Federal Register: June 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 109)
DOCID: fr07jn07-20 FR Doc E7-10727
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Institute of Peace
CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 635
Docket ID: [Docket No. 061121306-7105-02; I.D. 110206A]
RIN ID: RIN 0648-AU86
NOTICE: Part III
DOCID: fr07jn07-20
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); U.S. Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Measures
DATES: This final rule is effective July 9, 2007.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
This final rule amends regulations governing the North
Atlantic swordfish fishery to provide additional opportunities for U.S.
vessels to more fully utilize the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota,
in recognition of the improved stock status of the species. 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 MagnusonStevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act) and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). For the past several years, the
United States has not fully harvested its available North Atlantic
swordfish quota. This final rule will increase swordfish retention
limits for Incidental swordfish permit holders, and modify recreational
swordfish retention limits for HMS Charter/Headboat (CHB) and Angling
category permit holders. It will also modify HMS limited access vessel
upgrading restrictions for vessels concurrently issued certain HMS permits. These actions are necessary to address persistent
underharvests of the domestic North Atlantic swordfish quota, while
continuing to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable, so that
swordfish are harvested in a sustainable, yet economically viable
manner.
SUMMARY:
Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Background
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 MagnusonStevens 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 0202, 0303, and 0402). ICCAT is an intergovernmental fishery organization, currently consisting of 44 contracting parties, that is responsible for the conservation of tunas and tunalike 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 0125) 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, geographical occurrence of the stock, compliance with ICCAT management measures, and dependence on the stocks, must also be considered when allocating quota.
At its 2006 meeting, ICCAT established an annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for North Atlantic swordfish of 14,000 mt whole weight (ww) for the years 2007 and 2008 (ICCAT Recommendation 0602). A total of 2,530 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 2007 and 2008.
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 ICCATrecommended U.S. quota, the decline in U.S. North Atlantic swordfish landings is even more apparent. Because the portion of the baseline quota not landed in one year (an ``underage'') 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 ICCATrecommended ``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) of a 2005 ``adjusted'' quota of 8,319 mt (ww). For the 2006 fishing year, the United States' ``adjusted'' quota is 9,803 mt (ww). After completing the first half of the 2006 fishing year (June 1, 2006 November 30, 2006), the United States has landed approximately 913.7 mt (ww) of North Atlantic swordfish, which equates to 9.3 percent of the ``adjusted'' quota, or 23 percent of the annual ``baseline'' quota.
The ICCAT Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS)
recently 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 (B
NMFS has implemented several management measures in recent years,
primarily to reduce the bycatch of undersized swordfish, nontarget
species, and protected species. These actions have been effective at
reducing bycatch, but they may have also had the unintended consequence
of contributing to persistent underharvests of the U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota, and a
[[Page 31689]]
precipitous decline in the number of active pelagic longline (PLL)
vessels (``active'' is defined as vessels that report landings in the
HMS logbook). Some of these measures include: yearround 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 nonstainless hooks; and a live bait prohibition in the Gulf of Mexico.
The MagnusonStevens 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 final rule, NMFS is modifying certain management measures (swordfish retention limits and vessel upgrading provisions) to increase domestic swordfish landings and revenues, while retaining important bycatch reduction provisions. The final management measures are intended to help revitalize the historical U.S. swordfish fishery in recognition of the improved stock status of North Atlantic swordfish, and to help 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.
Specifically, this action will reduce swordfish dead discards by increasing swordfish retention limits for Incidental swordfish permit holders, and increase the per vessel recreational swordfish retention limits for HMS CHB and Angling category permit holders. This final rule will also modify HMS limited access vessel upgrading and permit transfer upgrading restrictions for vessels that are issued, or eligible for renewal of, the following three permits: Incidental or Directed swordfish and shark permits, and Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits.
The Agency conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze alternatives to increase the harvest of Atlantic swordfish, while retaining important bycatch reduction provisions. The alternatives included increasing incidental and recreational swordfish retention limits, and modifying HMS limited access vessel upgrading restrictions. Information regarding the alternatives was provided in the preamble of the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Additional information can be found in the Final EA/RIR/FRFA available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
The public comment period for the proposed rule (November 28, 2006; 71 FR 68784) was open from November 28, 2006, to January 31, 2007. During that time, NMFS conducted seven public hearings. The locations and dates of the public hearings were announced in a separate Federal Register notice (January 3, 2007; 72 FR 96). Public hearings were conducted in Gloucester, MA (January 17, 2007), Manahawkin, NJ (January 18, 2007), Madeira Beach, FL (January 18, 2007), Destin, FL (January 23, 2007), Houma, LA (January 25, 2007), Ft. Pierce, FL (January 30, 2007), and Manteo, NC (January 31, 2007). The Agency received approximately 50 emailed or written comment letters, and many verbal comments that were presented at the public hearings. A summary of the major comments received, along with NMFS' response, is provided below. Response to Comments
These comments and responses are divided into two major categories: those that relate specifically to the alternatives discussed in the proposed rule and Draft EA, and those that relate to other potential swordfish management measures not included in the rulemaking. Because the Draft EA specifically mentions the possibility of implementing future, longterm swordfish management measures, NMFS considers and responds to comments received on issues beyond the direct scope of this rulemaking, but still related to swordfish management.
Purpose and Need for Rulemaking
Comment 1: NMFS should not change swordfish management measures. The swordfish stock has just begun to rebound. The current regulations have enabled swordfish to rebuild. The increased abundance does not justify an enlargement of the fishery, especially for the commercial sector, which nearly destroyed the swordfish fishery in the first place. Enough swordfish to supply the market are currently being harvested. Recreational fishermen can catch the occasional large swordfish. Overall, it seems that the fishery is doing well. The present swordfish population consists mostly of juveniles. These fish should be left in the water to assure that the population has a full size range. There should be a total ban on catching any swordfish at all, by any entity, or an immediate decrease in swordfish retention for all.
