Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery off the Atlantic States; Transfer of Management Authority, 58059-58061 [E8-23586]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Thus, such a vessel may only have a
commercial quantity of reef fish other
than deepwater grouper or tilefishes or
a recreational bag limit of Gulf reef fish.
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 prior notice
and opportunity for public comment is
unnecessary. Prior notice and
opportunity for public comment on the
reopening is unnecessary because the
rule establishing the annual quota has
already been subject to notice and
comment, and all that remains is the
annual administrative act of notifying
the public of where harvest stands in
relation to the quota, and in this case
that additional time is needed to harvest
the established quota. The rule contains
a routine determination relative to
harvest levels for the fishing year that
are relatively insignificant in nature and
impact to the industry and to the public
as a whole.
For the aforementioned reasons, the
AA also finds good cause to waive the
30-day delay in the effectiveness of this
action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
This action is taken under 50 CFR
622.43(a) and is exempt from review
under Executive Order 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 29, 2008.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8–23582 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 622 and 697
[Docket No. 080221249–81231–02]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
RIN 0648–AT13
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act Provisions; Atlantic
Coast Red Drum Fishery off the
Atlantic States; Transfer of
Management Authority
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Oct 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to
repeal the Atlantic Coast Red Drum
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and to
transfer the management authority of
Atlantic red drum in the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) from the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(South Atlantic Council), in cooperation
with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Mid-Atlantic
Council), under the Magnuson-Stevens
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) to the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
(Commission) under the Atlantic
Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act),
as requested by the Councils and the
Commission. The intent of this final
rule is to enhance the effectiveness and
efficiency of managing Atlantic red
drum.
DATES: This final rule is effective
November 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental
assessment (EA), which describes the
impacts of the transfer of management
authority, may be obtained from Kate
Michie, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St.
Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone 727–
824–5305; fax 727–824–5308.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Michie, telephone: 727–824–5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Atlantic red drum fishery off the South
Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic coastal states
is currently managed under two
separate FMPs. Atlantic red drum
located in the EEZ are managed under
the Atlantic Coast Red Drum FMP
prepared by the South Atlantic Council,
in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic
Council (Council FMP), and
implemented under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at
50 CFR part 622. The Council FMP
prohibits harvest or possession of red
drum in the South Atlantic and MidAtlantic EEZ. Atlantic red drum located
in state waters are managed under the
Interstate Fishery Management Plan
(ISFMP) for Red Drum by the Atlantic
coast states (New Jersey through
Florida) and the Commission. This final
rule repeals the Council FMP and
implementing regulations issued under
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
simultaneously replaces them with
substantially identical regulations under
the Atlantic Coastal Act. The Atlantic
Coastal Act allows the Federal
government to better coordinate its
management practices with the states
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58059
via the Commission process. The repeal
of the Council FMP would occur at the
same time as this rule is implemented.
On April 3, 2008, NMFS published a
proposed rule for the transfer of
management authority of Atlantic red
drum and requested public comment
(73 FR 18253). The rationale for this
action, including the statute giving
authority to the Commission to manage
Atlantic red drum in the EEZ, the
purpose and need for transfer of
management authority, and the benefits
of this transfer are included in the
preamble to the proposed rule and are
not repeated here.
Comments and Responses
The following is a summary of the
comments NMFS received on the
proposed rule and NMFS’ responses.
Three comments were received on this
action. One comment was in favor of the
transfer of management authority, one
comment was opposed to the transfer of
authority, and one comment was in
favor of the transfer of authority but did
not agree that regulations under the
Atlantic Coastal Act are comparable to
the current Magnuson-Stevens Act
regulations.
Comment 1: The first commenter
stated the transfer of authority will
result in more efficient and effective
management for Atlantic red drum.
Response: The purpose of this action
is to manage Atlantic red drum under
one FMP rather than two, thus
minimizing management costs and
eliminating unnecessary duplication of
management efforts. This transfer of
management authority furthers
Magnuson-Stevens Act national
standard 7, which states ‘‘Conservation
and management measures shall, where
practicable, minimize costs and avoid
unnecessary duplication.’’
Comment 2: The second commenter
stated the changes being proposed are
anti-environmental in nature, and
NMFS in particular is biased toward
‘‘fish profiteers.’’
