately 4,173 HMS Charter/headboat permit
holders, and 25,238 HMS Angling category permit holders. The proposed
action to increase incidental swordfish retention limits could directly
affect 48 vessel owners possessing valid swordfish Incidental permits.
The proposed action to modify PLL vessel upgrading restrictions could
directly affect approximately 176 PLL vessel owners possessing valid
swordfish permits. In total, the proposed actions could directly affect
29,587 HMS permit holders. Of these, 4,349 permit holders (the combined
number of HMS Charter/headboat permit holders and valid swordfish-
permitted PLL vessel owners) are considered small business entities
according to the Small Business Administration's standard for defining
a small entity. Other small entities involved in HMS fisheries such as
processors, tackle shops, bait suppliers, marinas, and gear
manufacturers might be indirectly affected by the proposed regulations.
This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-
(4)). Similarly, this proposed rule does not conflict, duplicate, or
overlap with other relevant Federal rules (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5).
One of the requirements of an IRFA, under Section 603 of the
Regulatory flexibility Act, is to describe any alternatives to the
proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives and that minimize
any significant economic impacts (5 U.S.C. 603(c)). Additionally, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c)(1)-(4)) lists four
categories for alternatives that must be considered. These categories
are: (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 for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), NMFS cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting
requirements only for small entities. Thus, there are no alternatives
that fall under the first and fourth categories described above. In
addition, none of the alternatives considered would result in
additional reporting or compliance requirements (category two above).
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. NMFS analyzed
six different alternatives to increase swordfish retention limits, and
five different alternatives to modify HMS limited access vessel
upgrading restrictions. As described below, NMFS has provided
justification for the selection of the preferred alternatives to
achieve the desired objectives.
Alternative 1a is considered the no action, or status quo,
alternative for modifying recreational and incidental swordfish
retention limits. Under current regulations, vessels issued valid
Incidental swordfish limited access permits, other than those in the
squid trawl fishery, are allowed to retain, possess or land no more
than two swordfish per vessel per trip in or from the Atlantic Ocean
north of 5[deg] N. lat. Vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish
limited access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery are
allowed to retain, possess, or land no more than five swordfish per
trip from the same area. HMS Angling and Charter/headboat vessel permit
holders are allowed to retain one North Atlantic swordfish per person,
up to three per vessel per trip.
Under alternative 1a, there would be no change in the current
baseline economic and social impacts associated with previously
implemented North Atlantic swordfish retention limits. This alternative
is not preferred because it may be contributing to persistent
underharvests of the domestic swordfish quota. Nineteen percent of
trips reported by Incidental swordfish permit holders in the HMS
logbook from 2002 - 2005 reported swordfish discards. If any of these
swordfish discards were attributable to exceeding the current two fish
limit, then these discards could potentially represent lost revenues
associated with the status quo alternative. The current recreational
[[Page 68788]]
swordfish retention limit of one fish per person, up to three per trip,
may be lowering the demand for charter and headboat trips, especially
when several people are on board, since each person may not be able to
retain a swordfish.
Under alternative 1b, the North Atlantic swordfish retention limit
for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits
would be removed, except that, for vessels issued valid Incidental
swordfish permits which participate in the squid trawl fishery, the
limit would be increased to ten, until 70 percent of the adjusted
domestic semi-annual North Atlantic swordfish quota is projected to be
landed. After 70 percent of the directed semi-annual is projected to be
landed, the Incidental swordfish retention limit would revert back to
two swordfish per trip, and five swordfish per trip for squid trawl
vessels, for the remainder of the semi-annual period.
Alternative 1b is not preferred because it could potentially have
the most significant adverse ecological impacts if vessel owners with
Incidental swordfish permits alter their strategies and choose to
deploy additional sets to target swordfish. The potential economic gain
from this alternative would be associated with increased landings from
two swordfish per trip up to as many as 605 swordfish per trip (the
highest number of swordfish reported landed by a directed vessel) minus
what vessels could make tuna fishing during the same time if they
switch entirely to swordfish fishing. Using the mean weight of
swordfish landed in 2005 of 75.7 lb and the mean ex-vessel price of
$3.71 per lb in 2005, the estimated value of potentially retaining up
to an additional 603 swordfish could be as high as $169,351 per trip.
