Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan; Amendment 14, 40077-40080 [E7-14164]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
I For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR Part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. Add temporary § 165.T11–213 to
read as follows:
I
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
§ 165.T11–213 Safety Zone; San Francisco
Giants Fireworks Display, San Francisco
Bay, CA.
(a) Location. This safety zone is
established for the waters of San
Francisco Bay surrounding a barge used
as the launch platform for a fireworks
display to be held at the conclusion of
a San Francisco Giants baseball game.
(1) During the loading of the fireworks
barge, during the transit of the fireworks
barge to the display location, and until
fifteen minutes prior to the start of the
fireworks display, the safety zone will
encompass the navigable waters around
and under the fireworks barge within a
radius of 100 feet. Loading of the
pyrotechnics onto the fireworks barge is
scheduled to commence at 11 a.m. on
July 27, 2007, and will take place at Pier
50 in San Francisco. Towing of the
barge from Pier 50 to the display
location is scheduled to take place on
July 27, 2007.
(2) Fifteen minutes preceding the
fireworks display and during the fifteen
minute fireworks display itself, the
safety zone increases in size to
encompass the navigable waters around
and under the fireworks launch barge
within a radius of 1,000 feet. During the
fireworks display, scheduled to start at
approximately 10 p.m. on July 27, 2007,
the barge will be located approximately
500–1,000 feet off of San Francisco Pier
48 in position 37° 46′35″ N, 122° 23′00″
W.
(b) Enforcement Period. This section
will be enforced from 11 a.m. to 10:20
p.m. on July 27, 2007. If the event
concludes prior to the scheduled
termination time, the Coast Guard will
cease enforcement of this safety zone
and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Jul 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
this part, entry into, transit through, or
anchoring within this safety zone by all
vessels and persons is prohibited,
unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, San Francisco, or
his designated representative.
(2) All persons and vessels shall
comply with the instructions of the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, San
Francisco, or the designated
representative.
(3) Designated representative means
any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officer of the Coast Guard onboard a
Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
local, state, or federal law enforcement
vessel who is authorized to act on behalf
of the Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast
Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio,
flashing light, or other means, the
operator of a vessel shall proceed as
directed. Person and vessels may
request permission to enter the safety
zone on VHF–16 or via telephone at
(415) 399–3547.
(5) The U.S. Coast Guard may be
assisted in the patrol and enforcement
of this safety zone by local law
enforcement as necessary.
Dated: June 29, 2007.
W.J. Uberti,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, San Francisco.
[FR Doc. E7–14123 Filed 7–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 0612243154–7212–02; I.D.
032907A]
RIN 0648–AS22
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan;
Amendment 14
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing
Amendment 14 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
developed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40077
Management Council (Council). The
measures of Amendment 14 include a
plan to rebuild the scup stock from an
overfished condition to the level
associated with maximum sustainable
yield, as required by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act). This action will also allow the
regulations concerning the Gear
Restricted Areas (GRAs) to be modified
through framework adjustments to the
FMP. The intended effect of this change
is to improve the timing of developing
and implementing modifications to the
GRAs.
DATES: Effective August 22, 2007. The
Amendment 14 scup rebuilding plan
will begin on January 1, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 14
and of the Environmental Assessment,
Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (EA/
RIR/IRFA) are available from Daniel T.
Furlong, Executive Director, MidAtlantic Fishery Management Council,
Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South
New Street, Dover, DE 19901–6790.
NMFS prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which is
contained in the Classification section
of this final rule. The EA/RIR/IRFA is
also accessible via the Internet at https://
www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael P. Ruccio, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281–9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Council developed Amendment
14 in response to being notified by
NMFS in 2005 that the scup
(Stenotomus chrysops) stock had been
designated as overfished. The Council
developed and submitted Amendment
14 for review by the Secretary of
Commerce (Secretary) on February 26,
2007. The amendment contains two
actions: (1) A 7-year plan to rebuild the
scup stock from an overfished condition
to a biomass level associated with
maximum sustained yield (BMSY), as
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act;
and (2) an administrative change to the
regulations on framework adjustments.
