Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 14, 40824-40829 [E8-16252]

Download as PDF 40824 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under the executive order. This rule proposing to approve the redesignation of the Tioga Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule, proposing to approve the redesignation of the Greene County Area to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the associated maintenance plan, the 2002 base-year inventory, and the MVEBs identified in the maintenance plan, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). List of Subjects jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:14 Jul 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 40 CFR Part 81 Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 3, 2008. Donald S. Welsh, Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. E8–16278 Filed 7–15–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 0612242911–7380–01] RIN 0648–AU28 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 14 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments. AGENCY: SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement the applicable provisions of Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). Amendment 14 proposes, and this rule would implement, establishment of eight marine protected areas (MPAs) in which fishing for or possession of South Atlantic snapper-grouper would be prohibited. The prohibition on possession would not apply to a person aboard a vessel that was in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed. Amendment 14 also proposes to prohibit the use of shark bottom longlines within the MPAs, however, NMFS is proposing to implement the prohibition of shark bottom longlines through separate rulemaking. The intended effects of this proposed rule are to protect a portion of the population and habitat of long-lived, slow growing, deepwater snappergrouper from fishing pressure to achieve a more natural sex ratio, age, and size structure within the proposed MPAs, while minimizing adverse social and economic effects. DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 than 5 p.m., eastern time, on August 15, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ‘‘0648–AU28’’, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https:// www.regulations.gov. • Fax: 727–824–5308; Attention: Kate Michie. • Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to https:// www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Copies of Amendment 14 may be obtained from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: 843–571– 4366 or 866–SAFMC–10 (toll free); fax: 843–769–4520; e-mail: safmc@safmc.net. Amendment 14 includes a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), a Biological Assessment, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Michie, telephone: 727–824–5305, fax: 727–824–5308, e-mail: Kate.Michie@noaa.gov. The snapper-grouper fishery off the southern Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement the applicable provisions of Amendment 14 to the FMP. The Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP). The HMS FMP is implemented under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Act by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules Background Many snapper-grouper species are vulnerable to overfishing because they are long-lived (e.g., snowy grouper, golden tilefish, red snapper, gag, scamp, red grouper, and red porgy); they are protogynous, i.e., they may change sex from females to males as they grow older/larger (e.g., snowy grouper, speckled hind, Warsaw grouper, yellowedge grouper, gag, scamp, red porgy, and black sea bass); they form spawning aggregations (e.g., snowy grouper, gag, scamp, and red snapper); and they suffer high release mortality when taken from deep water. Deepwater snapper-grouper species (speckled hind, snowy grouper, Warsaw grouper, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, golden tilefish, and blueline tilefish) are most vulnerable to overfishing because they live longer than 50 years, do not survive the trauma of capture, and are protogynous (groupers) or exhibit sexual dimorphism, i.e., males and females grow at different rates (tilefishes). Stock assessments indicate that black sea bass, red porgy, and snowy grouper are overfished, i.e., spawning stock biomass is not sufficient to reproduce and support continued productivity. In addition, black sea bass, golden tilefish, snowy grouper, and vermilion snapper are experiencing overfishing, i.e., the current rate of fishing mortality jeopardizes the capacity of the fishery to produce its maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Reductions in catch and protection of habitat are needed. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Proposed Measures This rule would establish eight MPAs in which a portion of the population and habitat of long-lived, slow growing, deepwater snapper-grouper species would be protected from directed fishing pressure. Fishing for or possession of South Atlantic snappergrouper would be prohibited in the MPAs. However, the prohibition on possession would not apply to a person aboard a vessel that was in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed, as specified in § 622.35(i)(2) of this proposed rule. MPAs are considered to be the most effective fishery management tool that would allow deepwater snapper-grouper to reach a more natural sex ratio, age, and size structure, protect spawning locations, and provide a refuge for early developmental stages of fish species. Using a collaborative process, the Council selected specific sites for MPAs on the basis of maximizing the biological benefits and enhancing enforceability and monitoring while VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:14 Jul 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 minimizing the adverse social and economic effects. Sizes of the MPAs would range from approximately 5 by 10 nautical miles (nm) to approximately 22 by 23 nm. One would be off North Carolina, three off South Carolina, one off Georgia, and three off the east coast of Florida. An artificial reef may be established at one of the South Carolina sites. The two most southern MPAs would be approximately 9 and 13 nm offshore, respectively, and the others at least 38 nm offshore. The eight proposed MPAs and their relative locations are shown in Figure 1. The prohibition of use of shark bottom longlines in the MPAs is considered necessary for habitat protection and to prevent the mortality of incidentally caught snapper-grouper. The Council voted to include this prohibition in Amendment 14 because of concerns regarding the enforcement of fishing activities by vessels that hold permits in both the snapper-grouper and shark bottom longline fisheries, both of which deploy similar gear. However, because the Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the HMS FMP, NMFS requested the HMS Division promulgate the prohibition of use of shark bottom longlines within the proposed MPAs. The HMS Division published a final rule on June 24, 2008 (72 FR 35778), prohibiting shark bottom longlining in the proposed MPAs through Amendment 2 to the consolidated HMS FMP. Availability of Amendment 14 Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed above are contained in Amendment 14. The availability of Amendment 14 was announced in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008, (73 FR 32281). Written comments on Amendment 14 will be accepted through August 5, 2008. All comments received on Amendment 14 or on this proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the preamble to the final rule. Classification Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 14, the MagnusonStevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Council prepared an FEIS for Amendment 14; a notice of availability PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 40825 was published on June 13, 2008 (73 FR 33813). NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. 