However, this should only be considered an upper bound, especially
because it does not take into account reductions in the retention of
other species that might occur in order to make room to hold swordfish
on the vessel. More typically, vessels issued Swordfish Directed
permits during the period from 2002 to 2005 averaged 60 to 77 swordfish
kept per trip. That would equate to potentially $16,289 to $21,064 in
additional revenue per trip for Incidental swordfish permit holders
that engage in directed fishing for swordfish, assuming they share a
similar capability to harvest swordfish as the Directed swordfish
permit holders.
Alternative 1b would also increase the swordfish retention limit
from 5 to 10 swordfish for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish
limited access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery.
This effectively doubles the current retention limit for these vessels.
From 1998 [dash] 2004, all squid trawl vessels landed a combined
average of 6.3 mt (ww) of swordfish per year. Increasing the limit for
squid trawl vessels by an additional five swordfish per trip could
potentially increase annual landings of swordfish by all squid trawl
vessels to 12.6 mt (ww) in total per year. This increase of 6.3 mt (ww)
of swordfish would be worth a total of $38,743 per year among all squid
trawl vessels, based on the 2005 average ex-vessel price of swordfish
of $3.71 per lb and a ratio of whole weight to dressed weight of 1.33.
Alternative 1c, a preferred alternative, would increase the North
Atlantic swordfish retention limit for vessels issued valid Incidental
swordfish limited access permits to 30 fish per vessel per trip; and,
for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits
that participate in the squid trawl fishery, would increase the limit
to 15 fish per vessel per trip. This alternative is preferred because
it would provide an opportunity for Incidental swordfish permit holders
to land swordfish that might otherwise be discarded, but prevent a
large increase in additional directed fishing effort on swordfish. As
many as 52 swordfish have been reported discarded on a single trip by
Incidental swordfish permit holders, although most trips report few
discards. A 30 fish limit is just below the median number of swordfish
that have been landed by Directed swordfish permit holders from 2002 -
2005 (36 fish). Thus, this alternative is expected to have limited
adverse ecological impacts, because fishing effort is not expected to
greatly exceed current levels.
The economic benefits associated with this alternative are
estimated by taking the difference between the value of two swordfish
and the value of 30 swordfish. Using the mean weight of swordfish
landed in 2005 of 75.7 lb and the mean ex-vessel price of $3.71 per lb
in 2005, the estimated value of potentially retaining an additional 28
swordfish under this alternative is $7,864 per vessel per trip. Using
logbook records from 2005, it is projected that total annual landings
of swordfish could increase from 10,787 lb to 34,879 lb, if all
reported discards were converted to landings, up to 30 fish. Using the
average ex-vessel price of $3.71 per lb for 2005, the estimated total
value of these additional landings would be $89,381 amongst all active
Incidental swordfish vessels per year.
Alternative 1c would also increase the swordfish retention limit
from 5 to 15 swordfish for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish
limited access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery.
This would triple the current retention limit for these vessels. From
1998 [dash] 2004, all squid trawl vessels landed an average of 6.3 mt
(ww) of swordfish in total per year. Increasing the limit for squid
trawl vessels by an additional ten swordfish per trip could potentially
increase annual landings by all squid trawl vessels to 18.9 mt (ww) in
total per year. This increase of 12.6 mt (ww) of swordfish would be
worth a total of $77,487 per year among all squid trawl vessels, based
on the same prices and ratios discussed above in alternative 1b.
Alternative 1d would increase the North Atlantic swordfish
retention limit for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited
access permits to 15 fish per vessel per trip; and, for vessels issued
valid Incidental swordfish limited access permits that participate in
the squid trawl fishery, would increase the limit to 10 fish per vessel
per trip.
Alternative 1d would provide an opportunity for Incidental
swordfish permit holders to land swordfish that otherwise might be
discarded, and would prevent a large increase in additional directed
fishing effort on the swordfish. Therefore, this alternative would have
only limited adverse ecological impacts because effort would be
expected to remain at current levels. However, alternative 1d is not
preferred because a 15 fish limit is significantly below the mean
number of swordfish landed by Directed swordfish permit holders (36
fish), although it is much higher than the current limit of two fish.