A notice of availability was published
in the Federal Register on April 11,
2007 (72 FR 18193), announcing that the
Council had submitted Amendment 14
for Secretarial review, and that the
document was available for public
comment. The closing date for
comments on the amendment was June
11, 2007. A proposed rule to implement
Amendment 14 was published on April
24, 2007 (72 FR 20314). The public
comment period for the proposed rule
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
40078
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ended on May 24, 2007. NMFS solicited
input from the public regarding the
approval, partial approval, or
disapproval of the amendment through
the notice of availability and requested
comments on all the Amendment 14
proposed measures in the proposed
rule. Additional detail on the
background and development of the
Amendment 14 measures are contained
in the preamble of the proposed rule
and are not repeated here.
This final rule implements the
measures of the Council’s preferred
alternative scup rebuilding plan and the
administrative change to the framework
adjustment provision of the FMP, as
presented in the proposed rule and
outlined as follows.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Scup Rebuilding Plan
Amendment 14 implements a
constant fishing mortality rate (F) of
0.10, to be applied each year during a
7-year rebuilding time period beginning
January 1, 2008. Under this approach,
the Northeast Fisheries Science Center
(NEFSC) 3-year Spawning Stock
Biomass (SSB) index value for the
rebuilding period ending December 31,
2014, is projected to be 5.96 kg/tow,
which is approximately 8 percent above
the BMSY proxy rebuilding target (5.54
kg/tow).
Applying a constant F=0.10 for 7
years is projected to achieve the
required stock rebuilding to comply
with the Magunuson-Stevens Act;
however, because scup is a relatively
data poor stock, and uncertainty exists
around estimates of fishing mortality,
stock size, and discards, Amendment 14
contains additional criteria to be
applied to the rebuilding program, as
follows:
1. As improvements to the available
data occur over the 7-year rebuilding
period, the rebuilding trajectory may
change. Therefore, to ensure stock
rebuilding, a periodic review will be
conducted by the Council’s scientific
advisors to re-evaluate the F necessary
to rebuild the stock. If the Council’s
scientific advisors determine the stock
cannot be rebuilt within the time
remaining in the initial 7-year time
frame under an F=0.10, then the Council
will recommend measures to rebuild the
stock as soon as possible after the 7
years, but not to exceed the 10-year time
frame specified in the MagnusonStevens Act for rebuilding periods.
2. The scup biological reference
points (stock status determination
criteria) will be reviewed after the
Fishery Survey Vessel (FSV) Henry B.
Bigelow has completed 2 full years of
service.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Jul 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
3. If a scup stock assessment that
results in a change to the biological
reference points is completed before the
end of the 7-year rebuilding time period,
the Council may reconsider the
rebuilding targets.
GRA Modification Process
Amendment 14 implements an
administrative change to add the GRAs
to the list of management measures that
can be changed through a framework
adjustment to the FMP. As such, the
Council will develop and analyze
changes to the GRAs over the span of at
least two Council meetings before
making a recommendation to NMFS.
This change is intended to allow for
improved timing of developing and
implementing proposed modifications
to the GRAs. Amendment 14 proposes
no specific changes to the existing
GRAs.
Comment and Response
NMFS received one comment in
response to the notice of availability on
Amendment 14; no comments were
received on the proposed rule.
Comment: The commenter stated that
quotas should be cut by 50 percent this
year and by 10 percent in each year
thereafter. The commenter had no
specific comments regarding whether
Amendment 14 should be approved,
partially approved, or disapproved by
NMFS; in addition, the commenter did
not speak to the specific measures
contained in the proposed rule.
Response: Fixed percentage
reductions in quota applied on an
annual basis were not considered by the
Council, nor were they analyzed in the
Amendment 14 range of alternatives for
rebuilding the scup stock. The Council
made no recommendation to NMFS to
apply such a strategy in rebuilding the
scup stock. The constant fishing
mortality rate to be applied for the 7year rebuilding period is projected to
rebuild the scup stock to the BMSY
level required by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act.
NMFS acknowledges that quota
reductions may be a necessary
component of rebuilding the scup stock
as part of the constant fishing mortality
strategy. However, reductions in quota
will only result when the stock status is
at such a level that applying the F=0.10
rate, as outlined in the rebuilding plan,
results in a lower quota than the
previous year.
Classification
The Administrator, Northeast Region,
NMFS has determined that Amendment
14 to the FMP is necessary for the
conservation and management of the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
scup fishery and is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other
applicable laws.