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 objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows. This proposed rule would establish eight MPAs in the Federal waters of the South Atlantic and prohibit fishing for or possession of South Atlantic snappergrouper within any of the MPAs. The purpose of this proposed rule is to assist in the recovery of overfished stocks and persistence of healthy fish stocks, fisheries, and habitats. The MagnusonStevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. Two general classes of small business entities would be directly affected by the proposed rule, commercial fishing vessels and for-hire fishing vessels. The Small Business Administration defines a small entity in the commercial fishing sector as a firm that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has average annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million (2002 NAICS 11411). For a forhire business, the appropriate revenue benchmark is $6.5 million (2002 NAICS 487210). Average net incomes estimated from boats operating in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery were sampled in a 1994 study that separated the fishery into northern and southern zones. The northern zone includes the area north of 28° N. latitude to the North Carolina/Virginia border. The southern zone includes the area south of 25° N. latitude to the border between the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. The estimated average net incomes, in 1994 (and 2006) dollars, were $83,224 ($113,212) for boats that primarily used bottom longlines in the northern zone, $23,075 ($31,389) for boats that primarily used black sea bass pots in the northern zone, $15,563 ($21,171) for boats that primarily used bottom longlines in the southern zone, $11,649 ($15,842) for boats that primarily used vertical lines in the southern zone, and $8,307 ($11,300) for boats that primarily used E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS 40826 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules vertical lines in the northern zone. Overall, boats in the northern zone averaged $14,143 ($19,239) in net income based on average revenues of $48,702 ($66,250), while boats in the southern zone averaged $12,388 ($16,852) net income based on average revenues of $39,745 ($54,066). More recent data from the Southeast logbook program show the average annual exvessel revenue from landings of snapper-grouper species per vessel from 1999 to 2003 to range from $14,408 to $16,376 (2006 dollars). Although some fleet activity may exist in this fishery, the extent of such has not been determined. Thus, all vessels are assumed to be unique business entities. Given historic income data and the gross revenue profile captured by the Southeast logbook program, it is determined that all vessels that would be affected by the proposed rule are small entities. Charterboats are defined as boats for hire carrying six or fewer passengers that charge a fee to rent the entire boat. Headboats tend to be larger, generally can carry a maximum of around 60 passengers, and the fee is paid on an individual angler basis. This analysis, which estimates the range of the average gross revenues in 2006 dollars for this sector, is as follows: $61,714 to $83,820 for charterboats on the Atlantic coast of Florida; $72,768 to $88,778 for charterboats in North Carolina, $31,830 to $38,833 for charterboats in South Carolina; $68,629 to $83,486 for charterboats in Georgia; $170,276 to $362,482 for headboats in Florida; and $148,840 to $317,030 for headboats in the other South Atlantic states. Similar to the situation with the commercial harvest sector, some fleet activity may exist within the for-hire sector. The magnitude and identity of such is unknown, however, and all vessels are assumed to represent unique business entities. Given the gross revenue profiles provided, vessels in the for-hire recreational sector are determined to be small business entities. There were 1,066 commercial snapper-grouper permitted vessels in the South Atlantic during 2004. A number of these permitted vessels were not active in the snapper-grouper fishery. It is not possible to estimate the total number of true latent permits (i.e., those permits which are not expected to be fished in any given year and may exist only for speculative purposes) since permits with no associated landings could become active in a subsequent year. The number of permitted vessels, however, is an upper bound on the universe of vessels in this fishery. The assumed lower bound of VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:14 Jul 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 the universe of vessels is the number of active vessels in the latest year for which data are available. This lower bound estimate is 906 vessels, which is the number of vessels/permits with recorded landings of snapper-grouper species in the South Atlantic in 2003. The upper bound is the 1,066 commercial snapper-grouper permitted vessels in the South Atlantic during 2004. Thus, the range of vessels assumed to potentially operate in the commercial snapper-grouper fishery is 906 to 1,066. Currently, there is insufficient information to determine the number of commercial fishing vessels that fish for or possess any snapper-grouper species in the proposed MPAs. In the for-hire sector, 1,594 snappergrouper for-hire permits were issued to vessels in the South Atlantic states in 2004. The for-hire fishery operates as an open access fishery, and not all of the permitted snapper-grouper for-hire vessels are necessarily active in this fishery. Some vessel owners have been known to purchase open access permits as insurance for uncertainties in the fisheries in which they currently operate. Currently, there is insufficient information to assess the number of forhire vessels that fish for or possess any snapper-grouper species in the proposed MPAs. There is insufficient information to assess the numbers or percentages of commercial and for-hire vessels that fish for or possess snapper-grouper species in the proposed MPAs and would be directly affected by the proposed rule. Consequently, it cannot be determined if the proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. A direct cost of the proposed rule would be the lost revenues and profits derived from fishing for or possessing snappergrouper species in those areas. It is expected that any vessel that historically fished in these areas would mitigate some of these losses by relocating to other areas. There is insufficient information to quantify any potential losses of revenues and profits from the creation of the MPAs. However, the relatively small sizes of the MPAs suggest there would not be significant adverse economic impact. Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the first of the eight actions. Both the proposed action (Alternative 1) and Alternative 2 would establish an MPA at the area of the Snowy (Grouper) Wreck off the coast of North Carolina. The proposed MPA is 55 nm southeast of Southport, North Carolina, and Alternative 2 is located approximately 57 nm southeast of Southport. Each MPA is about 15 by 10 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 nm. Fishermen from Little River, Carolina Beach, and Southport ports would most likely be affected by either alternative. The proposed MPA and the MPA specified by Alternative 2 include an area ranging from 150 meters (m) to 300 m deep. The proposed MPA includes a shallow area ranging from 60 to 100 m, while the MPA specified by Alternative 2 includes a deeper area exceeding 300 m in depth. Alternative 2 could result in the displacement of fewer fishermen than the proposed action, but would not be expected to protect as many mid-shelf species as the proposed action. The status quo alternative (Alternative 3) would not create an MPA in the Snowy (Grouper) Wreck area off the coast of North Carolina, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and deepwater snapper-grouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objective. Four alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the second action. The proposed action (Alternative 2) and two of the other alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 3) would establish an MPA off the northern South Carolina coast. The proposed MPA is located approximately 54 nm from Murrells Inlet, while Alternative 1 is located approximately 61 nm from Murrells Inlet, and the MPA specified by Alternative 3 is about 65 nm from Murrells Inlet. The proposed MPA and the MPAs specified by Alternatives 1 and 3 are 10 by 5 nm in size. Both the proposed MPA and the MPA specified by Alternative 1 run east to west, while the MPA specified by Alternative 3 runs parallel to shore. Waters in the proposed MPA area range from 50 to 180 m deep. The MPAs specified by Alternatives 1 and 3 share an area ranging in depth from 70 to 140 m, but the MPA specified by Alternative 1 includes more shallow waters, while the MPA specified by Alternative 3 includes a greater area of deep water. The proposed MPA is expected to protect more deepwater and mid-shelf snapper-grouper species than the MPAs specified by Alternatives 1 and 3. The status quo alternative (Alternative 4) would not create an MPA off the coast of northern South Carolina, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and deepwater snappergrouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objective. Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the third action. Both the proposed action (Alternative 1) and Alternative 2 would establish an MPA off the coast of central South Carolina. The proposed MPA is oriented perpendicular to the coast and is located about 45 nm southeast of E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 40827 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules Charleston Harbor. The MPA specified by Alternative 2 is oriented parallel to the shoreline and is located approximately 50 nm southeast of Charleston Harbor. Both MPAs are 10 by 5 nm in size. The proposed MPA is expected to protect more mid-shelf and rare deepwater snapper-grouper species than Alternative 2. The status quo alternative (Alternative 3) would not create an MPA off the coast of central South Carolina, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and deepwater snapper-grouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objective. Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the fourth action. Both the proposed action (Alternative 1) and Alternative 2 would establish an MPA off the coast of Georgia. The proposed MPA is located approximately 69 nm southeast of the mouth of Wassaw Sound, while the MPA specified by Alternative 2 is located about 65 nm southeast of the mouth of Wassaw Sound. Both the proposed MPA and the MPA specified by Alternative 2 are 10 by 10 nm in size, and both share a common area with waters 90 to 210 m deep. However, the proposed MPA also includes waters ranging from 90 to 300 m deep and runs parallel to the shore, while the MPA specified by Alternative 2 includes an area with a wider depth range, from 65 to 380 m and does not run parallel to the coast. The proposed MPA is expected to be easier for industry to maneuver around and may result in greater protection of the mid-shelf habitat that serves as a nursery for deepwater species, notably tilefish, than the MPA specified by Alternative 2. The status quo alternative (Alternative 3) would not create an MPA off the coast of Georgia, would not increase the protection of tilefish, snowy grouper, and mid-shelf snapper-grouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objective. Seven alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the fifth action. The proposed action (Alternative 4) and five of the other alternatives would establish an MPA off the coast of north Florida. The proposed MPA is approximately 60 nm off the mouth of St. John’s River near Jacksonville. The MPA specified by Alternative 1 is approximately 57 nm off the mouth of the St. John’s River; the MPA specified by Alternative 2 is about 47 nm east of St. Augustine; the MPA specified by Alternative 3 is approximately 43 nm off New Smyrna Beach; the MPA specified by Alternative 5 is about 55 nm east of St. Augustine; and the MPA specified by Alternative 6 is approximately 45 nm off VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:14 Jul 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 New Smyrna Beach. The proposed MPA and the MPAs specified by Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 are 10 by 10 nm in size, while the MPAs specified by Alternatives 3 and 6 are 22 by 23 nm in size. The proposed MPA shares an area with the MPA specified by Alternative 1 that ranges from 60 to 200 m in depth. The proposed MPA also includes deeper waters, ranging from 200 to 380 m in depth, while the MPA specified by Alternative 1 includes an area of shallower water, ranging from 50 to 80 m in depth. The MPAs specified by Alternatives 2 and 5 share an area with depths ranging from 90 to 150 m. The MPA specified by Alternative 5 also includes a deeper area that ranges from 150 to 390 m, while the MPA specified by Alternative 2 includes a shallower area of 55 to 80 m. Most of the area included by the MPAs specified by Alternatives 3 and 6 overlap in an area ranging from 200 to 690 m deep. The MPA specified by Alternative 3 also includes a deeper area that exceeds 700 m, while the MPA specified by Alternative 6 includes a shallower area of 80 to 150 m. Although the MPAs specified by Alternatives 1 and 2 would protect more mid-shelf snapper-grouper species than the proposed MPA, while the MPAs specified by Alternatives 3, 5 and 6 would protect more deepwater species, these alternatives would also be expected to result in greater adverse economic impacts than the proposed MPA. The status quo alternative (Alternative 7), would not create an MPA off the coast of north Florida, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and deepwater snappergrouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objective. Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the sixth action. The proposed action would establish an MPA in the area known as Sea Bass Rocks off the coast of Florida. The status quo alternative would not create an MPA in this area, would not increase the protection of deepwater snapper-grouper species in this area, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objective. Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the seventh action. The proposed action would establish an MPA in the vicinity of the area known as East Hump and Unnamed Hump off the coast of the Florida Keys. The status quo alternative, would not create an MPA in this area, would not increase the protection of deepwater snapper-grouper and protected species in this area, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objectives. Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the eighth PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 action. The proposed action would establish an artificial reef MPA off the coast of South Carolina. The status quo alternative would not create this MPA, would not increase the opportunity to improve snapper-grouper populations in this area, and would not, therefore, meet the Council’s objective. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands. Dated: July 10, 2008. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 2. In § 622.2, the definition of ‘‘MPA’’ is added in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. * * * * * MPA means marine protected area. * * * * * 3. In § 622.35, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows: § 622.35 Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area closures. * * * * * (i) MPAs. (1) No person may fish for a South Atlantic snapper-grouper in an MPA, and no person may possess a South Atlantic snapper-grouper in an MPA. However, the prohibition on possession does not apply to a person aboard a vessel that is in transit with fishing gear appropriately stowed as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section. In addition to these restrictions, see § 635.21(d)(1)(iii) of this chapter regarding restrictions applicable within these MPAs for any vessel issued a permit under part 635 of this chapter that has longline gear on board. MPAs consist of deepwater areas as follows: (i) Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: Point A B C D A E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM North lat. 33°25′ 33°34.75′ 33°25.5′ 33°15.75′ 33°25′ 16JYP1 West long. 77°04.75′ 76°51.3′ 76°46.5′ 77°00.0′ 77°04.75′ 40828 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules (ii) Northern South Carolina MPA is bounded on the north by 32°53.5′ N. lat.; on the south by 32°48.5′ N. lat.; on the east by 78°04.75′ W. long.; and on the west by 78°16.75′ W. long. (iii) Edisto MPA is bounded on the north by 32°24′ N. lat.; on the south by 32°18.5′ N. lat.; on the east by 78°54.0′ W. long.; and on the west by 79°06.0′ W. long. (iv) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: Point A B C D A North lat. 32°04′ 32°08.5′ 32°06′ 32°01.5′ 32°04′ West long. 79°12′ 79°07.5′ 79°05′ 79°09.3′ 79°12′ jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS A B C VerDate Aug<31>2005 North lat. 31°43′ 31°43′ 31°34′ 17:14 Jul 15, 2008 West long. 79°31′ 79°21′ 79°29′ Jkt 214001 D A North lat. 31°34′ 31°43′ West long. 79°39′ 79°31′ (vi) North Florida MPA is bounded on the north by 30°29′ N. lat.; on the south by 30°19′ N. lat.; on the east by 80°02′ W. long.; and on the west by 80°14′ W. long. (vii) St. Lucie Hump MPA is bounded on the north by 27°08′ N. lat.; on the south by 27°04′ N. lat.; on the east by 79°58′ W. long.; and on the west by 80°00′ W. long. (viii) East Hump MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: Point (v) Georgia MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points: Point Point A B C D A North lat. 24°36.5′ 24°32′ 24°27.5′ 24°32.5′ 24°36.5′ West long. 80°45.5′ 80°36′ 80°38.5′ 80°48′ 80°45.5′ (2) For the purpose of paragraph (i)(1) of this section, transit means direct, non-stop progression through the MPA. Fishing gear appropriately stowed means— PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 (i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks are disconnected and stowed below deck. Hooks cannot be baited. All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on deck. (ii) A trawl or try net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be disconnected from such net and must be secured. (iii) A gillnet, stab net, or trammel net must be left on the drum. Any additional such nets not attached to the drum must be stowed below deck. (iv) Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) used with an automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, or rod and reel must be disconnected and stowed separately from such fishing gear. A rod and reel must be removed from the rod holder and stowed securely on or below deck. (v) A crustacean trap, golden crab trap, or sea bass pot cannot be baited. All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on deck. 4. Add Figure 1 to Part 622 to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 16, 2008 / Proposed Rules 40829 [FR Doc. E8–16252 Filed 7–15–08; 8:45 am] VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:14 Jul 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM 16JYP1 EP16JY08.009</GPH> jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 16, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40824-40829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16252]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 0612242911-7380-01]
RIN 0648-AU28


