Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 6, 27981-27984 [E6-7357]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well
as all other Department of Education
documents published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet
at this site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at the site listed above. If you have
questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll
free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in the
Washington, DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: May 10, 2006.
Tom Luce,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development.
[FR Doc. E6–7346 Filed 5–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 060503118–6118–01; I.D.
042606E]
RIN 0648–AT26
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and
Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Framework
Adjustment 6
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures
contained in Framework Adjustment 6
(Framework 6) to the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) that would
allow regional conservation equivalency
in the summer flounder recreational
fishery. The intent is to provide
flexibility and efficiency to the
management of the summer flounder
recreational fishery, specifically by
expanding the suite of management
tools available when conservation
equivalency is implemented.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 30, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:41 May 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• E-mail: FSBFW6@noaa.gov. Include
in the subject line the following
identifier: ‘‘Comments on Summer
Flounder Framework 6.’’
• Federal e-rulemaking portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Northeast
Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside
of the envelope: ‘‘Comments on Summer
Flounder Framework 6.’’
• Fax: (978) 281–9135.
Copies of the Environmental
Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review,
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available
from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, Room 2115, Federal Building,
300 South New Street, Dover, DE
19901–6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also
accessible via the Internet at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281–9279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Background
The summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass fisheries are managed
cooperatively by the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council (Council),
in consultation with the New England
and South Atlantic Fishery Management
Councils.
The management units specified in
the FMP include summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatus) in U.S. waters of
the Atlantic Ocean from the southern
border of North Carolina northward to
the U.S./Canada border, and scup
(Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea
bass (Centropristis striata) in U.S.
waters of the Atlantic Ocean from
35°15.3′ N. lat. (the latitude of Cape
Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC)
northward to the U.S./Canada border.
The FMP and its implementing
regulations, which are found at 50 CFR
part 648, subparts A (General
Provisions), G (summer flounder), H
(scup), and I (black sea bass), describe
the process for specifying annual
recreational measures that apply in the
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The
states manage these fisheries within 3
miles of their coasts, under the
Commission′s plan for summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass. The
Federal regulations govern vessels
fishing in the EEZ, as well as vessels
possessing a Federal fisheries permit,
regardless of where they fish.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27981
The Council and the Commission seek
to expand the suite of management tools
available for management of the summer
flounder recreational fishery when
conservation equivalency is
recommended by the Council. The
Council initiated Framework 6,
pursuant to § 648.108, in order to
address issues related to the
administration of the summer flounder
recreational fishery, while continuing to
achieve the management objectives of
the FMP. Framework 6 complements
Addendum XVII to the Interstate
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass FMP.
In 2001, NMFS implemented
Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP
(Framework 2), which established a
process that makes conservation
equivalency an option for the summer
flounder recreational fishery (66 FR
36208, July 11, 2001). Conservation
equivalency allows each state to
establish its own recreational
management measures (possession
limits, minimum fish size, and fishing
seasons) to achieve its state harvest
limit, as long as the combined effect of
all of the states′ management measures
achieves the same level of conservation
as would Federal coastwide measures
developed to achieve the overall
recreational harvest limit. Conservation
equivalency has been approved for the
summer flounder recreational fishery
each year since 2002.
During the development of
Framework 2, the Council considered
but did not approve an alternative that
would divide the recreational harvest
limit into three subregions: Northern
(MA, RI, CT), Central (NY, NJ, DE), and
Southern (MD, Potomac River Fisheries
Commission, VA, and NC).
Development of Framework 6 was
necessary to allow for modification of
the state-specific conservation
equivalency procedures as established
in Framework 2. Framework 6 would
allow for the voluntary formation of
multi-state regions by two or more
adjacent states for the purpose of setting
regional, conservation-equivalent
recreational summer flounder fishing
measures. Using guidelines approved by
both the Council and the Commission,
multi-state conservation equivalency
regions would develop fishing measures
(i.e., minimum fish size, possession
limits, and fishing seasons) intended to
maximize landings in the region,
without resulting in overages of the
regional targets (in number of fish). All
states forming a region would be
required to implement identical
recreational fishery regulations.