NMFS approved Amendment 14 to
the FMP on July 03, 2007. A copy of the
final Amendment 14 document is
available from both the Council and
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined
not to be significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
Included in this final rule is the FRFA
prepared pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
The FRFA incorporates the economic
impacts described in the IRFA, a
summary of the significant issues raised
by the public comments in response to
the IRFA, NMFS’s responses to those
comments, and a summary of the
analyses completed to support the
action. A copy of the complete IRFA is
available from the Council (see
ADDRESSES).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Statement of Objective and Need
A description of the reasons why this
action is being taken, and the objectives
of and legal basis for this final rule are
explained in the preambles to the
proposed rule and this final rule and are
not repeated here.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised in
Public Comments
The one comment received on the
notice of availability did not specifically
address the potential economic impact
of the rule. No changes to the proposed
rule were required to be made as a result
of the public comment. For a summary
of the comment received, and the
response thereto, refer to the ‘‘Comment
and Response’’ section of this preamble.
Description and Estimate of Number of
Small Entities to Which This Rule Will
Apply
The proposed action regarding scup
rebuilding alternatives could affect any
vessel issued a Federal permit for scup,
as well as vessels that fish for scup in
state waters. Incorporating changes to
the GRAs as part of the framework
adjustment process is purely
administrative in nature and, therefore,
is not expected to impact scup fishery
participants in state or Federal waters.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) defines a small business in the
commercial fishing and recreational
fishing activity as a firm with receipts
(gross revenues) of up to $4.0 and $6.5
million, respectively. The measures
regarding scup rebuilding could affect
any vessel holding an active Federal
permit for scup, as well as vessels that
fish for this species in state waters. Data
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
from the Northeast permit application
database show that, in 2005, the most
recent year for which there are complete
data, 1,511 vessels were permitted to
take part in the scup fisheries (both
commercial and charter/party sectors).
All vessels that would be impacted by
this final rulemaking are considered to
be small entities; therefore, there would
be no disproportionate impacts between
large and small entities. Since all permit
holders do not actually land scup, the
more immediate impact of the rule may
be felt by the 428 vessels that are
actively participating in this fishery
(i.e., that landed 1 lb (0.45 kg) or more
of scup in 2005).
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
No additional reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements are included in this final
rule.
Description of the Steps Taken to
Minimize Economic Impact on Small
Entities
As previously mentioned, the
modification to the framework
adjustment language to include the
GRAs is administrative in nature and is
not expected to have any impact on
small entities.
The ability of NMFS to minimize
economic impacts in rebuilding the
scup stock to the BMSY level, as required
by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is
constrained by the requirement that
rebuilding (i.e., meeting or exceeding
the BMSY target) must occur as soon as
possible, but no longer than a 10-year
period. Among the alternatives
proposed to achieve scup rebuilding,
two methodologies were considered
wherein quotas could be set at a
constant level for the specified
rebuilding period duration (i.e.,
constant harvest strategy) or a target F
rate could be applied to derive quotas
for the duration of the rebuilding period
(i.e., constant fishing mortality or F
strategy). In addition, the time frame for
rebuilding may be set equal to or less
than the required 10-year period. Each
methodology and time frame for
rebuilding carries with it different
potential economic impacts to small
entities.
The economic analysis for the scup
rebuilding plans assessed the impacts of
six of the eight proposed rebuilding
plans. Two alternatives, 1E and 1F, were
not analyzed for detailed economic
impacts because the first (Alternative
1E) required a complete prohibition on
the take of scup in all fisheries for a 4year period and was deemed an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Jul 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
unreasonable solution to the issue of
rebuilding the stock, and the second
(Alternative 1F) was not projected to
rebuild the scup fishery within the
required maximum 10-year period.
Similarly, the no action alternative
(status quo), Alternative 1A was not
projected to ever achieve stock
rebuilding and was removed from
consideration, despite having the lowest
economic impact of the constant F
strategies proposed.
Alternatives 1D and 1H were the most
restrictive constant F and constant
harvest strategies, respectively, applying
measures designed to achieve stock
rebuilding within 5-year periods. These
two alternatives were associated with
the highest economic impacts to small
entities. Given that the MagnusonStevens Act allows for rebuilding
periods to occur over a 10-year period,
these alternatives were considered
unduly restrictive when compared to
other alternatives that are also projected
to achieve the required rebuilding
within 10 or fewer years.