Response: This rule will not change
existing restrictions prohibiting the
harvest or possession of red drum in the
EEZ. NMFS and the U.S. Coast Guard
will continue to enforce those
prohibitions. Repealing the Council
FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and simultaneously implementing
comparable regulations under the
Commission FMP under the Atlantic
Coastal Act, will provide for a more
efficient and timely rebuilding of the
Atlantic red drum resource.
Comment 3: One commenter stated
the regulations under the Atlantic
Coastal Act intended to replace those
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act are
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
58060
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
not comparable, and the EA does not
acknowledge some of the essential fish
habitat (EFH) designated for red drum
will be eliminated, nor does it mention
the loss of habitat areas of particular
concern (HAPC).
Response: NMFS does not believe that
adoption of this rule will result in an
appreciable loss of habitat protection for
red drum.
As a preliminary matter, red drum
EFH, including habitat areas of
particular concern, substantially
overlaps the EFH of other species.
Accordingly, even if red drum EFH
designations are necessarily withdrawn
in the transfer, NMFS would still likely
recommend the same protective
measures through its EFH consultations
on other species. In other words,
although red drum habitat protections
would be incidental to EFH
consultations on other species, red
drum habitat would nevertheless still be
protected. For example, the South
Atlantic Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP
(CMP FMP) includes EFH areas that
overlap areas previously designated as
EFH for red drum, namely, barrier
island ocean-side waters from the surf to
the shelf break zone, all coastal inlets,
and all state-designated nursery habitats
of particular importance to coastal
migratory pelagics. Under the CMP FMP
the surf zone is not referred to as a
‘‘high-salinity’’ surf zone as it is in the
red drum EFH description; however, the
same meaning for each is inferred.
Additionally, the South Atlantic Shrimp
FMP (Shrimp FMP) does use the term
‘‘tidal freshwater’’ in its designation of
EFH for penaeid shrimp. The Shrimp
FMP includes inshore nursery areas in
its designation of EFH for penaeid
shrimp and defines this habitat as tidal
freshwater, estuarine, and marine
emergent wetlands (e.g., intertidal
marshes); tidal palustrine forested areas;
mangroves, tidal freshwater, estuarine,
and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
(e.g., seagrass); and subtidal and
intertidal non-vegetated flats. This
designation of EFH for penaeid shrimp
applies from North Carolina through the
Florida Keys.
Further, to the extent that protection
is lost under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
in the transfer, NMFS believes that such
loss is mitigated by comparable
protections that would remain under
other statutes. Specifically, the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, similar to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, requires Federal
agencies to first consult with NMFS
before taking an action that might
impact NMFS trust resources. The Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act requires
that the Federal agency ‘‘...shall consult
with...the head of the agency exercising
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Oct 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
administration over the wildlife
resources...with a view to the
conservation of wildlife resources by
preventing loss of and damage to such
resources...’’ Further, the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act allows the
Secretary to make recommendations to
the Federal agency on alternative
‘‘...means and measures that should be
adopted to prevent the loss of or damage
to such wildlife resources...’’ (16 U.S.C.
661–667e). Accordingly, although EFH
is a technical term unique to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and EFH
consultation is a process reserved to
species managed under the MagnusonStevens Act, it does not necessarily
follow that comparable habitat
protection would be altogether lost if
red drum were managed under an
alternative statute. Federal agencies
would still be required to consult with
NMFS on the potential impacts of their
actions to red drum habitat, but simply
under a different statute.
Comment 4: One of the above
commenters also stated that the EA does
not discuss Executive Order (E.O.)
13449, (72 FR 60531, October 24, 2007),
regarding the protection of striped bass
and red drum, and the rule would not
establish consistent EFH consultation
requirements between red drum stocks
of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic.
Response: The commenter is
concerned this rule will establish
inconsistent regulations between the red
drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico and
the Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico red drum
stocks are already managed
independently of the Atlantic red drum
stocks. The ability of the NMFS to
consult and provide consistent
recommendations for the conservation
and preservation of habitats utilized by
red drum under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act will not change.