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 14

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement the applicable 
provisions of Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared 
and submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(Council). Amendment 14 proposes, and this rule would implement, 
establishment of eight marine protected areas (MPAs) in which fishing 
for or possession of South Atlantic snapper-grouper would be 
prohibited. The prohibition on possession would not apply to a person 
aboard a vessel that was in transit with fishing gear appropriately 
stowed. Amendment 14 also proposes to prohibit the use of shark bottom 
longlines within the MPAs, however, NMFS is proposing to implement the 
prohibition of shark bottom longlines through separate rulemaking. The 
intended effects of this proposed rule are to protect a portion of the 
population and habitat of long-lived, slow growing, deepwater snapper-
grouper from fishing pressure to achieve a more natural sex ratio, age, 
and size structure within the proposed MPAs, while minimizing adverse 
social and economic effects.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later 
than 5 p.m., eastern time, on August 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``0648-AU28'', by any 
of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 727-824-5308; Attention: Kate Michie.
     Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 
13\th\ Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic 
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 
Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of Amendment 14 may be obtained from the South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North 
Charleston, SC 29405; phone: 843-571-4366 or 866-SAFMC-10 (toll free); 
fax: 843-769-4520; e-mail: safmc@safmc.net. Amendment 14 includes a 
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), a Biological Assessment, 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a Regulatory Impact 
Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Michie, telephone: 727-824-5305, 
fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: Kate.Michie@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper-grouper fishery off the southern 
Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the 
Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 622. NMFS issues this proposed rule to 
implement the applicable provisions of Amendment 14 to the FMP. The 
Atlantic shark fishery is managed under the Consolidated Highly 
Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP). The HMS FMP is 
implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 635.