Alternative 1B, which proposed a
constant F strategy for a 10-year period,
was associated with the lowest
economic impacts for the proposed
constant F strategies that achieved the
required rebuilding with a 10-year time
frame. However, because scup is a
relatively data poor stock, and
uncertainty exists around estimates of
fishing mortality, stock size, and
discards, the Council expressed
concerns about recommending a
rebuilding strategy that utilized the full
10-year period for rebuilding with no
formal evaluation of rebuilding progress
planned during the period. As a result,
if a formal assessment occurred during
the rebuilding period that adjusted the
biomass target or stock status
determination criteria, more restrictive
measures in the form of reduced F rates
might need to be applied in the later
years of the rebuilding period to ensure
rebuilding occurs. This could result in
severe economic impacts to small
entities and, therefore, was not viewed
as the ideal approach to stock
rebuilding.
The remaining two strategies,
Alternatives 1C and 1G, proposed
rebuilding the stock within a 7-year
period through a constant F and
constant harvest strategy, respectively.
Setting the rebuilding period at less
than 10 years is recommended, given
the uncertainties previously mentioned
for the scup stock. Under a 7-year
rebuilding period, the Council may
assess the rebuilding progress and
recommend changes to the rebuilding
strategy to ensure that the stock is
rebuilt within the mandated 10-year
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40079
period. Applying this approach is
expected to mitigate the need for more
restrictive measures in the rebuilding
period’s final years which would be
associated with greater economic
impacts to small entities (e.g.,
significant reduction to the F rate in one
year, such as year 9, as opposed to a
lower F rate reduction over 3 years to
ensure rebuilding occurs within 10
years). Between the two alternatives, the
constant F strategy Alternative 1C is
associated with slightly higher
economic impacts in the initial years of
the rebuilding strategy than Alternative
1G. However, as stock size increases
through rebuilding and the constant F
rate is applied, economic impacts
associated with Alternative 1C are less
than those associated with Alternative
1G, wherein the amount of harvest
permitted remains fixed even as stock
size increases.
This final rule implements
Alternative 1C for a constant F=0.10 for
a 7-year rebuilding period, with the
additional conditions previously
outlined in the preamble to this rule.
This alternative is the midpoint for
economic impacts for constant F
strategies. While other alternatives also
meet the rebuilding objective,
Alternative 1C follows the
recommendation of the Council. This
alternative was selected because it is
projected to achieve the required stock
rebuilding within the mandated 10-year
rebuilding period and also allows for
some degree of flexibility within the
specified rebuilding period, while still
satisfying the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The intent of
the additional conditions contained in
the rebuilding strategy are to ensure that
certain parameters of the rebuilding
program can be revisited in advance of
the end of the rebuilding time frame.
This may help mitigate the need of
severely restrictive measures and
associated economic impacts in the
plan’s final years, should scientific
advice or stock status information
change during the course of the 7-year
rebuilding plan and/or the scup stock
fail to respond to the rebuilding efforts
as anticipated and fall behind the
rebuilding schedule.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 states that, for each rule or group
of related rules for which an agency is
required to prepare a FRFA, the agency
shall publish one or more guides to
assist small entities in complying with
the rule, and shall designate such
publications as ‘‘small entity
compliance guides.’’ The agency shall
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
40080
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
explain the actions a small entity is
required to take to comply with a rule
or group of rules. As part of this
rulemaking process, a letter to permit
holders that also serves as the small
entity compliance guide was prepared
and will be sent to all holders of Federal
party/charter permits issued for the
scup fisheries. In addition, copies of this
final rule and the small entity
compliance guide are available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and at the
following website: https://
www.nero.noaa.gov.
This final rule does not duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with any relevant
Federal rules.
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.
limits, commercial quota system
including commercial quota allocation
procedure and possible quota set asides
to mitigate bycatch, recreational harvest
limit, annual specification quota setting
process, FMP Monitoring Committee
composition and process, description
and identification of essential fish
habitat (and fishing gear management
measures that impact EFH), description
and identification of habitat areas of
particular concern, overfishing
definition and related thresholds and
targets, regional gear restrictions,
regional season restrictions (including
option to split seasons), restrictions on
vessel size (LOA and GRT) or shaft
horsepower, operator permits, any other
commercial or recreational management
measures, any other management
measures currently included in the
FMP, and set aside quota for scientific
research.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E7–14164 Filed 7–20–07; 8:45 am]
Dated: July 17, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended
as follows:
I
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
[Docket No. 070213033–7033–01]
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
RIN 0648–XB58
I
§ 648.127 Framework adjustment to
management measures.