The economic benefits of alternative 1d are estimated by taking the
difference between the value of two swordfish and the value of 15
swordfish. Using the mean weight and ex-vessel price of swordfish
landed in 2005, as described in alternative 1c above, the estimated
value of potentially retaining an additional 13 swordfish under this
alternative is $3,651 per vessel per trip. Using logbook records from
2005, it is projected that total annual landings of swordfish could
increase from 10,787 lb to 30,350 lb, if all reported discards were
converted to landings, up to 15 fish. Using the average ex-vessel price
of $3.71 per lb for 2005, the estimated total value of these additional
landings would be $72,579 amongst all active Incidental swordfish
vessels per year.
Alternative 1d would increase the swordfish retention limit from 5
to 10 swordfish for vessels issued valid Incidental swordfish limited
access permits that participate in the squid trawl fishery. This
doubles the current
[[Page 68789]]
retention limit for these vessels. From 1998 [dash] 2004, all squid
trawl vessels landed an average of 6.3 mt (ww) in total per year.
Increasing the limit for squid trawl vessels by an additional five
swordfish per trip could potentially increase annual landings by squid
trawl vessels to 12.6 mt (ww) per year. This increase of 6.3 mt (ww) of
swordfish would be worth a total of $38,743 among all squid trawl
vessels per year, based on the same prices and ratios discussed above
in alternative 1b.
Alternative 1e, a preferred alternative, would implement a North
Atlantic swordfish retention limit for HMS Charter/headboat vessels of
one fish per paying passenger, up to six swordfish per trip for charter
vessels and 15 swordfish per trip for headboat vessels. This
alternative would maintain the current recreational limit of one
swordfish per person, but increase the allowable upper retention limit
from three to six fish for charter vessels, or from three fish to
fifteen fish for headboat vessels. This alternative is preferred
because for-hire vessels often carry multiple paying passengers. A six-
fish upper vessel retention limit for charter vessels was the only
alternative analyzed for this sector, besides the no action
alternative, because these vessels are licensed to carry a maximum of
six passengers per trip. Although headboats can carry upwards of 50
passengers, a 15-fish retention limit was analyzed because it would
provide a better opportunity for anglers on headboats to land a
swordfish while maintaining a recreational aspect to the charter/
headboat fishery. In addition, given the lack of data for swordfish
retention by anglers, a 15 fish limit is in keeping with a
precautionary approach in that this limit is five times the limit now
allowed, but is still conservative enough so as to preclude potential
negative effects on the swordfish stock. Thus, alternative 1e provides
a reasonable opportunity for paying passengers to land swordfish, and
may increase U.S. swordfish landings. Few adverse ecological impacts
are anticipated under this alternative as swordfish are nearly rebuilt,
and the recreational rod and reel fishery has been determined to have
only minor impacts on protected species.
In 2005, approximately 25 percent of the swordfish reported landed
by Charter/headboat vessels in the HMS non-tournament recreational
reporting database were in groups of three fish on the same date. Even
though a quarter of the trips may have been limited in the amount of
swordfish retained under the existing vessel trip limit, the benefits
of raising the limit could extend beyond those trips. The economic
benefits would result from additional bookings of charter trips,
because the perceived value of a trip for an angler may be increased by
the ability to land more fish. The 2004 average daily HMS charterboat
rate for day trips was $1,053. The willingness-to-pay for swordfish
charterboat trips is likely to be much higher than this value.
Increased charter and headboat bookings could lead to positive economic
multiplier impacts to tackle shops, boat dealers, hotels, fuel
suppliers, and other associated local and regional businesses.
Alternative 1f, a preferred alternative, would implement a North
Atlantic swordfish recreational retention limit for HMS Angling
category vessels of one fish per person per trip, up to four swordfish
per vessel per trip. This alternative would maintain the current
recreational limit of one swordfish per person, but increase the upper
retention limit from three fish to four fish per vessel per trip. A
four-fish upper vessel retention limit for angling vessels was the only
alternative analyzed for this sector, besides the no action
alternative, because it would provide a modest increase in the
opportunity to land a swordfish, while maintaining a recreational
aspect to the fishery. Because there were 25,238 vessels issued HMS
Angling category permits, as of February 1, 2006, an increase in the
upper retention limit of more than one fish per angling vessel was
considered, but rejected, due to concerns about potentially excessive
recreational landings. HMS Angling category vessels do not carry paying
passengers, so a higher limit based on the number of paying passengers
onboard was considered, but rejected. Thus, alternative 1f provides a
reasonable opportunity for recreational anglers to land swordfish, and
may increase U.S. swordfish landings. Few adverse ecological impacts
are anticipated under this alternative as swordfish are nearly rebuilt,
and the recreational rod and reel fishery has been determined to have
only minor impacts on protected species.