Response: The U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota is derived from
the recommendations of the ICCAT. The stock has shown a significant
increase in abundance. In 2006, the SCRS of ICCAT concluded that the
stock was at 99 percent of B
Comment 2: If the U.S. swordfish fishery continues to under
perform, it will be difficult for the United States to protect its
quota share at ICCAT in 2008. The United States must harvest its
swordfish quota share, or it will lose it. The agreed upon transfer of
U.S. quota underages to other countries will allow for the development
of new or larger foreign fisheries. If a precedent has been established
with transferring unused swordfish quota to foreign nations that are
developing their own fisheries, in the future the United States will
need to defend what it has done to avoid further quota transfers or
losses to other ICCAT nations that do not have the same conservation
measures in place to reduce or mitigate bycatch. These countries will
demand quota share based upon their newly developed swordfish
fisheries. If the United States loses its swordfish quota at ICCAT, foreign pelagic longline vessels will line
[[Page 31690]]
up in the Caribbean Straits or right outside the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) and also catch billfish. Because these countries do
not utilize circle hooks and careful release techniques, levels of
bycatch will increase. Therefore, NMFS must retain the U.S. swordfish
quota to protect other species, including blue and white marlin.
Recreational and commercial swordfish fisheries, environmental groups,
and NMFS will all lose if the U.S. swordfish quota share is lost or
transferred. How is NMFS going to ensure that the domestic swordfish quota is filled, so that quota share is not lost?
Response: ICCAT quota allocations are not solely dependent upon recent landings. In 2001, ICCAT established its ``Criteria for the Allocation of Fishing Possibilities'' (ICCAT Recommendation 0125) that included 15 separate criteria to be considered when allocating quota within the ICCAT framework. Many other factors must also be considered during negotiations to allocate quota, including conservation measures, economic importance of the fishery, geographical occurrence of the stock, compliance with ICCAT management measures, and dependence on the stocks. For many of these criteria, especially conservation measures and compliance, the United States has been a world leader among fishing nations. However, NMFS also recognizes the relative importance that many ICCAT contracting parties place upon ``historical catches'' and ``fishing patterns'' when making quota allocations. Because of this, NMFS implements management measures to help U.S. vessels more fully harvest the U.S. swordfish quota, especially since the stock is almost fully rebuilt. It would not be beneficial to risk losing any portion of the U.S. swordfish quota, for a variety of reasons, including those mentioned in this comment. While the Agency cannot ensure that the domestic swordfish quota will be fully harvested, it will consider future management actions, as appropriate, that are consistent with other federal law and may provide additional opportunities to harvest swordfish.
Comment 3: It doesn't make sense to promote the killing of more swordfish in U.S. waters so that we won't have to give away U.S. quota to other countries. Why not stop ICCAT from allocating part of the U.S. quota to the other countries?
Response: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, the U.S. swordfish quota allocation is derived from international negotiations conducted at ICCAT. Because of this, the United States cannot be assured of its future quota allocation. Therefore, NMFS believes it is appropriate, at this time, to implement swordfish management measures that address persistent swordfish quota underharvests to better ensure that the United States retains an influential role in future ICCAT swordfish quota discussions and negotiations. As the North Atlantic swordfish stock is almost fully rebuilt, and overfishing is not occurring, the additional domestic fishing effort anticipated from this rulemaking should not result in overfishing.
Comment 4: The only way that the United States can set an international example regarding how to appropriately manage fisheries is to have its fishermen making money. It is not only about preserving fish and saving sea turtles. These two goals, a profitable fleet and sustainable fisheries, must be linked in order to convince other countries to change their fishing methods. Otherwise, foreign fishing nations will keep doing whatever it takes to maximize their landings.
Response: NMFS believes that a wellmanaged, sustainable swordfish fishery can be profitable as well. These final regulations are an initial step towards improving the financial stability of the U.S. swordfish fleet, while assuring that swordfish remain at acceptable biomass levels, and bycatch rates and bycatch mortality do not increase. Additional measures may be considered in the future to increase swordfish landings. In achieving these two goals, a sustainable and profitable fishery, NMFS believes that other ICCAT nations throughout the Atlantic Basin might be encouraged to adopt muchneeded conservation measures similar to those required of American vessels. These include regulations regarding bycatch reduction techniques, and implementation of effective fishery monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping capabilities. For species that traverse international boundaries, such as HMS, NMFS believes that it is essential to achieve broad consensus and cooperation on matters of conservation.
Comment 5: NMFS' mismanagement of the swordfish fishery is the
problem, not the fishermen. If NMFS had not driven all of the
longliners out of the Straits of Florida while stocks were at 96
percent of B
Response: The East Florida Coast, DeSoto Canyon, and Charleston
Bump PLL closed areas were originally implemented from November 2000
[dash] March 2001. At that time, the North Atlantic swordfish stock
assessment (SCRS 1999) indicated that the stock was overfished, and at
65 percent of the biomass necessary to achieve B
Comment 6: NMFS should take a conservative approach in its attempt
to more fully harvest the U.S. swordfish quota. The current size
structure of the swordfish stock may not accurately reflect the stock's
structure before it was severely overfished. Although swordfish
abundance has increased, many of the fish are still juveniles. If
swordfish harvests are unabated, it could cause irreparable harm to the
stock. The preferred alternatives appear to make modest strides to more fully harvest the
[[Page 31691]]
swordfish quota, apparently without fully reaching or exceeding it.
Response: NMFS has taken a conservative approach in relieving some swordfish management measures to begin fishery revitalization efforts, while ensuring that swordfish overfishing does not occur and that bycatch of undersized swordfish, protected species and nontarget species is minimized, to the extent practicable. However, it will be necessary to continue to monitor catches and landings to ensure that these objectives are met. Additional management measures may be considered in the future, as appropriate.