Currently, the Council and Board
recommend annually that either state-
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
27982
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
specific recreational measures be
developed (conservation equivalency) or
coastwide management measures be
implemented by all states to ensure that
the recreational harvest limit will not be
exceeded. The Commission′s
conservation equivalency guidelines
require the states to determine and
implement appropriate state-specific
management measures to achieve statespecific harvest limits. Under this
approach, each state may implement
unique management measures
appropriate to that state, so long as these
measures are determined by the
Commission to provide equivalent
conservation as would Federal
coastwide measures developed to
achieve the overall recreational harvest
limit.
For each fishing year, if the Council
recommends conservation equivalency,
the Board requires that each state
submit its conservation equivalency
proposal to the Commission by January
15. The Commission’s Summer
Flounder Technical Committee then
evaluates the proposals and advises the
Board of each proposal’s consistency
with respect to achieving the coastwide
recreational harvest limit. The
Commission invites public participation
in its review process by allowing public
comment on the state proposals at the
Technical Committee meeting and
Board meeting. The Board meets in
February to approve or disapprove the
state management proposals. Once the
states select and submit their final
summer flounder management measures
to the Commission, the Commission
officially notifies NMFS as to which
state proposals have been approved or
disapproved. NMFS retains the final
authority to either approve or
disapprove using conservation
equivalency in place of the coastwide
measures and publishes its
determination in the final rule
establishing the annual recreational
measures for these fisheries.
If conservation equivalency is
recommended, and following
confirmation that the proposed state
measures would achieve conservation
equivalency, NMFS may waive the
permit condition found at § 648.4(b),
which requires federally permitted
vessels to comply with the more
restrictive management measures when
state and Federal measures differ.
Federally permitted charter/party
permit holders and recreational vessels
fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ
then would be subject to the
recreational fishing measures
implemented by the state in which they
land summer flounder, rather than the
coastwide measures. In addition, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:41 May 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
Council and the Board must recommend
precautionary default measures. The
precautionary default measures would
be assigned to any state that either does
not submit a summer flounder
management proposal to the
Commission′s Summer Flounder
Technical Committee, or that submits
measures that are determined not to
achieve the required reduction. The
precautionary default measures are
defined as the set of measures that
would achieve the greatest reduction in
landings required for any state.
Under Framework 6, multi-state
conservation equivalency measures for
each region would be developed in the
same manner as state-specific
conservation equivalency measures, as
specified in Framework 2. The
procedures and timeline associated with
development of summer flounder
recreational management measures as
determined in Framework 2 would also
apply to multi-state conservation
equivalency, i.e., with regard to
distribution of multi-state conservation
equivalency guidelines by the
Commission to each state, distribution
of multi-state conservation equivalency
proposals to the Commission′s Summer
Flounder Technical Committee,
evaluation of conservation equivalency
proposals, and approval or disapproval
of the proposals.
The recreational harvest limit for a
multi-state region would be the sum of
the harvest limits for all of the states
volunteering to form that region. The
Summer Flounder Technical Committee
would develop region-specific tables as
necessary for use by a multi-state region
in determining recreational management
measures expected to constrain
recreational landings to the regional
harvest limit. For the purpose of
explanation, it should be assumed that
a state or region makes its plans for the
current calendar year at the beginning of
the calendar year. To determine the
multi-state conservation equivalency
measures for a current year, the prior
year′s recreational landings would be
pooled among the inclusive states and
then compared to the current year′s
region-specific recreational harvest limit
to determine if any reduction in
landings would be required of that
region. Each multi-state region would
then craft their regulations under the
same guidelines used to develop statespecific conservation equivalency
measures and under the same timeline
identified in Framework 2.
There are two possible scenarios for
how states could proceed based on
whether a region decides to maintain
their voluntary regional agreement or
decides to dissolve the voluntary multi-
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
state region and resume state-specific
conservation equivalency. First, in the
event that a multi-state region maintains
its voluntary conservation equivalency
agreement, the region would again
compare its regional recreational
landings for the prior year to the current
year′s region-specific recreational
harvest limit to determine if any
necessary reductions in landings would
be required of that region. The region
would then adjust their regulations such
that the region-specific harvest limit
would be achieved. Second, in the event
the region dissolves its agreement and
opts for state-specific conservation
equivalency, state-specific harvest limits
would apply and individual states
would compare their state-specific
landings for the prior year to the statespecific harvest limits in the current
year. Each state would then adjust their
regulations such that the state-specific
harvest limits would be achieved. As
established for individual states in
Framework 2, a multi-state region that
does not exceed its regional harvest
limit in a given year may be allowed to
set less restrictive management
measures for the following year, if the
following year′s regional harvest limit is
greater than the current year′s regional
landings.