Approximately seven percent of the swordfish reported landed by
Angling category vessels in the HMS non-tournament recreational
reporting database were in groups of three fish on the same day.
Therefore, the increase from three to four swordfish per vessel per
trip under this alternative would likely affect a similar percentage of
trips. The economic benefit of this alternative would derive from an
increased perceived value of a trip for an angler due to the ability to
land more fish. Recreational anglers might take more trips, which could
lead to some multiplier benefits to tackle shops, boat dealers, hotels,
fuel suppliers, and other related businesses. The average expenditure
on HMS related trips is estimated to be $122 per person per day based
on the recreational fishing expenditure survey add-on to the NMFS'
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistical Survey (MRFSS). The
expenditure data include the costs of tackle, food, lodging, bait, ice,
boat, fuel, processing, transportation, party/charter fees, access/boat
launching, and equipment rental.
Alternative 2a is the no action, or status quo, alternative for
modifying HMS limited access vessel upgrading restrictions, because it
would retain the existing regulations. Under current regulations,
owners may upgrade vessels or transfer permits to another vessel only
if the vessel upgrade or permit transfer does not result in an increase
in horsepower (HP) of more than 20 percent, or an increase of more than
10 percent in length overall (LOA), gross registered tonnage (GRT), or
net tonnage (NT), relative to the respective specifications of the
first vessel issued the initial limited access permit (the baseline
vessel). If any of the three vessel size specifications is increased,
any increase in the other two must be performed at the same time. The
current regulations also specify that vessel horsepower and vessel size
may be increased only once. However, vessel size may be increased
separately from an increase in vessel horsepower. These regulations
have been in effect since 1999.
Alternative 2a is not preferred because it may be contributing to
persistent underharvests of the domestic ICCAT recommended swordfish
quota. It may also be contributing to a decline in the number of active
PLL vessels (i.e., vessels reporting landings) by limiting vessel
owners' ability to optimally configure their vessels to maximize
profits given changing ecological, regulatory, and market conditions.
Under alternative 2a, there would be no change in the current
baseline economic and social impacts associated with previously
implemented North Atlantic swordfish vessel upgrade restrictions. By
itself, the status quo alternative does not create any new economic
burdens on HMS limited access permit holders. However, it would likely
continue several negative economic impacts associated with upgrade
restrictions. First, as previously mentioned, vessels may not be
optimally configured for current market conditions, and therefore
profits may be
[[Page 68790]]
less than optimal. Second, current upgrade restrictions may make it
burdensome for some vessels to comply with observer accomodation
requirements, due to inadequate bunk or berthing space. Third, some
fishing vessels may wish to enhance their crew quarters in order to
better attract labor. Finally, limitations on vessel upgrading may be
affecting safety at sea. In general, a larger vessel is oftentimes more
seaworthy than a smaller vessel, especially in rough seas. Current
restraints on vessel size may also affect the ability to modernize or
purchase new vessels. Without changes to upgrading restrictions, the
number of active vessels in the swordfish PLL fleet may continue to
decline, and persistent underharvests of the annual swordfish quota may
continue to accrue. The following alternatives may allow for greater
flexibility and provide for a more efficient deployment of the
swordfish fleet.
It is not possible to precisely quantify the economic impacts
associated with the alternatives to modify HMS limited access permit
vessel upgrading restrictions. This is because the decision to upgrade
is a business decision, and depends largely upon whether the returns
expected from an upgrade outweigh the costs of planning the upgrade,
construction, financing, time to complete the necessary work, age of
the current vessel, and the forgone revenues associated with being out
of the fishery while vessel work is being completed. The potential
economic benefits of vessel upgrades largely depend upon future
harvests, ex-vessel prices, fuel prices, and labor costs. These factors
fluctuate, often dramatically, with market forces from year to year
making any estimated benefits difficult to assess. Independent of those
factors, however, vessel owners will gain the economic benefits
associated with having the increased flexibility to adjust vessel
configurations in terms of length and horsepower to best fit their
business. In addition, vessel owners under the following alternatives
would be better able to more easily comply with observer accommodation
requirements, and thus avoid lost fishing time. The potential to expand
bunk and berthing areas could enhance the quality of life for crew and
captains, providing intangible benefits and also potentially reducing
the actual costs of retaining labor. Finally, the potential to upgrade
vessels might have important positive safety implications, especially
for smaller vessels operating far offshore in areas prone to extreme
weather.