Additionally, because NMFS will
continue to consult and provide
conservation recommendations for EFH
of all other Council-managed species,
the ability to consistently protect and
conserve fishery habitats, including all
habitats utilized by red drum, will not
be significantly changed.
NMFS understands this rule to be
consistent with the spirit and intent of
E.O. 13449, because comparable EFH
protections for Atlantic red drum will
be maintained under previously noted
FMPs for Council-managed species, and
comparable fishery management
regulations under the Atlantic Coastal
Act will take the place of current
regulations under the MagnusonStevens Act, and because comparable
habitat consultation will occur under
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Furthermore, the Atlantic Coastal Act
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
clearly includes habitat conservation
among its intended goals with regards to
state-federal cooperation by stating:
‘‘The Secretary in cooperation with the
Secretary of the Interior shall develop
and implement a program to support the
interstate fishery management efforts of
the Commission. The program shall
include activities to support and
enhance State cooperation in collection,
management, and analysis of fishery
data; law enforcement, habitat
conservation; fishery research,
including biological and socioeconomic
research; and fishery management
planning’’ (16 U.S.C. 5103).
Classification
The Administrator, Southeast Region,
NMFS, determined that the transfer of
management authority is necessary for
the conservation and management of the
Atlantic red drum fishery and that it is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration during
the proposed rule stage that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the
certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here.
No comments were received regarding
this certification. As a result, a
regulatory flexibility analysis was not
required, and none was prepared.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
50 CFR Part 697
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: September 30, 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 parts 622 and 697, are
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.
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
§ 622.1
[Amended]
2. In § 622.1, Table 1, the entries for
‘‘Atlantic Coast Red Drum FMP’’ are
removed.
■
§ 622.32
[Amended]
3. In § 622.32, remove paragraph
(b)(3), and redesignate paragraph (b)(4)
as paragraph (b)(3); remove newly
redesignated paragraph (b)(3)(iii), and
redesignate newly redesignated
paragraphs (b)(3)(iv) through (vi) as
paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (v).
■
§ 622.48
[Amended]
4. In § 622.48, remove paragraph (k),
and redesignate paragraphs (l) and (m)
as paragraphs (k) and (l), respectively.
■
PART 697—ATLANTIC COASTAL
FISHERIES COOPERATIVE
MANAGEMENT
5. The authority citation for part 697
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
6. In § 697.2, the definition of
‘‘Atlantic red drum’’ is added and the
definition of ‘‘Regional Administrator’’
is revised, in alphabetical order, to read
as follows:
■
§ 697.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Atlantic red drum, also called redfish,
means Sciaenops ocellatus, or a part
thereof, found in the waters of the
Atlantic Ocean off the Atlantic coastal
states, to the outer boundary of the EEZ,
as specified in § 600.10 of this chapter,
from the boundary of the United States
and Canada, to the boundary between
the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council, as specified in
§ 600.105(c) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
Regional Administrator, means
Regional Administrator, Northeast
Region, NMFS, or Regional
Administrator, Southeast Region,
NMFS, whichever has the applicable
jurisdiction, or a respective designee.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 697.7, paragraph (f) is added to
read as follows:
§ 697.7
Prohibitions.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Atlantic red drum fishery. In
addition to the prohibitions set forth in
§ 600.725 of this chapter, it is unlawful
for any person to do any of the
following:
(1) Harvest or possess Atlantic red
drum in the EEZ south of a line
extending in a direction of 115° from
true north commencing at a point at
40°29.6′ N. lat., 73°54.1′ W. long., such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:30 Oct 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
point being the intersection of the New
Jersey/New York boundary with the 3–
nm line denoting the seaward limit of
state waters, and north of the
demarcation line between the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council
and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Council described in
§ 600.105(c) of this chapter.
(2) Fail to release immediately
without further harm, all Atlantic red
drum caught in the EEZ area described
in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
■ 8. In § 697.22, the introductory text
and paragraph (a)(1) are revised to read
as follows:
§ 697.22
Exempted fishing.