NMFS proposes to expand the scope
of the regulations at § 648.100(e) to
allow states and/or multi-state regions
to implement conservation equivalent
recreational fishing measures. The
conservation equivalency regulations at
§ 648.107 would continue to apply, i.e.,
references to ‘‘state’’ would not be
modified, since individual states are
ultimately responsible for
implementation of the conservation
equivalent regulations (including those
approved for a multi-state region).
Need for Clarification/Correction
NMFS has identified the need to
clarify and to correct the regulations
regarding summer flounder commercial
gear restrictions. This proposed rule
would clarify (at § 648.104(b)) that,
although the minimum mesh size
requirements specified for otter trawls
would not apply for a vessel issued a
summer flounder small-mesh exemption
letter, other restrictions in part 648 may
limit the area in which the exemption
letter may be used. This proposed rule
would correct the reference to net
stowage requirements at § 648.104(b)(1)
to be § 648.104(e) rather than
§ 648.100(e) as it was inadvertently
published in a final rule that
consolidated regulations governing
multiple marine fisheries of the
Northeast region into one new CFR part
(61 FR 34966, July 3, 1996).
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
In addition, NMFS proposes a nonsubstantive modification to the
regulatory text at § 648.107(b) for
clarification purposes.
Classification
NMFS has determined that the
proposed rule is consistent with the
FMP and preliminarily determined that
the rule is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and
other applicable laws.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by
section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the
economic impact this proposed rule, if
adopted, would have on small entities.
A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for
this action are contained at the
beginning of this section of the
preamble and in the SUMMARY section
of the preamble. A summary of the
analysis follows. A copy of this analysis
is available from the Council (see
ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other
Federal rules.
The proposed action could affect any
recreational angler who fishes for
summer flounder in the EEZ or on a
party/charter vessel issued a Federal
permit for summer flounder. However,
the IRFA focuses upon the impacts on
party/charter vessels issued a Federal
summer flounder permit because these
vessels are considered small business
entities for the purposes of the RFA, i.e.,
businesses with receipts (gross
revenues) of up to $6.5 million. These
small entities can be specifically
identified in the Federal vessel permit
database and would be impacted by the
recreational measures, regardless of
whether they fish in Federal or state
waters.
Data from the Northeast permit
application database indicates that in
2004 there were 803 party/charter
vessels permitted to take part in the
summer flounder, scup, and/or black
sea bass recreational fisheries in the
EEZ. Of those 803 party/charter vessels,
56 held a summer flounder permit
alone, and 683 held a summer flounder
permit in combination with a scup
permit, black sea bass permit, or both.
However, only 284 of these vessels
reported active participation in the
recreational summer flounder fishery in
2004. Although individual recreational
anglers may be impacted, they are not
considered small entities under the
RFA. Also, there is no permit
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:41 May 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirement to participate in these
fisheries; thus, it would be difficult to
quantify any impacts on recreational
anglers in general.
In the EA/RIR/IRFA, the no-action
alternative (i.e., maintenance of the
regulations as codified) is defined as
continuance of the state-specific
conservation equivalency procedures as
established in Framework 2. The
implications of the no-action alternative
are not substantial. State-specific
summer flounder conservation
equivalency, which was designed to
constrain landings to the annual
recreational harvest limit while
allowing states the flexibility of
determining their own recreational
management measures, has been
recommended by the Council and
approved by NMFS each year since
2002.
The proposed action is not expected
to result in negative impacts to a
significant number of small entities
participating in the recreational summer
flounder fishery, relative to the status
quo. The coastwide recreational harvest
limit for summer flounder would not be
altered. Multi-state conservation
equivalency regions will develop fishing
measures that maximize the harvest of
the region-specific limit, without
resulting in overages. This is similar to
what is currently done on a statespecific basis when conservation
equivalency is implemented, but on a
larger scale. It is expected that the
conservation equivalent recreational
management measures would allow
each state or multi-state region to
develop specific summer flounder
recreational measures that allow the
fishery to operate during critical fishing
periods, while still achieving
conservation goals and mitigating
potential adverse economic effects in
specific states.
There are no new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements contained
in any of the alternatives considered for
this action.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 09, 2006.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27983
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 648.100, paragraphs (e)(2)
introductory text, (e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii)
are revised to read as follows:
§ 648.100 Catch quotas and other
restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(2) Conservation equivalent measures.