[[Page 40825]]

Background

    Many snapper-grouper species are vulnerable to overfishing because 
they are long-lived (e.g., snowy grouper, golden tilefish, red snapper, 
gag, scamp, red grouper, and red porgy); they are protogynous, i.e., 
they may change sex from females to males as they grow older/larger 
(e.g., snowy grouper, speckled hind, Warsaw grouper, yellowedge 
grouper, gag, scamp, red porgy, and black sea bass); they form spawning 
aggregations (e.g., snowy grouper, gag, scamp, and red snapper); and 
they suffer high release mortality when taken from deep water. 
Deepwater snapper-grouper species (speckled hind, snowy grouper, Warsaw 
grouper, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, golden tilefish, and 
blueline tilefish) are most vulnerable to overfishing because they live 
longer than 50 years, do not survive the trauma of capture, and are 
protogynous (groupers) or exhibit sexual dimorphism, i.e., males and 
females grow at different rates (tilefishes).
    Stock assessments indicate that black sea bass, red porgy, and 
snowy grouper are overfished, i.e., spawning stock biomass is not 
sufficient to reproduce and support continued productivity. In 
addition, black sea bass, golden tilefish, snowy grouper, and vermilion 
snapper are experiencing overfishing, i.e., the current rate of fishing 
mortality jeopardizes the capacity of the fishery to produce its 
maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Reductions in catch 
and protection of habitat are needed.

Proposed Measures

    This rule would establish eight MPAs in which a portion of the 
population and habitat of long-lived, slow growing, deepwater snapper-
grouper species would be protected from directed fishing pressure. 
Fishing for or possession of South Atlantic snapper-grouper would be 
prohibited in the MPAs. However, the prohibition on possession would 
not apply to a person aboard a vessel that was in transit with fishing 
gear appropriately stowed, as specified in Sec.  622.35(i)(2) of this 
proposed rule. MPAs are considered to be the most effective fishery 
management tool that would allow deepwater snapper-grouper to reach a 
more natural sex ratio, age, and size structure, protect spawning 
locations, and provide a refuge for early developmental stages of fish 
species.
    Using a collaborative process, the Council selected specific sites 
for MPAs on the basis of maximizing the biological benefits and 
enhancing enforceability and monitoring while minimizing the adverse 
social and economic effects. Sizes of the MPAs would range from 
approximately 5 by 10 nautical miles (nm) to approximately 22 by 23 nm. 
One would be off North Carolina, three off South Carolina, one off 
Georgia, and three off the east coast of Florida. An artificial reef 
may be established at one of the South Carolina sites. The two most 
southern MPAs would be approximately 9 and 13 nm offshore, 
respectively, and the others at least 38 nm offshore. The eight 
proposed MPAs and their relative locations are shown in Figure 1.
    The prohibition of use of shark bottom longlines in the MPAs is 
considered necessary for habitat protection and to prevent the 
mortality of incidentally caught snapper-grouper. The Council voted to 
include this prohibition in Amendment 14 because of concerns regarding 
the enforcement of fishing activities by vessels that hold permits in 
both the snapper-grouper and shark bottom longline fisheries, both of 
which deploy similar gear. However, because the Atlantic shark fishery 
is managed under the HMS FMP, NMFS requested the HMS Division 
promulgate the prohibition of use of shark bottom longlines within the 
proposed MPAs. The HMS Division published a final rule on June 24, 2008 
(72 FR 35778), prohibiting shark bottom longlining in the proposed MPAs 
through Amendment 2 to the consolidated HMS FMP.

Availability of Amendment 14

    Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed 
above are contained in Amendment 14. The availability of Amendment 14 
was announced in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008, (73 FR 32281). 
Written comments on Amendment 14 will be accepted through August 5, 
2008. All comments received on Amendment 14 or on this proposed rule 
during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the 
preamble to the final rule.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with Amendment 14, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 
applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Council prepared an FEIS for Amendment 14; a notice of 
availability was published on June 13, 2008 (73 FR 33813).
    NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. 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 objectives of, and legal basis for this action are contained at the 
beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of 
the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is available from the Council 
(see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
    This proposed rule would establish eight MPAs in the Federal waters 
of the South Atlantic and prohibit fishing for or possession of South 
Atlantic snapper-grouper within any of the MPAs. The purpose of this 
proposed rule is to assist in the recovery of overfished stocks and 
persistence of healthy fish stocks, fisheries, and habitats. The 
Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the proposed 
rule.
    No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been 
identified.
    Two general classes of small business entities would be directly 
affected by the proposed rule, commercial fishing vessels and for-hire 
fishing vessels. The Small Business Administration defines a small 
entity in the commercial fishing sector as a firm that is independently 
owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has 
average annual gross receipts not in excess of $4 million (2002 NAICS 
11411). For a for-hire business, the appropriate revenue benchmark is 
$6.5 million (2002 NAICS 487210).
    Average net incomes estimated from boats operating in the South 
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery were sampled in a 1994 study that 
separated the fishery into northern and southern zones. The northern 
zone includes the area north of 28[deg] N. latitude to the North 
Carolina/Virginia border. The southern zone includes the area south of 
25[deg] N. latitude to the border between the South Atlantic and Gulf 
of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. The estimated average net 
incomes, in 1994 (and 2006) dollars, were $83,224 ($113,212) for boats 
that primarily used bottom longlines in the northern zone, $23,075 
($31,389) for boats that primarily used black sea bass pots in the 
northern zone, $15,563 ($21,171) for boats that primarily used bottom 
longlines in the southern zone, $11,649 ($15,842) for boats that 
primarily used vertical lines in the southern zone, and $8,307 
($11,300) for boats that primarily used