The Regional Administrator or
Director may exempt any person or
vessel from the requirements of this part
for the conduct of exempted fishing
beneficial to the management of the
American lobster, weakfish, Atlantic red
drum, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic
sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or
fishery, pursuant to the provisions of
§ 600.745 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(1) Have a detrimental effect on the
American lobster, weakfish, Atlantic red
drum, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic
sturgeon, or horseshoe crab resource or
fishery; or
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–23586 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 071106671–8010–02]
RIN 0648–XK86
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by
Vessels Catching Pacific Cod for
Processing by the Inshore Component
in the Central Regulatory Area of the
Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; closure.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed
fishing for Pacific cod by vessels
catching Pacific cod for processing by
the inshore component in the Central
Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska
(GOA). This action is necessary to
prevent exceeding the 2008 total
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58061
allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod
allocated to vessels catching Pacific cod
for processing by the inshore
component of the Central Regulatory
Area of the GOA.
DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local
time (A.l.t.), October 3, 2008, until 2400
hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Obren Davis, 907–586–7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS
manages the groundfish fishery in the
GOA exclusive economic zone
according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of
Alaska (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 2008 TAC of Pacific cod allocated
to vessels catching Pacific cod for
processing by the inshore component of
the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA
is 25,583 metric tons (mt) as established
by the 2008 and 2009 harvest
specifications for groundfish of the GOA
(73 FR 10562, February 27, 2008).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i),
the Administrator, Alaska Region,
NMFS (Regional Administrator), has
determined that the 2008 TAC of Pacific
cod allocated to vessels catching Pacific
cod for processing by the inshore
component of the Central Regulatory
Area of the GOA will soon be reached.
Therefore, the Regional Administrator is
establishing a directed fishing
allowance of 24,583 mt, and is setting
aside the remaining 1,000 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 cod by
vessels catching Pacific cod for
processing by the inshore component in
the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
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
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 194 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58059-58061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23586]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 622 and 697
[Docket No. 080221249-81231-02]
RIN 0648-AT13
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions;
Atlantic Coast Red Drum Fishery off the Atlantic States; Transfer of
Management Authority
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to repeal the Atlantic Coast Red
Drum Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and to transfer the management
authority of Atlantic red drum in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
from the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic
Council), in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Mid-Atlantic Council), under the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission) under the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act), as requested by the
Councils and the Commission. The intent of this final rule is to
enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of managing Atlantic red drum.
DATES: This final rule is effective November 5, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the environmental assessment (EA), which describes
the impacts of the transfer of management authority, may be obtained
from Kate Michie, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-
5308.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Michie, telephone: 727-824-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic red drum fishery off the South
Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic coastal states is currently managed under two
separate FMPs. Atlantic red drum located in the EEZ are managed under
the Atlantic Coast Red Drum FMP prepared by the South Atlantic Council,
in cooperation with the Mid-Atlantic Council (Council FMP), and
implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act by
regulations at 50 CFR part 622. The Council FMP prohibits harvest or
possession of red drum in the South Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic EEZ.
Atlantic red drum located in state waters are managed under the
Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for Red Drum by the Atlantic
coast states (New Jersey through Florida) and the Commission. This
final rule repeals the Council FMP and implementing regulations issued
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and simultaneously replaces them with
substantially identical regulations under the Atlantic Coastal Act. The
Atlantic Coastal Act allows the Federal government to better coordinate
its management practices with the states via the Commission process.
The repeal of the Council FMP would occur at the same time as this rule
is implemented.
On April 3, 2008, NMFS published a proposed rule for the transfer
of management authority of Atlantic red drum and requested public
comment (73 FR 18253). The rationale for this action, including the
statute giving authority to the Commission to manage Atlantic red drum
in the EEZ, the purpose and need for transfer of management authority,
and the benefits of this transfer are included in the preamble to the
proposed rule and are not repeated here.
Comments and Responses
The following is a summary of the comments NMFS received on the
proposed rule and NMFS' responses. Three comments were received on this
action. One comment was in favor of the transfer of management
authority, one comment was opposed to the transfer of authority, and
one comment was in favor of the transfer of authority but did not agree
that regulations under the Atlantic Coastal Act are comparable to the
current Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations.
Comment 1: The first commenter stated the transfer of authority
will result in more efficient and effective management for Atlantic red
drum.