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch
in the Western Aleutian District of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area
AGENCY:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
2. In § 648.127, paragraph (a)(1) is
revised to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(1) Adjustment process. The Council
shall develop and analyze appropriate
management actions over the span of at
least two Council meetings. The Council
must provide the public with advance
notice of the availability of the
recommendation(s), appropriate
justification(s) and economic and
biological analyses, and the opportunity
to comment on the proposed
adjustment(s) at the first meeting and
prior to and at the second Council
meeting. The Council’s
recommendations on adjustments or
additions to management measures
must come from one or more of the
following categories: Minimum fish
size, maximum fish size, gear
restrictions, gear restricted areas, gear
requirements or prohibitions, permitting
restrictions, recreational possession
limit, recreational seasons, closed areas,
commercial seasons, commercial trip
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Jul 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the
Western Aleutian District of the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands management
area (BSAI). This action is necessary to
prevent exceeding the 2007 Pacific
ocean perch total allowable catch (TAC)
in the Western Aleutian District of the
BSAI.
DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local
time (A.l.t.), July 18, 2007, through 2400
hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Hogan, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
BSAI according to the Fishery
Management Plan for Groundfish of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Management Area (FMP) prepared by
the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council under authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
Regulations governing fishing by U.S.
vessels in accordance with the FMP
appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600
and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2007 Pacific ocean perch TAC in
the Western Aleutian District of the
BSAI is 7,141 metric tons (mt) as
established by the 2007 and 2008 final
harvest specifications for groundfish in
the BSAI (72 FR 9451, March 2, 2007).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i),
the Administrator, Alaska Region,
NMFS, has determined that the 2007
Pacific ocean perch TAC in the Western
Aleutian District of the BSAI will soon
be reached. Therefore, the Regional
Administrator is establishing a directed
fishing allowance of 5,541 mt, and is
setting aside the remaining 1,600 mt as
bycatch to support other anticipated
groundfish fisheries. In accordance with
§ 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional
Administrator finds that this directed
fishing allowance has been reached.
Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting
directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch
in the Western Aleutian District of the
BSAI.
After the effective date of this closure
the maximum retainable amounts at
§ 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time
during a trip.
Classification
This action responds to the best
available information recently obtained
from the fishery. The Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA
(AA), finds good cause to waive the
requirement to provide prior notice and
opportunity for public comment
pursuant to the authority set forth at 5
U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. This requirement is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest as it would prevent NMFS from
responding to the most recent fisheries
data in a timely fashion and would
delay the closure of Pacific ocean perch
in the Western Aleutian District of the
BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a
notice providing time for public
comment because the most recent,
relevant data only became available as
of July 17, 2007.
The AA also finds good cause to
waive the 30-day delay in the effective
date of this action under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3). This finding is based upon
the reasons provided above for waiver of
prior notice and opportunity for public
comment.
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 140 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40077-40080]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14164]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 0612243154-7212-02; I.D. 032907A]
RIN 0648-AS22
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan; Amendment
14
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing Amendment 14 to the Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) developed by the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). The measures of
Amendment 14 include a plan to rebuild the scup stock from an
overfished condition to the level associated with maximum sustainable
yield, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action will also allow the
regulations concerning the Gear Restricted Areas (GRAs) to be modified
through framework adjustments to the FMP. The intended effect of this
change is to improve the timing of developing and implementing
modifications to the GRAs.
DATES: Effective August 22, 2007. The Amendment 14 scup rebuilding plan
will begin on January 1, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 14 and of the Environmental Assessment,
Regulatory Impact Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(EA/RIR/IRFA) are available from Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director,
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building,
300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. NMFS prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which is contained in the
Classification section of this final rule. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also
accessible via the Internet at https://www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael P. Ruccio, Fishery Policy
Analyst, (978) 281-9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Council developed Amendment 14 in response to being notified by
NMFS in 2005 that the scup (Stenotomus chrysops) stock had been
designated as overfished. The Council developed and submitted Amendment
14 for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on February 26,
2007. The amendment contains two actions: (1) A 7-year plan to rebuild
the scup stock from an overfished condition to a biomass level
associated with maximum sustained yield (BMSY), as required
by the Magnuson-Stevens Act; and (2) an administrative change to the
regulations on framework adjustments.