Under each of the following alternatives, vessel owners will have
to weigh the costs of potentially upgrading the length or horsepower of
their vessels by the potential economic benefits associated with an
upgrade. Many vessel owners may choose not to upgrade, even with
relaxed upgrade restrictions, because of the capital costs associated
with upgrading. The main economic benefit associated with the following
alternatives will likely be from not having to acquire a permit from a
larger vessel, including the associated transaction costs, when an
owner wishes to increase vessel size or horsepower.
The capital costs associated with potential upgrades are difficult
to estimate. Large vessel length upgrades are not likely to occur by
modifying existing vessels, according to several marine engineers and
shipyards that NMFS contacted. They are more likely to result from the
purchase of another vessel and the subsequent transfer of permits to
that vessel. Horsepower upgrades are more likely to occur on existing
vessels in conjunction with an engine replacement due to capital
depreciation.
NMFS contacted several shipyards regarding the potential costs of
new vessels and upgrades to existing vessels. The shipyards agreed that
it is probably more economical to perform large increases in vessel
length by acquiring another larger vessel, than by modifying existing
vessels. However, the estimated cost of building a new vessel is
uncertain because few new vessels have been built since the upgrade
restrictions were implemented in 1999, according to the shipyards
contacted. The overall cost of upgrading would likely depend on the
current size of the vessel, the age of the vessel, where the work will
be done, financing costs, and whether an existing used vessel is
available with the desired specifications, versus constructing a new
vessel. For example, a 68 foot PLL vessel over 20 years old recently
had a sales price of $245,000, according to a vessel broker list. To
better quantify the associated costs and potential scope of vessel
upgrades, NMFS seeks comments from the public on the current market
costs of upgrading PLL and swordfish Handgear vessels.
Alternative 2b would waive HMS limited access vessel upgrading and
permit transfer upgrading restrictions for all vessels that are
authorized to fish with pelagic longline gear for swordfish and tunas
for 10 years, after which a new vessel baseline would be established
and the current 10 percent LOA, GRT, NT; and 20 percent HP restrictions
would go back into effect. A ten-year sunset provision was selected for
this alternative because it provides a reasonable amount of time for
owners to purchase or upgrade vessels, but establishes a deadline to
account for any unanticipated future changes in the fishery or status
of stocks.
This alternative would likely have positive economic benefits for
PLL vessel owners because it could provide increased operational
flexibility for business owners to modify their vessels. However, it is
not possible to predict how many vessels would be upgraded under this
alternative, as any estimate is predicated upon the decisions of many
different owners. Waiving vessel upgrade restrictions for PLL vessels
could produce secondary and regional economic impacts. Shoreside
support businesses such as shipyards, marine architects, and other
commercial vessel suppliers could receive increased business from
owners wanting to upgrade their vessels. Fish dealers may need to
expand their operations to handle any greater supplies of swordfish
that could result from increased fleet capacity. It is also possible
that there could be reductions in the value of limited access permits
from waiving the upgrade restrictions. The supply of usable permits for
vessel owners that want to upgrade under the current limited access
regulations is restricted, because permits have to meet certain
characteristics in order to be transferred to a different vessel.
Removing the upgrading restrictions would give a potential new entrant
into the fishery a larger selection of permits to choose from, since
they would be able to select from a larger pool of potential permits
for sale. This increased supply could reduce the value of limited
access permits. However, any improvements in the profitability of the
fishery might increase demand for permits and could potentially offset
any decrease in permit value.
Alternative 2b is not preferred because there would be no limit on
the size that PLL vessels could be upgraded to. Therefore,
unquantifiable ecological impacts could occur, especially over the long
term. However, it is also possible that larger PLL vessels might
operate further offshore, thereby reducing adverse impacts in nearshore
areas.