[[Page 40826]]

vertical lines in the northern zone. Overall, boats in the northern 
zone averaged $14,143 ($19,239) in net income based on average revenues 
of $48,702 ($66,250), while boats in the southern zone averaged $12,388 
($16,852) net income based on average revenues of $39,745 ($54,066). 
More recent data from the Southeast logbook program show the average 
annual ex-vessel revenue from landings of snapper-grouper species per 
vessel from 1999 to 2003 to range from $14,408 to $16,376 (2006 
dollars).
    Although some fleet activity may exist in this fishery, the extent 
of such has not been determined. Thus, all vessels are assumed to be 
unique business entities. Given historic income data and the gross 
revenue profile captured by the Southeast logbook program, it is 
determined that all vessels that would be affected by the proposed rule 
are small entities.
    Charterboats are defined as boats for hire carrying six or fewer 
passengers that charge a fee to rent the entire boat. Headboats tend to 
be larger, generally can carry a maximum of around 60 passengers, and 
the fee is paid on an individual angler basis. This analysis, which 
estimates the range of the average gross revenues in 2006 dollars for 
this sector, is as follows: $61,714 to $83,820 for charterboats on the 
Atlantic coast of Florida; $72,768 to $88,778 for charterboats in North 
Carolina, $31,830 to $38,833 for charterboats in South Carolina; 
$68,629 to $83,486 for charterboats in Georgia; $170,276 to $362,482 
for headboats in Florida; and $148,840 to $317,030 for headboats in the 
other South Atlantic states. Similar to the situation with the 
commercial harvest sector, some fleet activity may exist within the 
for-hire sector. The magnitude and identity of such is unknown, 
however, and all vessels are assumed to represent unique business 
entities. Given the gross revenue profiles provided, vessels in the 
for-hire recreational sector are determined to be small business 
entities.
    There were 1,066 commercial snapper-grouper permitted vessels in 
the South Atlantic during 2004. A number of these permitted vessels 
were not active in the snapper-grouper fishery. It is not possible to 
estimate the total number of true latent permits (i.e., those permits 
which are not expected to be fished in any given year and may exist 
only for speculative purposes) since permits with no associated 
landings could become active in a subsequent year. The number of 
permitted vessels, however, is an upper bound on the universe of 
vessels in this fishery. The assumed lower bound of the universe of 
vessels is the number of active vessels in the latest year for which 
data are available. This lower bound estimate is 906 vessels, which is 
the number of vessels/permits with recorded landings of snapper-grouper 
species in the South Atlantic in 2003. The upper bound is the 1,066 
commercial snapper-grouper permitted vessels in the South Atlantic 
during 2004. Thus, the range of vessels assumed to potentially operate 
in the commercial snapper-grouper fishery is 906 to 1,066. Currently, 
there is insufficient information to determine the number of commercial 
fishing vessels that fish for or possess any snapper-grouper species in 
the proposed MPAs.
    In the for-hire sector, 1,594 snapper-grouper for-hire permits were 
issued to vessels in the South Atlantic states in 2004. The for-hire 
fishery operates as an open access fishery, and not all of the 
permitted snapper-grouper for-hire vessels are necessarily active in 
this fishery. Some vessel owners have been known to purchase open 
access permits as insurance for uncertainties in the fisheries in which 
they currently operate. Currently, there is insufficient information to 
assess the number of for-hire vessels that fish for or possess any 
snapper-grouper species in the proposed MPAs.
    There is insufficient information to assess the numbers or 
percentages of commercial and for-hire vessels that fish for or possess 
snapper-grouper species in the proposed MPAs and would be directly 
affected by the proposed rule. Consequently, it cannot be determined if 
the proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities. 
A direct cost of the proposed rule would be the lost revenues and 
profits derived from fishing for or possessing snapper-grouper species 
in those areas. It is expected that any vessel that historically fished 
in these areas would mitigate some of these losses by relocating to 
other areas. There is insufficient information to quantify any 
potential losses of revenues and profits from the creation of the MPAs. 
However, the relatively small sizes of the MPAs suggest there would not 
be significant adverse economic impact.
    Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for 
the first of the eight actions. Both the proposed action (Alternative 
1) and Alternative 2 would establish an MPA at the area of the Snowy 
(Grouper) Wreck off the coast of North Carolina. The proposed MPA is 55 
nm southeast of Southport, North Carolina, and Alternative 2 is located 
approximately 57 nm southeast of Southport. Each MPA is about 15 by 10 
nm. Fishermen from Little River, Carolina Beach, and Southport ports 
would most likely be affected by either alternative. The proposed MPA 
and the MPA specified by Alternative 2 include an area ranging from 150 
meters (m) to 300 m deep. The proposed MPA includes a shallow area 
ranging from 60 to 100 m, while the MPA specified by Alternative 2 
includes a deeper area exceeding 300 m in depth. Alternative 2 could 
result in the displacement of fewer fishermen than the proposed action, 
but would not be expected to protect as many mid-shelf species as the 
proposed action. The status quo alternative (Alternative 3) would not 
create an MPA in the Snowy (Grouper) Wreck area off the coast of North 
Carolina, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and deepwater 
snapper-grouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council's 
objective.
    Four alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for 
the second action. The proposed action (Alternative 2) and two of the 
other alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 3) would establish an MPA off 
the northern South Carolina coast. The proposed MPA is located 
approximately 54 nm from Murrells Inlet, while Alternative 1 is located 
approximately 61 nm from Murrells Inlet, and the MPA specified by 
Alternative 3 is about 65 nm from Murrells Inlet. The proposed MPA and 
the MPAs specified by Alternatives 1 and 3 are 10 by 5 nm in size. Both 
the proposed MPA and the MPA specified by Alternative 1 run east to 
west, while the MPA specified by Alternative 3 runs parallel to shore. 
Waters in the proposed MPA area range from 50 to 180 m deep. The MPAs 
specified by Alternatives 1 and 3 share an area ranging in depth from 
70 to 140 m, but the MPA specified by Alternative 1 includes more 
shallow waters, while the MPA specified by Alternative 3 includes a 
greater area of deep water. The proposed MPA is expected to protect 
more deepwater and mid-shelf snapper-grouper species than the MPAs 
specified by Alternatives 1 and 3. The status quo alternative 
(Alternative 4) would not create an MPA off the coast of northern South 
Carolina, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and deepwater 
snapper-grouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council's 
objective.
    Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for 
the third action. Both the proposed action (Alternative 1) and 
Alternative 2 would establish an MPA off the coast of central South 
Carolina. The proposed MPA is oriented perpendicular to the coast and 
is located about 45 nm southeast of