Comment 7: We support the preferred alternatives and commend NMFS for moving forward and trying to provide more opportunities in this healthy fishery for both commercial and recreational interests. The Agency's ability to publish the proposed rule prior to the November 2006 ICCAT meeting is appreciated. Although there are numerous concerns with the rule itself, it has shown the international community that the United States still has a valid stake in the swordfish fishery, and that revitalization is real and tangible.
Response: NMFS recognized that it was imperative to demonstrate to ICCAT that the United States is committed to revitalizing its historical swordfish fishery, especially because the stock is now almost fully rebuilt. Importantly, the United States was successful in maintaining its swordfish quota share through 2008. U.S. fishermen have contributed to swordfish stock rebuilding, and should realize some benefit from it. Further action will be considered, consistent with the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act, ATCA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other Federal regulations, to revitalize this important domestic fishery.
Comment 8: The proposed measures fall far short of what is needed to save this national resource. I recognize that the proposed rule only includes less controversial solutions that can be implemented relatively quickly, but there will still be a significant underharvest of the U.S. swordfish quota. This poses a problem because there is a limited amount of time available to show that revitalization of the fishery is underway.
Response: The final management measures are not likely, by themselves, to result in full utilization of the U.S. swordfish quota. Other measures may be considered in the future to provide additional opportunities to increase U.S. swordfish landings.
Comment 9: The purpose of the proposed rulemaking was to revitalize the swordfish fishery, not redistribute the U.S. longline quota to recreational interests. NMFS should develop additional alternatives that will allow the commercial swordfish fishery to harvest more of the U.S. quota. The proposed alternatives are skewed to the advantage of the recreational and forhire sectors. Because swordfish are almost fully rebuilt, it is a valuable opportunity for the U.S. food service sector. The proposed alternatives will not substantially increase the amount of product available to the seafood consuming public, or effectively increase the commercial swordfish harvest.
Response: The overall U.S. North Atlantic swordfish quota is harvested by both commercial and recreational fisheries. Landings from both of these sectors are reported to ICCAT. Because the objective of this rulemaking is to increase overall U.S. swordfish landings, NMFS believes that the final management measures affecting both sectors are appropriate. The final rule does not redistribute U.S. longline quota to recreational fishing interests. Recreational and Incidental swordfish landings are currently allocated 300 mt (ww) of North Atlantic swordfish, within the overall U.S. quota. NMFS is not changing this allocation. In fact, projections contained within the Draft Environmental Assessment clearly indicated that the final measures are not likely to result in landings that would exceed the 300 mt (ww) Incidental quota. It is also important to note that commercial vessels with Directed swordfish permits are not currently governed by any retention limits, unlike recreational vessels. Furthermore, the selected vessel upgrading provisions will benefit the commercial sector exclusively. For these reasons, NMFS believes that the final management measures are appropriately balanced, and are not skewed to favor any particular sector. The rebuilt swordfish stock represents an opportunity to increase the amount of product available to the seafood consuming public. Increasing the Incidental swordfish retention limit and relieving some vessel upgrading restrictions are viable shortterm ways to increase commercial swordfish harvests, while reinvigorating swordfish marketing channels.
No Action Alternatives (1a and 2a)
Comment 10: I strongly oppose any changes to the current swordfish regulations so that swordfish can continue to rebuild. Therefore, I support the status quo alternatives and am opposed to all of the preferred alternatives. NMFS must conserve fish, and let the current regulations strengthen the swordfish population. Give the fish a break and rejoice in the resurrection of a magnificent fish species, which NMFS had previously allowed to go nearly extinct. The current regulations are not broken, so NMFS should not make any regulatory changes.
Response: Swordfish is an important natural resource that provides food to American consumers, and economic and social benefits to commercial and recreational fishery participants. Among other requirements, the MagnusonStevens Act specifies that NMFS shall provide a ``reasonable opportunity'' for U.S. vessels to harvest HMS quotas that are managed under international agreements, such as ICCAT. As discussed in the response to Comment 1, the management measures contained in this final rule will provide for a modest increase in swordfish landings, without jeopardizing stock rebuilding efforts.
Comment 11: Reasonable efforts to fully utilize the domestic
swordfish quota are appropriate. It is vital that our commercial and
recreational fishermen are given the opportunity to benefit from the
successful rebuilding of the North Atlantic swordfish stock. NMFS
should take responsible measures in an attempt to catch the U.S.
swordfish quota, but not at the expense of billfish and the continuing recovery of swordfish. Therefore, NMFS cannot abandon its
responsibility to protect juvenile swordfish, their nursery areas and
critical spawning zones or other seriously overfished species, such as
Atlantic marlin and bluefin tuna. NMFS should rebuild swordfish by
ensuring that there is a spawning stock, and that the fishery is
sustainable. Fishermen have to make a living, but it has taken 10 years
to rebuild the stock. Do not let the pendulum swing the other way again to an overfished status.
Response: The final management measures were selected to provide
additional opportunities for commercial and recreational fishermen to
land swordfish, while ensuring that the bycatch of undersized,
protected, and nontarget species remain at acceptable levels. NMFS is
required under several federal statutes, including the MagnusonStevens
Act, ESA, NEPA, and ATCA, to minimize bycatch and bycatch mortality to
the extent practicable, prevent overfishing, achieve optimum yield,
provide for sustained participation of fishing communities, protect threatened and endangered
[[Page 31692]]
species, and analyze the environmental impacts of potential fishery
management actions. NMFS will continue to comply with all applicable
legal requirements as it continues to investigate methods to revitalize
the domestic swordfish fishery, so that U.S. swordfish quota share is retained.
Incidental Swordfish Retention Limits (Alternative 1a [dash] 1d)
Comment 12: Is it really necessary for NMFS to increase Incidental swordfish retention limits? The fishery is just recovering from being overfished. I propose that recreational anglers release all swordfish, and that commercial fishermen remain at their current limits (non preferred alternative 1a) for the next five years to give the fishery a chance to more fully recover. There is no reason to increase the retention limits, no matter what category.