Alternative 2c would waive HMS limited access swordfish handgear
vessel upgrading and permit transfer upgrading restrictions for 10
years, after which a new baseline would be established and the current
restrictions would go back into effect. A ten-year sunset provision was
selected for this alternative because it provides a reasonable amount
of time for owners to
[[Page 68791]]
purchase or upgrade vessels, but establishes a deadline to account for
any unanticipated future changes in the fishery or status of stocks.
This alternative would likely have positive economic benefits for
swordfish Handgear permit holders because it could increase operational
flexibility for business owners to modify their vessels according to
their business needs. However, for the same reasons discussed above, it
is not possible to predict how many vessels would be upgraded under
this alternative, or the anticipated economic impacts, because the
estimate is predicated upon the decisions of many different vessel
owners. In general, similar direct and indirect economic benefits to
vessel owners, dealers, shipyards, processors, and shoreside support
businesses that were discussed under alternative 2b could result.
Alternative 2c is not preferred because it could result in
unquantifiable ecological impacts, as there would be no limit on the
size that swordfish Handgear vessels could be upgraded to. Therefore,
unquantifiable ecological impacts could occur, especially over the long
term. In addition, because the swordfish handgear fleet is currently
most active in the East Florida Coast PLL closed area, ecological
benefits associated with the area, including reductions in the bycatch
of undersized swordfish, and non-target and protected species, could be
compromised with a large expansion of the swordfish handgear fishery.
Alternative 2d would waive all HMS limited access vessel upgrading
and permit transfer upgrading restrictions for 10 years, after which a
new baseline would be established and the current restrictions would go
back into effect. This alternative would likely have the largest
potential economic benefits as well as the largest potential adverse
ecological costs, particularly on sharks, because the universe of
impacted entities is the largest among all of the alternatives, and
there would be no limit on the size that vessels could be upgraded to.
For this reason, it is not the preferred alternative.
Alternatives 2b and 2c would be limited to vessels that are
eligible to fish for swordfish and tunas with PLL gear, and swordfish
Handgear vessels, respectively. Alternative 2d includes those vessels,
as well as all other HMS limited access vessels, including those
eligible to fish for sharks with bottom longline gear. Therefore,
approximately 376 additional vessels would be eligible for unlimited
upgrades under this alternative. While all of these additional shark
vessels could be upgraded under this alternative, few are anticipated
to take immediate advantage of the opportunity because of current
regulatory conditions in the domestic shark fishery. NMFS intends to
amend the current shark regulations, so vessel owners may choose to
wait for the amendment to be published before making major capital
outlays. Also, Incidental shark permit holders are governed by
retention limits for large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks
(SCS), and pelagic sharks. Directed shark permit holders are governed
by retention limits for LCS. Because of these retention limits, vessel
size may not be a limiting factor in the shark fishery. Nevertheless,
because many shark fisheries are overexploited, the potential for
adverse ecological impacts from increased effort on these species
exists under alternative 2d. Other economic benefits and costs are
similar to Alternatives 2b and 2c, including any secondary economic
impacts to shoreside industries.
Alternative 2e, the preferred alternative, would establish new HMS
limited access vessel upgrading and permit transfer upgrading
restrictions only for HMS vessels that are authorized to fish with
pelagic longline gear for swordfish and tunas (i.e., vessels that
possess directed or incidental shark and swordfish permits, and a Tuna
longline permit), equivalent to 35 percent LOA, GRT, and NT, as
measured relative to the baseline vessel specifications (i.e., the
specifications of the vessel first issued an HMS limited access
permit), and remove horsepower upgrading and permit transfer upgrading
restrictions for these vessels. This alternative is preferred because
it would improve the ability of U.S. vessels to fully harvest the
domestic ICCAT recommended swordfish quota, but would impose some
limits on vessel upgrading by restricting the universe of potentially
impacted entities to PLL vessels only, and by limiting the magnitude of
allowable upgrades.
Alternative 2e is anticipated to have slightly lower economic
benefits to permit holders than alternative 2d, and would likely have a
very similar outcome to alternative 2b, except that a few dramatic
upgrades would not qualify and there would be no reversion back to the
current regulations after 10 years. For the same reasons discussed
above under alternative 2a, however, it is not possible to accurately
predict how many vessels will be upgraded, or the anticipated future
capacity of the fishery, because the prediction is dependent upon the
business decisions of many individual boat owners.