A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on
April 11, 2007 (72 FR 18193), announcing that the Council had submitted
Amendment 14 for Secretarial review, and that the document was
available for public comment. The closing date for comments on the
amendment was June 11, 2007. A proposed rule to implement Amendment 14
was published on April 24, 2007 (72 FR 20314). The public comment
period for the proposed rule
[[Page 40078]]
ended on May 24, 2007. NMFS solicited input from the public regarding
the approval, partial approval, or disapproval of the amendment through
the notice of availability and requested comments on all the Amendment
14 proposed measures in the proposed rule. Additional detail on the
background and development of the Amendment 14 measures are contained
in the preamble of the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
This final rule implements the measures of the Council's preferred
alternative scup rebuilding plan and the administrative change to the
framework adjustment provision of the FMP, as presented in the proposed
rule and outlined as follows.
Scup Rebuilding Plan
Amendment 14 implements a constant fishing mortality rate (F) of
0.10, to be applied each year during a 7-year rebuilding time period
beginning January 1, 2008. Under this approach, the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (NEFSC) 3-year Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) index value
for the rebuilding period ending December 31, 2014, is projected to be
5.96 kg/tow, which is approximately 8 percent above the BMSY proxy
rebuilding target (5.54 kg/tow).
Applying a constant F=0.10 for 7 years is projected to achieve the
required stock rebuilding to comply with the Magunuson-Stevens Act;
however, because scup is a relatively data poor stock, and uncertainty
exists around estimates of fishing mortality, stock size, and discards,
Amendment 14 contains additional criteria to be applied to the
rebuilding program, as follows:
1. As improvements to the available data occur over the 7-year
rebuilding period, the rebuilding trajectory may change. Therefore, to
ensure stock rebuilding, a periodic review will be conducted by the
Council's scientific advisors to re-evaluate the F necessary to rebuild
the stock. If the Council's scientific advisors determine the stock
cannot be rebuilt within the time remaining in the initial 7-year time
frame under an F=0.10, then the Council will recommend measures to
rebuild the stock as soon as possible after the 7 years, but not to
exceed the 10-year time frame specified in the Magnuson-Stevens Act for
rebuilding periods.
2. The scup biological reference points (stock status determination
criteria) will be reviewed after the Fishery Survey Vessel (FSV) Henry
B. Bigelow has completed 2 full years of service.
3. If a scup stock assessment that results in a change to the
biological reference points is completed before the end of the 7-year
rebuilding time period, the Council may reconsider the rebuilding
targets.
GRA Modification Process
Amendment 14 implements an administrative change to add the GRAs to
the list of management measures that can be changed through a framework
adjustment to the FMP. As such, the Council will develop and analyze
changes to the GRAs over the span of at least two Council meetings
before making a recommendation to NMFS. This change is intended to
allow for improved timing of developing and implementing proposed
modifications to the GRAs. Amendment 14 proposes no specific changes to
the existing GRAs.
Comment and Response
NMFS received one comment in response to the notice of availability
on Amendment 14; no comments were received on the proposed rule.
Comment: The commenter stated that quotas should be cut by 50
percent this year and by 10 percent in each year thereafter. The
commenter had no specific comments regarding whether Amendment 14
should be approved, partially approved, or disapproved by NMFS; in
addition, the commenter did not speak to the specific measures
contained in the proposed rule.
Response: Fixed percentage reductions in quota applied on an annual
basis were not considered by the Council, nor were they analyzed in the
Amendment 14 range of alternatives for rebuilding the scup stock. The
Council made no recommendation to NMFS to apply such a strategy in
rebuilding the scup stock. The constant fishing mortality rate to be
applied for the 7-year rebuilding period is projected to rebuild the
scup stock to the BMSY level required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
NMFS acknowledges that quota reductions may be a necessary
component of rebuilding the scup stock as part of the constant fishing
mortality strategy. However, reductions in quota will only result when
the stock status is at such a level that applying the F=0.10 rate, as
outlined in the rebuilding plan, results in a lower quota than the
previous year.