Response: Swordfish are almost fully rebuilt. As discussed in the
response to Comment 1, the North Atlantic swordfish stock was at 99
percent of the biomass necessary to achieve B
Comment 13: I support preferred alternative 1c, which would increase Incidental swordfish retention limits. This alternative would especially help commercial fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico. It would also help to supplement income for those fishermen whose earnings have been drastically slashed by recent shark management regulations.
Response: The final management measures will increase the retention limits for vessels possessing an Incidental swordfish permit from two fish per trip to 30 fish per trip, except that permitted vessels fishing with a squid trawl will be limited to 15 swordfish per trip. These limits were selected because they may provide additional opportunities to land swordfish that might otherwise be discarded, while preventing a large increase in directed fishing effort. The 30 fish limit is just below the median number of swordfish landed by directed permit holders (36 fish). If vessels land an additional 28 swordfish, it could increase exvessel revenues by over $7,000.00 per trip, minus any additional costs, based upon the average weight and ex vessel price for swordfish in 2005.
Comment 14: I thought ``incidental'' means just that, not 30 fish. NMFS should not change the commercial Incidental swordfish retention limits under preferred alternative 1c. I believe that this might turn Incidental swordfish permit holders into directed commercial fishers because of the high retention limit.
Response: The selected alternative maintains a distinction between Incidental and Directed swordfish vessels. There is no retention limit for vessels possessing a Directed swordfish permit, whereas vessels possessing an Incidental swordfish permit would be allowed to retain only 30 fish per trip, and permitted squid trawl vessels would be limited to 15 swordfish per trip. Available logbook data from 2002 [dash] 2005 indicate that the majority of Incidental swordfish permit holders did not report landing or discarding any swordfish. However, 19 percent of the trips reported swordfish discards, with as many as 52 reported on a single trip. Increasing the Incidental limit to 30 swordfish will allow 90 percent of all swordfish discards to be converted into landings, if they are above the minimum legal size. As mentioned in the response to Comment 13, the 30 fish Incidental swordfish retention limit is just below the median number of swordfish reported kept on trips by Directed swordfish permit holders. It is possible that some Incidental permit holders may choose to deploy a directed swordfish set, perhaps seasonally. However, the new Incidental retention limit is not expected to result in a largescale conversion to directed swordfish fishing by Incidental swordfish permit holders.
Comment 15: The proposed regulations for retention limits make good sense. NMFS wants to limit regulatory discards, but not open the door for incidental permit holders to target swordfish. Discarding dead fish is the biggest doubleedge sword, and it does not make any sense to throw a dead fish away.
Response: The final management measures are intended to reduce regulatory discards without providing an incentive for Incidental swordfish permit holders to direct a large amount of fishing effort on swordfish. This is consistent with the incidental nature of the permit. It is primarily intended to allow Incidental permit holders to retain swordfish that might otherwise be discarded. The proposed 30 fish limit is just below the median number of swordfish retained by Directed permit holders.
Comment 16: Increasing recreational and Incidental swordfish retention limits will not reduce discards of undersized swordfish.
Response: Increasing recreational and Incidental swordfish retention limits will not reduce discards of undersized swordfish. NMFS cannot determine if the swordfish discards reported in the HMS logbook were attributable to exceeding the incidental retention limit, or because the swordfish were below the minimum legal size. NMFS continually strives to reduce the catch and mortality of undersized swordfish and nontarget species. For example, NMFS has recently implemented a series of mandatory safe handling and release workshops for owners and operators of vessels with swordfish or shark Incidental and Directed permits, and using longline gear or gillnets. In combination with other measures, including mandatory circle hooks on PLL gear, mandatory possession and use of careful release equipment on PLL vessels, and PLL time/area closures, NMFS has made significant progress in reducing discards and discard mortality of undersized swordfish.
Comment 17: The wording of the final regulations should be changed to restrict the increased Incidental swordfish retention limit to PLL gear and trawl gear only, and prohibit the higher retention limit in the buoy gear fishery in the East Florida Coast PLL closed area. The Incidental swordfish retention limit must remain at two fish, unless the permit is only to be used outside of the PLL closed areas. The area off the east coast of Florida is currently well balanced between commercial and recreational interests. Increasing Incidental swordfish retention limits could cause an increase in buoy gear sets in the East Florida Coast Closed Area off the Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County Coasts. This would cause major conflicts with the vast recreational fleet in the Florida Straits, and undue stress on the recovering swordfish stock that consists mostly of immature fish that have not reached their full spawning potential.
Response: Under HMS regulations at Sec. 635.71(e)(10), Incidental swordfish permit holders are not authorized to fish
[[Page 31693]]
for swordfish with buoy gear. For this reason, increasing the
Incidental swordfish retention limit will not provide an incentive for
fishermen to enter the buoy gear fishery in any area. Also, Incidental
or Directed swordfish permit holders may not retain swordfish unless
their vessel also possesses both a limited access shark permit and an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit.
Comment 18: NMFS is requested to consider increasing the Incidental swordfish retention limit for squid vessels to 20 fish. Also, a higher limit might be needed for squid freezer vessels that stay at sea for longer periods of time. Seventyseven vessels hold Illex squid moratorium permits. Approximately 25 of these vessels actively fish for Illex squid in any single year, and 10 are freezer vessels that take trips lasting from seven to ten days. The remaining vessels utilize refrigerated seawater and stay at sea for three to four days. Because all existing regulations for maintaining swordfish as an incidental catch in the squid trawl fisheries would apply, no directed fishery is possible or encouraged.
Response: The final management measures will increase the retention limit for Incidental swordfish permit holders that deploy squid trawls from five to 15 swordfish per trip. This increase will enable squid trawl vessels to retain fish that otherwise may have been discarded. Squid trawl vessels fish for, and land, small pelagic species such as squid, mackerel and butterfish. Swordfish catches should remain truly incidental to catches of these target species. However, NMFS welcomes additional input or comments from the squid trawl sector for future consideration.