For an ``average'' 55-foot swordfish vessel, this alternative could
result in a 69 [dash] 74 foot vessel, depending upon whether the vessel
has already been upgraded. At the opposite ends of the spectrum, it is
also possible that all PLL vessels could increase by 25 [dash] 35
percent or, conversely, none of the PLL vessels would be upgraded. PLL
vessel owners would gain the economic benefits associated with having
increased operational flexibility to adjust vessel configurations in
terms of length and horsepower to best fit their business needs.
However, that flexibility would be capped by imposing a 35 percent
limit on increases in vessel length, gross tonnage, and net tonnage,
unlike alternatives 2b, 2c, and 2d which have no limits on the size of
upgrades.
Other economic benefits and costs are similar to alternatives 2b,
2c, and 2d, including any secondary economic impacts to shoreside
industries.
These proposed regulations are not expected to substantially
increase endangered species or marine mammal interaction rates, or
impacts on critical habitat beyond those that have already been
considered in the June 2001 Biological Opinion (BiOp) on Atlantic HMS
Fisheries, and the June 2004 BiOp for the HMS PLL fisheries. In the
June 2001 BiOp, it was determined that the continued operation of the
Atlantic HMS rod and reel fishery is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the right whale, humpback, fin, or sperm whales,
or Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, hawksbill, or leatherback sea
turtles. The June 2004 BiOp determined that the continued operation of
the PLL fishery is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
loggerhead, green, hawksbill, Kemp's ridley, or olive ridley sea
turtles, but is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
leatherback sea turtles.
NMFS has since promulgated regulations on the PLL fishery required
by the 2004 BiOp to avoid jeopardy of leatherback sea turtles,
including sea turtle bycatch and bycatch mortality mitigation measures
for all Atlantic vessels with PLL gear onboard. These regulations
require PLL vessels to use only 18/0 (or larger) circle hooks with
whole mackerel and/or squid bait when fishing in the Northeast Distant
(NED) Statistical Reporting Area, and to use only 16/0 and/or 18/0
circle hooks with whole finfish or squid bait when fishing everywhere
outside of the NED. In addition, PLL vessels must possess and use sea
turtle release equipment according to specified sea turtle handling and
release protocols. Handling and release guidelines are also required to
be posted in the
[[Page 68792]]
wheelhouse. NMFS also implemented several time/area closures between
1999 and 2002, which, in combination with other management measures
including quotas, minimum fish sizes, observer requirements, VMS
requirements, a PLL live bait prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico,
retention limits, authorized gears, billfish possession prohibition,
and dealer and vessel logbook reporting, have contributed to a
significant reduction in the bycatch of target, non-target, and
protected species. These management measures would remain in effect,
and are expected to mitigate any potential increase in fishing effort
that could result from the proposed regulations. Thus, NMFS believes
that the proposed regulations do not change the conclusion of, nor
would they result in effects that have not been considered in, the June
2001 and June 2004 BiOps. Accordingly, no irreversible or irretrievable
commitment of resources is expected from the proposed action.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports,
Penalties, Management, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Treaties.
Dated: November 22, 2006.
Samuel D. Rauch III
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For 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. 635.4, paragraphs (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iv),
the first sentence in paragraph (l)(2)(v), and the first sentence in
paragraph(l)(2)(vi) are revised; and paragraph (l)(2)(x) is added to
read as follows:
Sec. 635.4 Permits and fees.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Subject to the restrictions on upgrading the harvesting
capacity of permitted vessels in paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and (x) of this
section and to the limitations on ownership of permitted vessels in
paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, an owner may transfer a shark or
swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit to another
vessel that he or she owns to another person. Directed handgear LAPs
for swordfish may be transferred to another vessel but only for use
with handgear and subject to the upgrading restrictions in paragraph
(l)(2)(ii) of this section and the limitations on ownership of
permitted vessels in paragraph (iii) of this section. Incidental catch
LAPs are not subject to the requirements specified in paragraphs
(l)(2)(ii) and (l)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Except as specified in paragraph (l)(2)(x) of this section, an
owner may upgrade a vessel with a shark, swordfish, or tuna longline
limited access permit, or transfer the limited access permit to another
vessel, and be eligible to retain or renew a limited access permit only
if the upgrade or transfer does not result in an increase in horsepower
of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10 percent in
length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the
vessel baseline specifications.