Individual states or regions formed
voluntarily by adjacent states (i.e.,
multi-state conservation equivalency
regions) may implement different
combinations of minimum fish sizes,
possession limits, and closed seasons
that achieve equivalent conservation as
the coastwide measures established
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section.
Each state or multi-state conservation
equivalency region may implement
measures by mode or area only if the
proportional standard error of Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) landings estimates by mode or
area for that state are less than 30
percent.
(i) After review of the
recommendations, the Regional
Administrator will publish a proposed
rule in the Federal Register on or about
March 1 to implement the overall
percent adjustment in recreational
landings required for the fishing year,
the Council and Commission′s
recommendation concerning
conservation equivalency, the
precautionary default measures, and
coastwide measures.
(ii) During the public comment period
on the proposed rule, the Commission
will review conservation equivalency
proposals and determine whether or not
they achieve the necessary adjustment
to recreational landings. The
Commission will provide the Regional
Administrator with the individual state
and/or multi-state region conservation
measures for the approved state and/or
multi-state region proposals, and in the
case of disapproved state and/or multistate region proposals, the precautionary
default measures.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 648.104, paragraphs (b)
introductory text and (b)(1) are revised
to read as follows:
§ 648.104
Gear restrictions.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Exemptions. Unless otherwise
restricted by this part, the minimum
mesh-size requirements specified in
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
27984
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2006 / Proposed Rules
paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not
apply to:
(1) Vessels issued a summer flounder
moratorium permit, a summer flounder
small-mesh exemption area letter of
authorization (LOA), required under
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, and
fishing from November 1 through April
30 in the exemption area, which is east
of the line that follows 72°30.0′ W. long.
until it intersects the outer boundary of
the EEZ (copies of a map depicting the
area are available upon request from the
Regional Administrator). Vessels fishing
under the LOA shall not fish west of the
line. Vessels issued a permit under
§ 648.4(a)(3)(iii) may transit the area
west or south of the line, if the vessel’s
fishing gear is stowed in a manner
prescribed under § 648.104(e), so that it
is not ‘‘available for immediate use’’
outside the exempted area. The Regional
Administrator may terminate this
exemption if he/she determines, after a
review of sea sampling data, that vessels
fishing under the exemption are
discarding more than 10 percent, by
weight, of their entire catch of summer
flounder per trip. If the Regional
Administrator makes such a
determination, he/she shall publish
notification in the Federal Register
terminating the exemption for the
remainder of the exemption season.
*
*
*
*
*
4. In § 648.107, paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 648.107 Conservation equivalent
measures for the summer flounder fishery.
dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Federally permitted vessels subject
to the recreational fishing measures of
this part, and other recreational fishing
vessels subject to the recreational
fishing measures of this part and
registered in states whose fishery
management measures are not
determined by the Regional
Administrator to be the conservation
equivalent of the season, minimum size
and possession limit prescribed in
§§ 648.102, 648.103(b) and 648.105(a),
respectively, due to the lack of, or the
reversal of, a conservation equivalent
recommendation from the Summer
Flounder Board of the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission, shall be
subject to the following precautionary
default measures: Season - January 1
through December 31; minimum size 18 inches (45.7 cm); and possession
limit - one fish.
[FR Doc. E6–7357 Filed 5–12–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:41 May 12, 2006
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[I.D. 050306E]
RIN 0648–AT71
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Allocating Gulf of
Alaska Fishery Resources
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Availability of fishery
management plan amendment; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS manages Gulf of
Alaska (GOA) groundfish fisheries
through the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act). Congress granted NMFS specific
regulatory authority to manage Central
GOA rockfish fisheries in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2004. Congress provided additional
guidance to the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) in the
development of a program to allocate
harvesting privileges to fishermen and
permit a defined group of processors to
form associations with these harvesters
for the exclusive use of specific rockfish
and other groundfish in the Central
GOA.
The Council adopted Amendment 68
in June 2005. Amendment 68 to the
Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP)
would establish a program to allocate
Central GOA groundfish resources
among harvesters and processors
(Program). Amendment 68 would
modify the FMP to increase resource
conservation, improve economic
efficiency, and improve safety in the
Central GOA rockfish fisheries and
other fisheries that are subject to the
Program. This action is intended to
promote the goals and objectives of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the FMP, and
other applicable laws.