[[Page 40827]]

Charleston Harbor. The MPA specified by Alternative 2 is oriented 
parallel to the shoreline and is located approximately 50 nm southeast 
of Charleston Harbor. Both MPAs are 10 by 5 nm in size. The proposed 
MPA is expected to protect more mid-shelf and rare deepwater snapper-
grouper species than Alternative 2. The status quo alternative 
(Alternative 3) would not create an MPA off the coast of central South 
Carolina, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and deepwater 
snapper-grouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council's 
objective.
    Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for 
the fourth action. Both the proposed action (Alternative 1) and 
Alternative 2 would establish an MPA off the coast of Georgia. The 
proposed MPA is located approximately 69 nm southeast of the mouth of 
Wassaw Sound, while the MPA specified by Alternative 2 is located about 
65 nm southeast of the mouth of Wassaw Sound. Both the proposed MPA and 
the MPA specified by Alternative 2 are 10 by 10 nm in size, and both 
share a common area with waters 90 to 210 m deep. However, the proposed 
MPA also includes waters ranging from 90 to 300 m deep and runs 
parallel to the shore, while the MPA specified by Alternative 2 
includes an area with a wider depth range, from 65 to 380 m and does 
not run parallel to the coast. The proposed MPA is expected to be 
easier for industry to maneuver around and may result in greater 
protection of the mid-shelf habitat that serves as a nursery for 
deepwater species, notably tilefish, than the MPA specified by 
Alternative 2. The status quo alternative (Alternative 3) would not 
create an MPA off the coast of Georgia, would not increase the 
protection of tilefish, snowy grouper, and mid-shelf snapper-grouper 
species, and would not, therefore, meet the Council's objective.
    Seven alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for 
the fifth action. The proposed action (Alternative 4) and five of the 
other alternatives would establish an MPA off the coast of north 
Florida. The proposed MPA is approximately 60 nm off the mouth of St. 
John's River near Jacksonville. The MPA specified by Alternative 1 is 
approximately 57 nm off the mouth of the St. John's River; the MPA 
specified by Alternative 2 is about 47 nm east of St. Augustine; the 
MPA specified by Alternative 3 is approximately 43 nm off New Smyrna 
Beach; the MPA specified by Alternative 5 is about 55 nm east of St. 
Augustine; and the MPA specified by Alternative 6 is approximately 45 
nm off New Smyrna Beach. The proposed MPA and the MPAs specified by 
Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 are 10 by 10 nm in size, while the MPAs 
specified by Alternatives 3 and 6 are 22 by 23 nm in size. The proposed 
MPA shares an area with the MPA specified by Alternative 1 that ranges 
from 60 to 200 m in depth. The proposed MPA also includes deeper 
waters, ranging from 200 to 380 m in depth, while the MPA specified by 
Alternative 1 includes an area of shallower water, ranging from 50 to 
80 m in depth. The MPAs specified by Alternatives 2 and 5 share an area 
with depths ranging from 90 to 150 m. The MPA specified by Alternative 
5 also includes a deeper area that ranges from 150 to 390 m, while the 
MPA specified by Alternative 2 includes a shallower area of 55 to 80 m. 
Most of the area included by the MPAs specified by Alternatives 3 and 6 
overlap in an area ranging from 200 to 690 m deep. The MPA specified by 
Alternative 3 also includes a deeper area that exceeds 700 m, while the 
MPA specified by Alternative 6 includes a shallower area of 80 to 150 
m. Although the MPAs specified by Alternatives 1 and 2 would protect 
more mid-shelf snapper-grouper species than the proposed MPA, while the 
MPAs specified by Alternatives 3, 5 and 6 would protect more deepwater 
species, these alternatives would also be expected to result in greater 
adverse economic impacts than the proposed MPA. The status quo 
alternative (Alternative 7), would not create an MPA off the coast of 
north Florida, would not increase the protection of mid-shelf and 
deepwater snapper-grouper species, and would not, therefore, meet the 
Council's objective.
    Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the 
sixth action. The proposed action would establish an MPA in the area 
known as Sea Bass Rocks off the coast of Florida. The status quo 
alternative would not create an MPA in this area, would not increase 
the protection of deepwater snapper-grouper species in this area, and 
would not, therefore, meet the Council's objective.
    Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the 
seventh action. The proposed action would establish an MPA in the 
vicinity of the area known as East Hump and Unnamed Hump off the coast 
of the Florida Keys. The status quo alternative, would not create an 
MPA in this area, would not increase the protection of deepwater 
snapper-grouper and protected species in this area, and would not, 
therefore, meet the Council's objectives.
    Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the 
eighth action. The proposed action would establish an artificial reef 
MPA off the coast of South Carolina. The status quo alternative would 
not create this MPA, would not increase the opportunity to improve 
snapper-grouper populations in this area, and would not, therefore, 
meet the Council's objective.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Virgin Islands.