Comment 19: Increasing the retention limit for 48 Incidental swordfish permit holders will not make much of a difference, in terms of catching more of the swordfish quota. NMFS' projected swordfish landings are wrong. Incidental permit holders will not catch that many fish. NMFS has shown a wide range in the number of swordfish that could potentially be landed by increasing the Incidental swordfish limit. Why is there such a wide range? How did NMFS estimate the additional swordfish that will be landed? How many active Incidental swordfish permit holders are there? How many squid trawl vessels? Would the U.S. reach its quota before reaching the maximum number that could potentially be landed? Is it appropriate to project that each one of the boats is going to keep 30 fish? Only a small number of PLL boats are still in business, as twothirds of the fleet is gone. The projections that NMFS has shown are confusing. NMFS should provide more detail on these numbers, so that they make sense.
Response: The projected swordfish landings in the Draft Environmental Assessment are based upon certain assumptions. However, until final landings data are available after implementation of the new swordfish retention limits, it is not possible to determine whether these projections are accurate. In 2005, 10,787 lb dressed weight (dw) of swordfish were reported landed by Incidental swordfish permit holders in the HMS logbook. Swordfish landings by squid trawl vessels, as reported to ICCAT, averaged 10,443 lb (dw) per year from 1998 2004. Because all squid trawl landings may not have been reported in the HMS logbook, these landings were added together with the other Incidental landings to derive an estimate of 21,230 lb (dw) of swordfish landed by Incidental permit holders in 2005. NMFS then presented a range of projected landings to reflect uncertainties regarding future fishing activity. At one end of the range, NMFS assumed that all reported discards by Incidental swordfish permit holders would be landed, up to 30 fish. Therefore, if a vessel reported landing two swordfish and discarding five swordfish, a total of seven swordfish were assumed to be landed. Also, squid trawl landings in 2005 were tripled, reflecting the tripling of the squid limit from five fish to 15 fish. This methodology resulted in a projected estimate of 66,207 lb. At the other end of the range, NMFS assumed that all reported trips by Incidental swordfish permit holders would land 30 fish. Therefore, if an Incidental swordfish permit holder reported landing one swordfish in 2005, it was assumed that 30 fish would be landed under the new limits. Again, squid trawl landings were also tripled. This methodology resulted in a projected estimate of 476,444 lb. A similar methodology was used for the recreational retention limits where, at one end of the range, it was assumed that only trips that had previously landed the retention limit (three fish) would also land the new retention limit (four fish or 15 fish). At the other end of the range, it was assumed that all recreational trips would land the new retention limits. NMFS believes that actual landings will likely fall somewhere between the lower and higher end of these ranges.
Comment 20: Putting more swordfish on the market by increasing the Incidental retention limit will reduce the price that Directed swordfish permit holders receive. This is a bad economic decision.
Response: NMFS recognizes that an increase in the volume of
incidentally caught swordfish could affect swordfish prices. However,
some constituents have told NMFS that the current 2fish Incidental
retention limit does not justify the additional effort of fishing for,
or landing, swordfish, and then bringing them to market. These
constituents stated that the current twofish Incidental retention
limit has contributed to an inadequate infrastructure and marketing
channel in some areas that is not suitable for handling swordfish. NMFS
believes that the 30fish retention limit will provide more of an
incentive to land and market incidentally caught swordfish, without a
significant disruption to swordfish prices. Increased participation by
incidental permit holders could help to develop a more consistent
supply of swordfish, and thus lead to a more robust market for swordfish products.
Recreational Swordfish Retention Limits (Alternatives 1e [dash] 1f)
Comment 21: NMFS received several comments concerning preferred alternatives 1e and 1f, which would increase the per vessel recreational swordfish retention limits. These comments include: The current recreational swordfish retention limit is already very generous for ``personal'' use, and increasing it would promote commercial harvest by ``recreational'' anglers. Recreational permit holders are currently keeping one swordfish, and illegally selling the others to a restaurant or a market buyer. Under the preferred alternatives, these illegal recreational swordfish sales would continue to grow; there is no reason to increase ``recreational'' retention limits if the rampant illegal sale of recreational swordfish cannot be controlled. It is necessary to strike a balance when setting recreational limits between fulfilling the recreational ``experience'' and encouraging the development of a quasicommercial activity; the preferred alternatives to increase recreational vessel limits will hurt the prices that commercial fishermen receive for their swordfish. These swordfish will be sold and compete in the market with commercially landed fish.
Response: The Agency received many comments regarding the illegal
sale of recreationally caught swordfish. The current regulations
explicitly prohibit the sale of swordfish by HMS Angling category
permit holders. The sale of swordfish by HMS CHB permit holders is also
prohibited, unless the vessel owner concurrently possesses a limited [[Page 31694]]
access swordfish Handgear permit. Furthermore, anyone who buys Atlantic
swordfish from a U.S. vessel must have a Federal Atlantic Swordfish
Dealer permit, and must report all purchases to NMFS. All non
tournament swordfish landings by Angling and CHB permit holders must be
reported by calling (800) 8945528. For recreational swordfish
reporting information in Maryland, contact (410) 2131531. In North
Carolina, contact (800) 3387804. Tournament directors, if selected,
must report tournament landings. NMFS does not anticipate that
increasing the recreational retention limit will increase illegal
recreational sales because the recreational sale of all swordfish is
clearly prohibited. However, citizens with information regarding the
illegal sale of recreationally caught swordfish are encouraged to call
the anonymous NMFS Office of Law Enforcement tip line at (800) 8531964 to report the incident.