Classification
The Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS has determined that
Amendment 14 to the FMP is necessary for the conservation and
management of the scup fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
NMFS approved Amendment 14 to the FMP on July 03, 2007. A copy of
the final Amendment 14 document is available from both the Council and
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined not to be significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Included in this final rule is the FRFA prepared pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 604(a). The FRFA incorporates the economic impacts described in
the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS's responses to those comments,
and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A copy
of the complete IRFA is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Statement of Objective and Need
A description of the reasons why this action is being taken, and
the objectives of and legal basis for this final rule are explained in
the preambles to the proposed rule and this final rule and are not
repeated here.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments
The one comment received on the notice of availability did not
specifically address the potential economic impact of the rule. No
changes to the proposed rule were required to be made as a result of
the public comment. For a summary of the comment received, and the
response thereto, refer to the ``Comment and Response'' section of this
preamble.
Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Rule
Will Apply
The proposed action regarding scup rebuilding alternatives could
affect any vessel issued a Federal permit for scup, as well as vessels
that fish for scup in state waters. Incorporating changes to the GRAs
as part of the framework adjustment process is purely administrative in
nature and, therefore, is not expected to impact scup fishery
participants in state or Federal waters.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in
the commercial fishing and recreational fishing activity as a firm with
receipts (gross revenues) of up to $4.0 and $6.5 million, respectively.
The measures regarding scup rebuilding could affect any vessel holding
an active Federal permit for scup, as well as vessels that fish for
this species in state waters. Data
[[Page 40079]]
from the Northeast permit application database show that, in 2005, the
most recent year for which there are complete data, 1,511 vessels were
permitted to take part in the scup fisheries (both commercial and
charter/party sectors). All vessels that would be impacted by this
final rulemaking are considered to be small entities; therefore, there
would be no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities.
Since all permit holders do not actually land scup, the more immediate
impact of the rule may be felt by the 428 vessels that are actively
participating in this fishery (i.e., that landed 1 lb (0.45 kg) or more
of scup in 2005).
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements are included in this final rule.
Description of the Steps Taken to Minimize Economic Impact on Small
Entities
As previously mentioned, the modification to the framework
adjustment language to include the GRAs is administrative in nature and
is not expected to have any impact on small entities.
The ability of NMFS to minimize economic impacts in rebuilding the
scup stock to the BMSY level, as required by the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, is constrained by the requirement that rebuilding (i.e.,
meeting or exceeding the BMSY target) must occur as soon as
possible, but no longer than a 10-year period. Among the alternatives
proposed to achieve scup rebuilding, two methodologies were considered
wherein quotas could be set at a constant level for the specified
rebuilding period duration (i.e., constant harvest strategy) or a
target F rate could be applied to derive quotas for the duration of the
rebuilding period (i.e., constant fishing mortality or F strategy). In
addition, the time frame for rebuilding may be set equal to or less
than the required 10-year period. Each methodology and time frame for
rebuilding carries with it different potential economic impacts to
small entities.
The economic analysis for the scup rebuilding plans assessed the
impacts of six of the eight proposed rebuilding plans. Two
alternatives, 1E and 1F, were not analyzed for detailed economic
impacts because the first (Alternative 1E) required a complete
prohibition on the take of scup in all fisheries for a 4-year period
and was deemed an unreasonable solution to the issue of rebuilding the
stock, and the second (Alternative 1F) was not projected to rebuild the
scup fishery within the required maximum 10-year period. Similarly, the
no action alternative (status quo), Alternative 1A was not projected to
ever achieve stock rebuilding and was removed from consideration,
despite having the lowest economic impact of the constant F strategies
proposed.
Alternatives 1D and 1H were the most restrictive constant F and
constant harvest strategies, respectively, applying measures designed
to achieve stock rebuilding within 5-year periods. These two
alternatives were associated with the highest economic impacts to small
entities. Given that the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for rebuilding
periods to occur over a 10-year period, these alternatives were
considered unduly restrictive when compared to other alternatives that
are also projected to achieve the required rebuilding within 10 or
fewer years.
Alternative 1B, which proposed a constant F strategy for a 10-year
period, was associated with the lowest economic impacts for the
proposed constant F strategies that achieved the required rebuilding
with a 10-year time frame. However, because scup is a relatively data
poor stock, and uncertainty exists around estimates of fishing
mortality, stock size, and discards, the Council expressed concerns
about recommending a rebuilding strategy that utilized the full 10-year
period for rebuilding with no formal evaluation of rebuilding progress
planned during the period. As a result, if a formal assessment occurred
during the rebuilding period that adjusted the biomass target or stock
status determination criteria, more restrictive measures in the form of
reduced F rates might need to be applied in the later years of the
rebuilding period to ensure rebuilding occurs. This could result in
severe economic impacts to small entities and, therefore, was not
viewed as the ideal approach to stock rebuilding.