DATES: Comments on the amendment
must be received on or before July 14,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Walsh. Comments may be
submitted by:
• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Hand Delivery to the Federal
Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room
420A, Juneau, AK.
• Facsimile: 907–586–7557.
• E-mail: 0648-AT71-GOA68NOA@noaa.gov. Include in the subject
line of the e-mail the following
document identifier: ‘‘Central GOA
Rockfish RIN 0648–AT71.’’ E-mail
comments, with or without attachments,
are limited to 5 megabytes.
• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions at that site for submitting
comments.
Copies of Amendment 68 and the
Environmental Assessment/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) for
this action may be obtained from the
NMFS Alaska Region at the address
above or from the Alaska Region website
at https://www.fakr.noaa.gov/
sustainablefisheries.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Glenn Merrill, 907–586–7228 or
glenn.merrill@noaa.gov.
The
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that
each regional fishery management
council submit any FMP amendment it
prepares to NMFS for review and
approval, disapproval, or partial
approval by the Secretary. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires
that NMFS, upon receiving an FMP
amendment, immediately publish a
notice in the Federal Register
announcing that the amendment is
available for public review and
comment.
The Council submitted Amendment
68 to the FMP for Secretarial review,
which would implement the Program
designed to meet the requirements of
Section 802 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law
108–199). Section 802 states:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SEC. 802. GULF OF ALASKA ROCKFISH
DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
The Secretary of Commerce, in
consultation with the North Pacific Fishery
Management Council, shall establish a pilot
program that recognizes the historic
participation of fishing vessels (1996 to 2002,
best 5 of 7 years) and historic participation
of fish processors (1996 to 2000, best 4 of 5
years) for pacific ocean perch, northern
rockfish, and pelagic shelf rockfish harvested
in Central Gulf of Alaska. Such a pilot
program shall (1) provide for a set-aside of up
to 5 percent for the total allowable catch of
such fisheries for catcher vessels not eligible
to participate in the pilot program, which
shall be delivered to shore-based fish
processors not eligible to participate in the
pilot program; (2) establish catch limits for
non rockfish species and non-target rockfish
species currently harvested with pacific
E:\FR\FM\15MYP1.SGM
15MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27981-27984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-7357]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 060503118-6118-01; I.D. 042606E]
RIN 0648-AT26
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries; Framework Adjustment 6
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 6
(Framework 6) to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan (FMP) that would allow regional conservation
equivalency in the summer flounder recreational fishery. The intent is
to provide flexibility and efficiency to the management of the summer
flounder recreational fishery, specifically by expanding the suite of
management tools available when conservation equivalency is
implemented.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
E-mail: FSBFW6@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the
following identifier: ``Comments on Summer Flounder Framework 6.''
Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope: ``Comments on Summer Flounder
Framework 6.''
Fax: (978) 281-9135.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review,
and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/RIR/IRFA) are available
from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street,
Dover, DE 19901-6790. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the
Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281-9279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed
cooperatively by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council),
in consultation with the New England and South Atlantic Fishery
Management Councils.
The management units specified in the FMP include summer flounder
(Paralichthys dentatus) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the
southern border of North Carolina northward to the U.S./Canada border,
and scup (Stenotomus chrysops) and black sea bass (Centropristis
striata) in U.S. waters of the Atlantic Ocean from 35[deg]15.3' N. lat.
(the latitude of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, NC) northward to the
U.S./Canada border.
The FMP and its implementing regulations, which are found at 50 CFR
part 648, subparts A (General Provisions), G (summer flounder), H
(scup), and I (black sea bass), describe the process for specifying
annual recreational measures that apply in the Exclusive Economic Zone
(EEZ). The states manage these fisheries within 3 miles of their
coasts, under the Commission's plan for summer flounder, scup, and
black sea bass. The Federal regulations govern vessels fishing in the
EEZ, as well as vessels possessing a Federal fisheries permit,
regardless of where they fish.
The Council and the Commission seek to expand the suite of
management tools available for management of the summer flounder
recreational fishery when conservation equivalency is recommended by
the Council. The Council initiated Framework 6, pursuant to Sec.
648.108, in order to address issues related to the administration of
the summer flounder recreational fishery, while continuing to achieve
the management objectives of the FMP. Framework 6 complements Addendum
XVII to the Interstate Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP.