Comment 22: A recreational vessel does not have enough room onboard to properly ice more than one fish. Therefore, the preferred alternatives to increase recreational swordfish retention limits could cause health problems. NMFS should reduce the recreational retention limit to one fish per boat per trip.
Response: NMFS is not reducing the recreational retention limit because it is important to provide more opportunities for fishermen to land the U.S. swordfish quota, and recreational landings are counted against the quota. The decision regarding whether or not to land a fish is often made when the animal is alongside the boat. HMS regulations currently require that all fish that are not retained must be released in a manner that will ensure the maximum probability of survival, without removing the fish from the water. If an angler decides to keep a fish, it is his or her personal responsibility to ensure that the fish is maintained properly so that it is safe to eat. Since the fish cannot be sold, the federal government has no direct role in ensuring that it is safe to eat. However, to prevent waste, NMFS strongly encourages all anglers to keep no more fish than they can safely handle.
Comment 23: Recreational fisheries can develop rapidly and can threaten the Incidental catch quota. NMFS must properly monitor and record recreational and CHB swordfish landings to control the ultimate destination of these catches. NMFS should also include criteria that would allow for the downward adjustment of recreational limits to prevent exceeding the Incidental catch quota.
Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 21, all non tournament recreational swordfish landings by HMS Angling and CHB permit holders must be reported to NMFS, or to the states of Maryland and North Carolina as applicable. These landings are collected on a daily basis. Using historical reported recreational swordfish landings, the projections presented in the Draft Environmental Assessment indicate that increasing recreational retention limits will not result in an exceedance of the Incidental swordfish quota. However, anecdotal information suggests that recreational swordfish landings may be under reported. Reporting could increase in the future as more anglers become aware of the requirement through Agency outreach. NMFS will continue to collect recreational swordfish landings data, and will take appropriate and timely action to maintain compliance with the Incidental swordfish quota.
Comment 24: I prefer alternative 1e, which would increase CHB vessel retention limits. This alternative would assist the recreational CHB industry by increasing overall recreational swordfish landings. It would allow CHB vessels to target swordfish instead of just catching them as bycatch species on tuna, marlin, and dolphin fishing trips.
Response: The final management measures will increase the per vessel HMS CHB swordfish retention limits, based upon the number of paying passengers onboard. This could provide additional opportunities for the HMS CHB sector to market recreational swordfish fishing trips.
Comment 25: Increasing the recreational retention limits will not affect the U.S. swordfish quota, because recreational fishermen are catching swordfish and not reporting them. They believe that reporting their catches will result in them being closed out.
Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 21, all non tournament recreational swordfish landings by HMS Angling and CHB permit holders must be reported to NMFS, or to the states of Maryland and North Carolina as applicable. These reported landings are counted against the U.S. swordfish quota. It is possible that a failure to report recreational landings could result in a potential reduction of the Incidental swordfish quota, or a reduction in the overall U.S. swordfish quota in the future.
Comment 26: We have no objections to the proposed regulations to increase the recreational retention limit to one per person, up to four per vessel, as long as NMFS is only making the change to help the U.S. reach its swordfish quota. Similarly, there is no objection to the proposed regulations to increase retention limits for CHB vessels.
Response: The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement management measures that will enable the United States to more fully harvest its ICCATrecommended North Atlantic swordfish quota. The U.S. swordfish quota allocation includes both recreational and commercial landings. For this reason, NMFS chose to modify the regulations for both sectors in order to increase overall U.S. swordfish landings.
Comment 27: We support alternatives 1e and 1f to help the United States catch its swordfish quota. However, most recreationally caught swordfish are caught in the areas that are closed to PLL gear to protect juvenile swordfish. Therefore, we recommend an increase in the minimum size limit for all swordfish caught from within the PLL closed areas.
Response: The minimum swordfish size is established by ICCAT. However, the United States has some discretion to negotiate a higher minimum size, considering domestic requirements. NMFS may consider this in the future, if necessary.
Comment 28: Does the crew count when calculating the recreational swordfish vessel retention limit for HMS CHB vessels?
Response: No. The captain and crew do not count when calculating the swordfish vessel retention limit for HMS CHB vessels. Under the final regulations, the vessel limit is no more than one swordfish per paying passenger, up to six swordfish per vessel per trip for charter vessels; and no more than one swordfish per person, up to 15 swordfish per vessel per trip for headboat vessels. The retention limit for vessels issued an HMS Angling category permit is no more than one per person, up to four swordfish per vessel per trip.
Comment 29: In Louisiana, there are approximately four headboats, but they do not fit into the typical ``headboat'' category. They might fall under the headboat category or the charter boat category. These boats have to meet their minimum day rate, and they must carry a certain amount of passengers in order to leave the dock. But, they are different from the boats in Florida where everybody shows up and pays their individual fees. These boats are usually targeting snapper and grouper on overnight trips, but they may target swordfish. They might also fish for tuna during the day, and then start fishing for swordfish at night.
[[Page 31695]]
Response: A charter boat means a vessel that is less than 100 gross tons (90.8 mt) that meets the requirements of the U.S. Coast Guard to carry six or fewer passengers for hire. A headboat means a vessel that holds a valid Certificate of Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry passengers for hire. Thus, the applicable swordfish retention limits for charter and headboat vessels are based upon the tonnage of the vessel and whether it meets the requirements to carry six or fewer passengers, or whether it possesses a valid Certificate of Inspection issued by the U.S. Coast Guard to carry passengers for hire. Vessel Upgrading Restrictions (Alternatives 2a [dash] 2e)
Comment 30: NMFS should consider an alternative to remove gross registered tonnage (GRT) and net tonnage (NT) restrictions for simplification of vessel construction or conversion.