* * * * *
(iv) In order to transfer a swordfish, shark or tuna longline
limited access permit to a replacement vessel, the owner of the vessel
issued the limited access permit must submit a request to NMFS, at an
address designated by NMFS, to transfer the limited access permit to
another vessel, subject to requirements specified in paragraph
(l)(2)(ii) or (l)(2)(x), of this section, as applicable. The owner must
return the current valid limited access permit to NMFS with a complete
application for a limited access permit, as specified in paragraph (h)
of this section, for the replacement vessel. Copies of both vessels'
U.S. Coast Guard documentation or state registration must accompany the
application.
(v) For swordfish, shark, and tuna longline limited access permit
transfers to a different person, the transferee must submit a request
to NMFS, at an address designated by NMFS, to transfer the original
limited access permit(s), subject to the requirements specified in
paragraphs (l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), and (l)(2)(x) of this section, as
applicable. * * *
(vi) For limited access permit transfers in conjunction with the
sale of the permitted vessel, the transferee of the vessel and limited
access permit(s) issued to that vessel must submit a request to NMFS,
at an address designated by NMFS, to transfer the limited access
permit(s), subject to the requirements specified in paragraphs
(l)(2)(ii), (l)(2)(iii), and (l)(2)(x) of this section, as applicable.
* * *
* * * * *
(x) An owner may upgrade a vessel that has been issued valid
swordfish, shark and Atlantic tunas longline category permits,
inclusive, or transfer the limited access permits to another vessel,
and be eligible to retain or renew the limited access permits only if
the upgrade or transfer does not result in an increase of more than 35
percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage
from the vessel baseline specifications. Horsepower for vessels that
have been issued these three permits is not limited.
(A) The vessel baseline specifications are the respective
specifications (length overall, gross registered tonnage, net tonnage)
of the first vessel that was issued an initial limited access permit
or, if applicable, of that vessel's replacement owned as of May 28,
1999.
(B) Subsequent to [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], the vessel's
length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net tonnage may be
increased only once, relative to the baseline specifications of the
vessel initially issued the LAP, whether through refitting,
replacement, or transfer. An increase in any of these three
specifications of vessel size may not exceed 35 percent of the baseline
specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP. If any of these
three specifications is increased, any increase in the other two must
be performed at the same time. The one allowable increase in these
three specifications may be performed even if an increase in these
three specifications has already been performed prior to [DATE OF
PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE], provided that the increase in any of these
three specifications of vessel size does not exceed 35 percent of the
baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the LAP.
3. In Sec. 635.22, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.22 Recreational retention limits.
* * * * *
(f) North Atlantic swordfish. The recreational retention limits for
North Atlantic swordfish apply to persons who fish in any manner,
except to persons aboard a vessel that has been issued a limited access
North Atlantic swordfish permit under Sec. 635.4(f).
(1) Vessels issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit under Sec.
635.4(b), that are charter boats as defined under Sec. 600.10 of this
chapter, may retain, possess, or land no more than one North Atlantic
swordfish per paying passenger up to six per vessel per trip.
(2) Vessels issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit under Sec.
635.4(b), that are headboats as defined under Sec. 600.10 of this
chapter, may retain, possess, or land no more than one North Atlantic
[[Page 68793]]
swordfish per paying passenger up to fifteen per vessel per trip.
(3) Vessels issued an HMS Angling category permit under Sec.
635.4(c), may retain, possess, or land no more than one North Atlantic
swordfish per person up to four per vessel per trip.
4. In Sec. 635.24, paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 635.24 Commercial retention limits for sharks and swordfish.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Persons aboard a vessel that has been issued an incidental LAP
for swordfish may retain, possess, land, or sell no more than 30
swordfish per trip in or from the Atlantic Ocean north of 5[deg] N.
lat.
(2) Persons aboard a vessel in the squid trawl fishery that has
been issued an incidental LAP for swordfish may retain, possess, land,
or sell no more than 15 swordfish per trip in or from the Atlantic
Ocean north of 5[deg] N. lat. A vessel is considered to be in the squid
trawl fishery when it has no commercial fishing gear other than trawls
on board and when squid constitute not less than 75 percent by weight
of the total fish on board or offloaded from the vessel.
[FR Doc. 06-9436 Filed 11-22-06; 2:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S