In 2001, NMFS implemented Framework Adjustment 2 to the FMP
(Framework 2), which established a process that makes conservation
equivalency an option for the summer flounder recreational fishery (66
FR 36208, July 11, 2001). Conservation equivalency allows each state to
establish its own recreational management measures (possession limits,
minimum fish size, and fishing seasons) to achieve its state harvest
limit, as long as the combined effect of all of the states' management
measures achieves the same level of conservation as would Federal
coastwide measures developed to achieve the overall recreational
harvest limit. Conservation equivalency has been approved for the
summer flounder recreational fishery each year since 2002.
During the development of Framework 2, the Council considered but
did not approve an alternative that would divide the recreational
harvest limit into three subregions: Northern (MA, RI, CT), Central
(NY, NJ, DE), and Southern (MD, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, VA,
and NC). Development of Framework 6 was necessary to allow for
modification of the state-specific conservation equivalency procedures
as established in Framework 2. Framework 6 would allow for the
voluntary formation of multi-state regions by two or more adjacent
states for the purpose of setting regional, conservation-equivalent
recreational summer flounder fishing measures. Using guidelines
approved by both the Council and the Commission, multi-state
conservation equivalency regions would develop fishing measures (i.e.,
minimum fish size, possession limits, and fishing seasons) intended to
maximize landings in the region, without resulting in overages of the
regional targets (in number of fish). All states forming a region would
be required to implement identical recreational fishery regulations.
Currently, the Council and Board recommend annually that either
state-
[[Page 27982]]
specific recreational measures be developed (conservation equivalency)
or coastwide management measures be implemented by all states to ensure
that the recreational harvest limit will not be exceeded. The
Commission's conservation equivalency guidelines require the states to
determine and implement appropriate state-specific management measures
to achieve state-specific harvest limits. Under this approach, each
state may implement unique management measures appropriate to that
state, so long as these measures are determined by the Commission to
provide equivalent conservation as would Federal coastwide measures
developed to achieve the overall recreational harvest limit.
For each fishing year, if the Council recommends conservation
equivalency, the Board requires that each state submit its conservation
equivalency proposal to the Commission by January 15. The Commission's
Summer Flounder Technical Committee then evaluates the proposals and
advises the Board of each proposal's consistency with respect to
achieving the coastwide recreational harvest limit. The Commission
invites public participation in its review process by allowing public
comment on the state proposals at the Technical Committee meeting and
Board meeting. The Board meets in February to approve or disapprove the
state management proposals. Once the states select and submit their
final summer flounder management measures to the Commission, the
Commission officially notifies NMFS as to which state proposals have
been approved or disapproved. NMFS retains the final authority to
either approve or disapprove using conservation equivalency in place of
the coastwide measures and publishes its determination in the final
rule establishing the annual recreational measures for these fisheries.
If conservation equivalency is recommended, and following
confirmation that the proposed state measures would achieve
conservation equivalency, NMFS may waive the permit condition found at
Sec. 648.4(b), which requires federally permitted vessels to comply
with the more restrictive management measures when state and Federal
measures differ. Federally permitted charter/party permit holders and
recreational vessels fishing for summer flounder in the EEZ then would
be subject to the recreational fishing measures implemented by the
state in which they land summer flounder, rather than the coastwide
measures. In addition, the Council and the Board must recommend
precautionary default measures. The precautionary default measures
would be assigned to any state that either does not submit a summer
flounder management proposal to the Commission's Summer Flounder
Technical Committee, or that submits measures that are determined not
to achieve the required reduction. The precautionary default measures
are defined as the set of measures that would achieve the greatest
reduction in landings required for any state.
Under Framework 6, multi-state conservation equivalency measures
for each region would be developed in the same manner as state-specific
conservation equivalency measures, as specified in Framework 2. The
procedures and timeline associated with development of summer flounder
recreational management measures as determined in Framework 2 would
also apply to multi-state conservation equivalency, i.e., with regard
to distribution of multi-state conservation equivalency guidelines by
the Commission to each state, distribution of multi-state conservation
equivalency proposals to the Commission's Summer Flounder Technical
Committee, evaluation of conservation equivalency proposals, and
approval or disapproval of the proposals.