The remaining two strategies, Alternatives 1C and 1G, proposed
rebuilding the stock within a 7-year period through a constant F and
constant harvest strategy, respectively. Setting the rebuilding period
at less than 10 years is recommended, given the uncertainties
previously mentioned for the scup stock. Under a 7-year rebuilding
period, the Council may assess the rebuilding progress and recommend
changes to the rebuilding strategy to ensure that the stock is rebuilt
within the mandated 10-year period. Applying this approach is expected
to mitigate the need for more restrictive measures in the rebuilding
period's final years which would be associated with greater economic
impacts to small entities (e.g., significant reduction to the F rate in
one year, such as year 9, as opposed to a lower F rate reduction over 3
years to ensure rebuilding occurs within 10 years). Between the two
alternatives, the constant F strategy Alternative 1C is associated with
slightly higher economic impacts in the initial years of the rebuilding
strategy than Alternative 1G. However, as stock size increases through
rebuilding and the constant F rate is applied, economic impacts
associated with Alternative 1C are less than those associated with
Alternative 1G, wherein the amount of harvest permitted remains fixed
even as stock size increases.
This final rule implements Alternative 1C for a constant F=0.10 for
a 7-year rebuilding period, with the additional conditions previously
outlined in the preamble to this rule. This alternative is the midpoint
for economic impacts for constant F strategies. While other
alternatives also meet the rebuilding objective, Alternative 1C follows
the recommendation of the Council. This alternative was selected
because it is projected to achieve the required stock rebuilding within
the mandated 10-year rebuilding period and also allows for some degree
of flexibility within the specified rebuilding period, while still
satisfying the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The intent of
the additional conditions contained in the rebuilding strategy are to
ensure that certain parameters of the rebuilding program can be
revisited in advance of the end of the rebuilding time frame. This may
help mitigate the need of severely restrictive measures and associated
economic impacts in the plan's final years, should scientific advice or
stock status information change during the course of the 7-year
rebuilding plan and/or the scup stock fail to respond to the rebuilding
efforts as anticipated and fall behind the rebuilding schedule.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and shall designate such publications as ``small entity compliance
guides.'' The agency shall
[[Page 40080]]
explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a
rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a letter to
permit holders that also serves as the small entity compliance guide
was prepared and will be sent to all holders of Federal party/charter
permits issued for the scup fisheries. In addition, copies of this
final rule and the small entity compliance guide are available from
NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and at the following website: https://
www.nero.noaa.gov.
This final rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
relevant Federal rules.
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: July 17, 2007.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is 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.
0
2. In Sec. 648.127, paragraph (a)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.127 Framework adjustment to management measures.
(a) * * *
(1) Adjustment process. The Council shall develop and analyze
appropriate management actions over the span of at least two Council
meetings. The Council must provide the public with advance notice of
the availability of the recommendation(s), appropriate justification(s)
and economic and biological analyses, and the opportunity to comment on
the proposed adjustment(s) at the first meeting and prior to and at the
second Council meeting. The Council's recommendations on adjustments or
additions to management measures must come from one or more of the
following categories: Minimum fish size, maximum fish size, gear
restrictions, gear restricted areas, gear requirements or prohibitions,
permitting restrictions, recreational possession limit, recreational
seasons, closed areas, commercial seasons, commercial trip limits,
commercial quota system including commercial quota allocation procedure
and possible quota set asides to mitigate bycatch, recreational harvest
limit, annual specification quota setting process, FMP Monitoring
Committee composition and process, description and identification of
essential fish habitat (and fishing gear management measures that
impact EFH), description and identification of habitat areas of
particular concern, overfishing definition and related thresholds and
targets, regional gear restrictions, regional season restrictions
(including option to split seasons), restrictions on vessel size (LOA
and GRT) or shaft horsepower, operator permits, any other commercial or
recreational management measures, any other management measures
currently included in the FMP, and set aside quota for scientific
research.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-14164 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