Response: Length overall (LOA), GRT, and NT are all measurements of a vessel's size and capacity. During the initial development of the limited access permit regulations, NMFS established an upper limit on fishing effort by restricting both the number of permitted vessels, and restricting upgrades in the size and capacity of those vessels. The purpose was to maintain overall fleet capacity at a relatively constant level. This was intended to improve the effectiveness of other management measures by preventing a sudden increase in fleet capacity and fishing effort when stocks first began to rebuild. Vessel tonnage was linked with vessel length to prevent vessels from increasing in beam while complying with other restrictions on length. However, since then, the fishing and boat building industries have informed NMFS that it is sometimes difficult to increase a vessel's length proportionately with its tonnage. Also, it has been brought to the Agency's attention that restrictions on net tonnage may significantly hamper interior modifications to vessels, such as reconfiguring the engine room, which may have little impact on the vessel's capacity. Finally, some fishermen have indicated that restrictive retention limits nullify the need to restrict vessel capacity (GRT and NT). NMFS is aware of these concerns and may consider further modifications to the vessel upgrading restrictions in the future. In this final rule, the 35 percent allowance is expected to provide additional flexibility for owners to upgrade their vessels, whether through construction, conversion, or permit transfer.
Comment 31: I support no action alternative 2a for the upgrading restrictions. Vessel capacity is adequate. Bigger vessels are not needed to harvest swordfish in the Gulf of Mexico. By lifting the upgrading restrictions, NMFS is catering to people who are trying to go to the Grand Banks. Lifting or modifying the upgrading restrictions would only benefit larger swordfish boats that currently catch most of the swordfish. I do not want Atlantic fishermen upgrading their vessels and then moving to the Gulf of Mexico to fish for swordfish.
Response: The final management measures will modify the vessel
upgrading criteria for all vessels that concurrently possess Incidental
or Directed swordfish and shark permits, and an Atlantic Tunas Longline
category permit. This will benefit all commercial vessels that
concurrently possess these three permits, not just larger vessels.
Vessel owners are not required to upgrade. The revised upgrading
criteria will improve the flexibility of vessel owners to make individual business decisions based upon their own unique
circumstances. Overall, some vessels may not be optimally configured
for current market conditions, and therefore profits may be less than
optimal. Without some modification to the current upgrading
restrictions, these vessels (primarily PLL vessels) would continue to
be limited in their ability to modernize, thus affecting the ability to
retain skilled crew, carry observers, and fish further offshore. In
addition, limitations on vessel capacity may affect safety at sea
because, in general, a larger vessel is more seaworthy than a smaller
vessel, especially in rough seas. NMFS cannot accurately predict where
newly upgraded vessels will fish, but it is important to provide some
additional flexibility to improve their mobility. It is possible that
some vessels could move out of the Gulf of Mexico to fish, rather than move into it.
Comment 32: I support no action alternative 2a for the vessel upgrading restrictions. The United States is not failing to catch its swordfish quota because of the size of the vessels. The current fleet capacity can harvest the quota if the boats are provided with more opportunities to fish.
Response: Vessel capacity is one factor, among several, that is potentially preventing the U.S. fleet from landing its full North Atlantic swordfish quota. NMFS believes that allowing for an increase in vessel size and horsepower (HP), will provide more opportunities to increase domestic swordfish catches. For example, increased vessel capacity and HP could allow some operators to fish further offshore, fish longer without offloading, and reduce the time spent transiting to and from fishing grounds.
Comment 33: As a swordfish Handgear permit holder, I am opposed to lifting the upgrading restrictions on handgear vessels (nonpreferred alternative 2c). I feel that making numerous permits available would cause far too many buoy gear conflicts with the vast recreational fleet in the Florida Straits.
Response: In the final rule, NMFS is not removing or modifying upgrading restrictions for vessels issued limited access swordfish Handgear permits. Also, NMFS is not making any new commercial swordfish permits available, because they are all limited access. However, upgrading restrictions are being modified specifically for vessels that concurrently possess limited access Atlantic Tunas Longline permits, as well as Directed or Incidental swordfish and shark permits. Most of these vessels fish with PLL gear. HMS regulations also allow vessels with a Directed swordfish permit to fish with buoy gear in the PLL closed areas, if PLL gear is not onboard. Because many vessels that might fish with buoy gear have very high horsepower, several commenters have indicated that the current HP restriction is a limiting factor that prevents many fishermen from obtaining a Directed swordfish permit, along with the other two necessary permits, and deploying buoy gear. Therefore, by removing the HP upgrading restriction for Directed swordfish vessels, buoy gear fishing activity could increase. As described in greater detail in the response to Comment 40, NMFS currently believes that the buoy gear fishery is adequately regulated through limits on the number of buoys that may legally be deployed, gear monitoring and marking requirements, limits on the number of hooks that may be attached, logbook reporting requirements, and other general commercial fishing regulations. NMFS is aware of the concerns expressed regarding buoy gear, and may implement additional regulations on the buoy gear fishery in the future, if necessary.
Comment 34: NMFS received several comments in favor of increasing
allowable vessel upgrades, or removing the upgrading restrictions
altogether (nonpreferred alternative 2d). These comments include: I
support immediately taking off the restrictions on vessel size for all
vessels possessing HMS limited access permits. If the number of permits
is limited, then why manage the size of the boat too? It is not the government's business regarding the
[[Page 31696]]
size of the engine that I have on my boat. The government has put
enough restrictions on fishermen; in the Pacific PLL fleet all vessels
can go up to 100 feet in length, so NMFS should consider this as an
alternative; limiting the size of fishing vessels is a problem. Most
current swordfish vessels are from 40 to 50 feet in length. Allowing
these vessels to be upgraded by 35 percent to 65foot vessels under
preferred alternative 2e makes no sense, because 65foot vessels have
become unprofitable. No new 65foot vessels have been built in years.