The recreational harvest limit for a multi-state region would be
the sum of the harvest limits for all of the states volunteering to
form that region. The Summer Flounder Technical Committee would develop
region-specific tables as necessary for use by a multi-state region in
determining recreational management measures expected to constrain
recreational landings to the regional harvest limit. For the purpose of
explanation, it should be assumed that a state or region makes its
plans for the current calendar year at the beginning of the calendar
year. To determine the multi-state conservation equivalency measures
for a current year, the prior year's recreational landings would be
pooled among the inclusive states and then compared to the current
year's region-specific recreational harvest limit to determine if any
reduction in landings would be required of that region. Each multi-
state region would then craft their regulations under the same
guidelines used to develop state-specific conservation equivalency
measures and under the same timeline identified in Framework 2.
There are two possible scenarios for how states could proceed based
on whether a region decides to maintain their voluntary regional
agreement or decides to dissolve the voluntary multi-state region and
resume state-specific conservation equivalency. First, in the event
that a multi-state region maintains its voluntary conservation
equivalency agreement, the region would again compare its regional
recreational landings for the prior year to the current year's region-
specific recreational harvest limit to determine if any necessary
reductions in landings would be required of that region. The region
would then adjust their regulations such that the region-specific
harvest limit would be achieved. Second, in the event the region
dissolves its agreement and opts for state-specific conservation
equivalency, state-specific harvest limits would apply and individual
states would compare their state-specific landings for the prior year
to the state-specific harvest limits in the current year. Each state
would then adjust their regulations such that the state-specific
harvest limits would be achieved. As established for individual states
in Framework 2, a multi-state region that does not exceed its regional
harvest limit in a given year may be allowed to set less restrictive
management measures for the following year, if the following year's
regional harvest limit is greater than the current year's regional
landings.
NMFS proposes to expand the scope of the regulations at Sec.
648.100(e) to allow states and/or multi-state regions to implement
conservation equivalent recreational fishing measures. The conservation
equivalency regulations at Sec. 648.107 would continue to apply, i.e.,
references to ``state'' would not be modified, since individual states
are ultimately responsible for implementation of the conservation
equivalent regulations (including those approved for a multi-state
region).
Need for Clarification/Correction
NMFS has identified the need to clarify and to correct the
regulations regarding summer flounder commercial gear restrictions.
This proposed rule would clarify (at Sec. 648.104(b)) that, although
the minimum mesh size requirements specified for otter trawls would not
apply for a vessel issued a summer flounder small-mesh exemption
letter, other restrictions in part 648 may limit the area in which the
exemption letter may be used. This proposed rule would correct the
reference to net stowage requirements at Sec. 648.104(b)(1) to be
Sec. 648.104(e) rather than Sec. 648.100(e) as it was inadvertently
published in a final rule that consolidated regulations governing
multiple marine fisheries of the Northeast region into one new CFR part
(61 FR 34966, July 3, 1996).
[[Page 27983]]
In addition, NMFS proposes a non-substantive modification to the
regulatory text at Sec. 648.107(b) for clarification purposes.
Classification
NMFS has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the
FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other
applicable laws.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description
of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this
action are contained at the beginning of this section of the preamble
and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis
follows. A copy of this analysis is available from the Council (see
ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
other Federal rules.
The proposed action could affect any recreational angler who fishes
for summer flounder in the EEZ or on a party/charter vessel issued a
Federal permit for summer flounder. However, the IRFA focuses upon the
impacts on party/charter vessels issued a Federal summer flounder
permit because these vessels are considered small business entities for
the purposes of the RFA, i.e., businesses with receipts (gross
revenues) of up to $6.5 million. These small entities can be
specifically identified in the Federal vessel permit database and would
be impacted by the recreational measures, regardless of whether they
fish in Federal or state waters.
Data from the Northeast permit application database indicates that
in 2004 there were 803 party/charter vessels permitted to take part in
the summer flounder, scup, and/or black sea bass recreational fisheries
in the EEZ. Of those 803 party/charter vessels, 56 held a summer
flounder permit alone, and 683 held a summer flounder permit in
combination with a scup permit, black sea bass permit, or both.
However, only 284 of these vessels reported active participation in the
recreational summer flounder fishery in 2004. Although individual
recreational anglers may be impacted, they are not considered small
entities under the RFA. Also, there is no permit requirement to
participate in these fisheries; thus, it would be difficult to quantify
any impacts on recreational anglers in general.