    Dated: July 10, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

    1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    2. In Sec.  622.2, the definition of ``MPA'' is added in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec.  622.2  Definitions and acronyms.

* * * * *
    MPA means marine protected area.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  622.35, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.35  Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

* * * * *
    (i) MPAs. (1) No person may fish for a South Atlantic snapper-
grouper in an MPA, and no person may possess a South Atlantic snapper-
grouper in an MPA. However, the prohibition on possession does not 
apply to a person aboard a vessel that is in transit with fishing gear 
appropriately stowed as specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section. 
In addition to these restrictions, see Sec.  635.21(d)(1)(iii) of this 
chapter regarding restrictions applicable within these MPAs for any 
vessel issued a permit under part 635 of this chapter that has longline 
gear on board. MPAs consist of deepwater areas as follows:
    (i) Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, 
in order, the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       33[deg]25'       77[deg]04.75'
B                                       33[deg]34.75'    76[deg]51.3'
C                                       33[deg]25.5'     76[deg]46.5'
D                                       33[deg]15.75'    77[deg]00.0'
A                                       33[deg]25'       77[deg]04.75'
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 40828]]

    (ii) Northern South Carolina MPA is bounded on the north by 
32[deg]53.5' N. lat.; on the south by 32[deg]48.5' N. lat.; on the east 
by 78[deg]04.75' W. long.; and on the west by 78[deg]16.75' W. long.
    (iii) Edisto MPA is bounded on the north by 32[deg]24' N. lat.; on 
the south by 32[deg]18.5' N. lat.; on the east by 78[deg]54.0' W. 
long.; and on the west by 79[deg]06.0' W. long.
    (iv) Charleston Deep Artificial Reef MPA is bounded by rhumb lines 
connecting, in order, the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       32[deg]04'       79[deg]12'
B                                       32[deg]08.5'     79[deg]07.5'
C                                       32[deg]06'       79[deg]05'
D                                       32[deg]01.5'     79[deg]09.3'
A                                       32[deg]04'       79[deg]12'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (v) Georgia MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 
following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       31[deg]43'       79[deg]31'
B                                       31[deg]43'       79[deg]21'
C                                       31[deg]34'       79[deg]29'
D                                       31[deg]34'       79[deg]39'
A                                       31[deg]43'       79[deg]31'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vi) North Florida MPA is bounded on the north by 30[deg]29' N. 
lat.; on the south by 30[deg]19' N. lat.; on the east by 80[deg]02' W. 
long.; and on the west by 80[deg]14' W. long.
    (vii) St. Lucie Hump MPA is bounded on the north by 27[deg]08' N. 
lat.; on the south by 27[deg]04' N. lat.; on the east by 79[deg]58' W. 
long.; and on the west by 80[deg]00' W. long.
    (viii) East Hump MPA is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 
order, the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Point                     North lat.       West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                       24[deg]36.5'     80[deg]45.5'
B                                       24[deg]32'       80[deg]36'
C                                       24[deg]27.5'     80[deg]38.5'
D                                       24[deg]32.5'     80[deg]48'
A                                       24[deg]36.5'     80[deg]45.5'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For the purpose of paragraph (i)(1) of this section, transit 
means direct, non-stop progression through the MPA. Fishing gear 
appropriately stowed means--
    (i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks 
are disconnected and stowed below deck. Hooks cannot be baited. All 
buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on 
deck.
    (ii) A trawl or try net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be 
disconnected from such net and must be secured.
    (iii) A gillnet, stab net, or trammel net must be left on the drum. 
Any additional such nets not attached to the drum must be stowed below 
deck.
    (iv) Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) 
used with an automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, handline, or rod 
and reel must be disconnected and stowed separately from such fishing 
gear. A rod and reel must be removed from the rod holder and stowed 
securely on or below deck.
    (v) A crustacean trap, golden crab trap, or sea bass pot cannot be 
baited. All buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys 
may remain on deck.
    4. Add Figure 1 to Part 622 to read as follows:

[[Page 40829]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16JY08.009

[FR Doc. E8-16252 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.