Response: One of the goals of this rulemaking was to develop and implement management measures that would facilitate, in the short term, the ability of U.S. vessels to harvest the ICCATrecommended domestic swordfish quota. Thus, the Agency selected alternatives that would meet these goals, and that were projected to have comparatively minor environmental impacts. Nonselected alternative 2d would have removed all HMS limited access vessel upgrading and permit transfer upgrading restrictions for ten years. This alternative was not selected because it was projected to result in the most adverse ecological impacts. The universe of affected vessels is substantially larger under alternative 2d, and there would be no limit on the size to which HMS limited access vessels could be upgraded. The final management measures will allow some owners to upgrade their vessels by 35 percent in size (relative to the baseline specifications of the vessel initially issued the limited access permit), with no limits on HP. This would allow, for example, an ``average'' 55foot baseline vessel to be upgraded to a 74foot vessel with unlimited HP. NMFS believes that this is a meaningful increase in vessel size, but overall fleet capacity will remain within acceptable limits. It provides vessel owners with more flexibility to make business decisions based upon their own individual needs. NMFS selected this alternative because there will likely be fewer adverse ecological impacts compared to the other alternatives. The North Atlantic swordfish stock is still rebuilding. Also, several species caught as bycatch in the PLL fishery are currently overfished, or protected under the ESA. The final management measures may increase overall fleet capacity, but not to extent that overfishing will occur or bycatch will substantially increase. As additional data become available regarding, among other things, swordfish stock status, sea turtle interactions, levels of bycatch, and the effectiveness of circle hooks and careful handling and release techniques, NMFS may reexamine the HMS limited access vessel upgrading restrictions to determine if additional modifications are warranted.
Comment 35: Which vessels are eligible for the upgrade under preferred alternative 2e? Do they have to fish with PLL gear or just have the permits that would enable them to fish with PLL gear?
Response: In order to be eligible for the 35percent vessel upgrade in LOA, GRT, and NT, with no restrictions on HP, a vessel must concurrently possess, or be eligible for the renewal of, the following three permits 30 days from the effective date of this final rule: Directed or Incidental swordfish and shark permits, and an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit. Vessel owners may submit applications to transfer permits so that a vessel concurrently possesses the three necessary permits to be eligible for the 35 percent upgrade. However, NMFS must receive a complete application from the vessel owner no later than 30 days from the effective date of this final rule in order for the vessel to be eligible.
Comment 36: The swordfish industry stagnated and died because it could not build large freezer vessels just when they were needed to meet world market demand. NMFS must find a method to allow larger vessels to economically enter the fleet, such as foreign vessels or large shrimp boats. The U.S. fleet needs much larger vessels to travel further and to utilize onboard freezers.
Response: As indicated in the response to Comment 34, NMFS considered an alternative that would have removed all upgrading restrictions on all vessels possessing HMS limited access permits. However, this alternative was not selected because it was determined to have the most severe adverse environmental impacts. As the frozen seafood market has grown substantially in recent years, NMFS may consider the concept of domestic freezer vessels in the future, if appropriate. Currently about 38 vessels are greater than 70 feet in length, and possess Directed swordfish permits. Under the final management measures, these existing vessels could be upgraded, either through conversion or permit transfer, to 94 feet or more, depending upon the size of the baseline vessel, for use as a freezer vessel 30 days from the effective date of the final regulations. In the longer term, it may be necessary for NMFS to further analyze the potential impacts associated with a swordfish freezer fleet to determine an appropriate number of vessels, permit qualification criteria, environmental impacts, and other items. Under the MagnusonStevens Act, no foreign vessels are allowed to fish within the U.S. EEZ, unless that portion of the optimum yield that would be caught by those vessels cannot be harvested by U.S. vessels.
Comment 37: The last U.S. PLL boat was built in 1994. There is no money for the owners of PLL vessels to upgrade their boats. If you want to revitalize the industry, then upgrading is not the way to do it because the remaining fishermen cannot afford it.
Response: Several constituents identified the current vessel upgrading restrictions as one factor, among several, limiting the ability of U.S. vessels to fully harvest the U.S. swordfish quota. Vessel owners are not required to upgrade. The option to upgrade could improve the flexibility of some vessel owners to make individual business decisions, based upon their own unique circumstances.
Comment 38: I support removing HP restrictions on PLL vessels in preferred alternative 2e. Speed is important when selling fresh fish, which the U.S. fleet does.
Response: Removing the HP upgrading restrictions will provide additional flexibility to modify vessels possessing, or eligible to possess, Directed or Incidental swordfish and shark permits, and Atlantic Tunas Longline category permits. These vessels usually fish with stationary PLL gear, rather than with towed gear, so HP may have a relatively minor impact on fishing effort. However, if an owner is able to increase the vessel's speed, it could reduce transit time and provide additional fishing time.
Comment 39: Removing HP upgrading restrictions in preferred alternative 2e will make little difference to PLL vessels. Most longline vessels are not going to go faster with more HP, and it will cost more in fuel. It is not possible to get some boats up on a plane to go faster, even if the HP is increased.
Response: As indicated above in Comment 38, NMFS received contrasting comments regarding the effect of removing the HP upgrading restrictions. NMFS recognizes that some vessels may not be able to travel any faster with a more powerful engine, due to the vessel's hull configuration. However, other vessels might be able to travel faster. NMFS believes that waiving the HP upgrading restrictions on vessels that concurrently possess the three necessary HMS limited access permits will provide some owners with additional flexibility to modify their vessels according to their needs, and potentially provide more fishing time.
[[Page 31697]]
Comment 40: We cannot support the proposed rule as written because the unlimited HP upgrade is not restricted to vessels that specifically fish with PLL gear. The Draft Environmental Assessment indicates that NMFS desired to restrict the upgrade to PLL vessels, but the proposed regulations do not reflect this intent. The limitation that currently keeps vessels from entering the buoy gear fishery is the HP limitati
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Sari Kiraly, by phone: 301-713-2347;
by fax: 3017131917; or by email: Sari.Kiraly@noaa.gov, or Richard A.
Pearson, by phone: 7278245399; by fax: 7278245398; or by email:
Rick.A.Pearson@noaa.gov.