In the EA/RIR/IRFA, the no-action alternative (i.e., maintenance of
the regulations as codified) is defined as continuance of the state-
specific conservation equivalency procedures as established in
Framework 2. The implications of the no-action alternative are not
substantial. State-specific summer flounder conservation equivalency,
which was designed to constrain landings to the annual recreational
harvest limit while allowing states the flexibility of determining
their own recreational management measures, has been recommended by the
Council and approved by NMFS each year since 2002.
The proposed action is not expected to result in negative impacts
to a significant number of small entities participating in the
recreational summer flounder fishery, relative to the status quo. The
coastwide recreational harvest limit for summer flounder would not be
altered. Multi-state conservation equivalency regions will develop
fishing measures that maximize the harvest of the region-specific
limit, without resulting in overages. This is similar to what is
currently done on a state-specific basis when conservation equivalency
is implemented, but on a larger scale. It is expected that the
conservation equivalent recreational management measures would allow
each state or multi-state region to develop specific summer flounder
recreational measures that allow the fishery to operate during critical
fishing periods, while still achieving conservation goals and
mitigating potential adverse economic effects in specific states.
There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained
in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 09, 2006.
James W. Balsiger,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.100, paragraphs (e)(2) introductory text,
(e)(2)(i), and (e)(2)(ii) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.100 Catch quotas and other restrictions.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Conservation equivalent measures. Individual states or regions
formed voluntarily by adjacent states (i.e., multi-state conservation
equivalency regions) may implement different combinations of minimum
fish sizes, possession limits, and closed seasons that achieve
equivalent conservation as the coastwide measures established under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section. Each state or multi-state
conservation equivalency region may implement measures by mode or area
only if the proportional standard error of Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) landings estimates by mode or area
for that state are less than 30 percent.
(i) After review of the recommendations, the Regional Administrator
will publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register on or about March
1 to implement the overall percent adjustment in recreational landings
required for the fishing year, the Council and Commission's
recommendation concerning conservation equivalency, the precautionary
default measures, and coastwide measures.
(ii) During the public comment period on the proposed rule, the
Commission will review conservation equivalency proposals and determine
whether or not they achieve the necessary adjustment to recreational
landings. The Commission will provide the Regional Administrator with
the individual state and/or multi-state region conservation measures
for the approved state and/or multi-state region proposals, and in the
case of disapproved state and/or multi-state region proposals, the
precautionary default measures.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 648.104, paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(1)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.104 Gear restrictions.
* * * * *
(b) Exemptions. Unless otherwise restricted by this part, the
minimum mesh-size requirements specified in
[[Page 27984]]
paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not apply to:
(1) Vessels issued a summer flounder moratorium permit, a summer
flounder small-mesh exemption area letter of authorization (LOA),
required under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, and fishing from
November 1 through April 30 in the exemption area, which is east of the
line that follows 72[deg]30.0' W. long. until it intersects the outer
boundary of the EEZ (copies of a map depicting the area are available
upon request from the Regional Administrator). Vessels fishing under
the LOA shall not fish west of the line. Vessels issued a permit under
Sec. 648.4(a)(3)(iii) may transit the area west or south of the line,
if the vessel's fishing gear is stowed in a manner prescribed under
Sec. 648.104(e), so that it is not ``available for immediate use''
outside the exempted area. The Regional Administrator may terminate
this exemption if he/she determines, after a review of sea sampling
data, that vessels fishing under the exemption are discarding more than
10 percent, by weight, of their entire catch of summer flounder per
trip. If the Regional Administrator makes such a determination, he/she
shall publish notification in the Federal Register terminating the
exemption for the remainder of the exemption season.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 648.107, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.107 Conservation equivalent measures for the summer flounder
fishery.
* * * * *
(b) Federally permitted vessels subject to the recreational fishing
measures of this part, and other recreational fishing vessels subject
to the recreational fishing measures of this part and registered in
states whose fishery management measures are not determined by the
Regional Administrator to be the conservation equivalent of the season,
minimum size and possession limit prescribed in Sec. Sec. 648.102,
648.103(b) and 648.105(a), respectively, due to the lack of, or the
reversal of, a conservation equivalent recommendation from the Summer
Flounder Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
shall be subject to the following precautionary default measures:
Season - January 1 through December 31; minimum size - 18 inches (45.7
cm); and possession limit - one fish.
[FR Doc. E6-7357 Filed 5-12-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S