Response: The purpose of this action is to manage Atlantic red drum
under one FMP rather than two, thus minimizing management costs and
eliminating unnecessary duplication of management efforts. This
transfer of management authority furthers Magnuson-Stevens Act national
standard 7, which states ``Conservation and management measures shall,
where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.''
Comment 2: The second commenter stated the changes being proposed
are anti-environmental in nature, and NMFS in particular is biased
toward ``fish profiteers.''
Response: This rule will not change existing restrictions
prohibiting the harvest or possession of red drum in the EEZ. NMFS and
the U.S. Coast Guard will continue to enforce those prohibitions.
Repealing the Council FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
simultaneously implementing comparable regulations under the Commission
FMP under the Atlantic Coastal Act, will provide for a more efficient
and timely rebuilding of the Atlantic red drum resource.
Comment 3: One commenter stated the regulations under the Atlantic
Coastal Act intended to replace those under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are
[[Page 58060]]
not comparable, and the EA does not acknowledge some of the essential
fish habitat (EFH) designated for red drum will be eliminated, nor does
it mention the loss of habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC).
Response: NMFS does not believe that adoption of this rule will
result in an appreciable loss of habitat protection for red drum.
As a preliminary matter, red drum EFH, including habitat areas of
particular concern, substantially overlaps the EFH of other species.
Accordingly, even if red drum EFH designations are necessarily
withdrawn in the transfer, NMFS would still likely recommend the same
protective measures through its EFH consultations on other species. In
other words, although red drum habitat protections would be incidental
to EFH consultations on other species, red drum habitat would
nevertheless still be protected. For example, the South Atlantic
Coastal Migratory Pelagics FMP (CMP FMP) includes EFH areas that
overlap areas previously designated as EFH for red drum, namely,
barrier island ocean-side waters from the surf to the shelf break zone,
all coastal inlets, and all state-designated nursery habitats of
particular importance to coastal migratory pelagics. Under the CMP FMP
the surf zone is not referred to as a ``high-salinity'' surf zone as it
is in the red drum EFH description; however, the same meaning for each
is inferred. Additionally, the South Atlantic Shrimp FMP (Shrimp FMP)
does use the term ``tidal freshwater'' in its designation of EFH for
penaeid shrimp. The Shrimp FMP includes inshore nursery areas in its
designation of EFH for penaeid shrimp and defines this habitat as tidal
freshwater, estuarine, and marine emergent wetlands (e.g., intertidal
marshes); tidal palustrine forested areas; mangroves, tidal freshwater,
estuarine, and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) (e.g., seagrass); and
subtidal and intertidal non-vegetated flats. This designation of EFH
for penaeid shrimp applies from North Carolina through the Florida
Keys.
Further, to the extent that protection is lost under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act in the transfer, NMFS believes that such loss is mitigated
by comparable protections that would remain under other statutes.
Specifically, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, similar to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, requires Federal agencies to first consult with
NMFS before taking an action that might impact NMFS trust resources.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that the Federal agency
``...shall consult with...the head of the agency exercising
administration over the wildlife resources...with a view to the
conservation of wildlife resources by preventing loss of and damage to
such resources...'' Further, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
allows the Secretary to make recommendations to the Federal agency on
alternative ``...means and measures that should be adopted to prevent
the loss of or damage to such wildlife resources...'' (16 U.S.C. 661-
667e). Accordingly, although EFH is a technical term unique to the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and EFH consultation is a process reserved to
species managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it does not necessarily
follow that comparable habitat protection would be altogether lost if
red drum were managed under an alternative statute. Federal agencies
would still be required to consult with NMFS on the potential impacts
of their actions to red drum habitat, but simply under a different
statute.
Comment 4: One of the above commenters also stated that the EA does
not discuss Executive Order (E.O.) 13449, (72 FR 60531, October 24,
2007), regarding the protection of striped bass and red drum, and the
rule would not establish consistent EFH consultation requirements
between red drum stocks of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic.
Response: The commenter is concerned this rule will establish
inconsistent regulations between the red drum stocks of the Gulf of
Mexico and the Atlantic. Gulf of Mexico red drum stocks are already
managed independently of the Atlantic red drum stocks. The ability of
the NMFS to consult and provide consistent recommendations for the
conservation and preservation of habitats utilized by red drum under
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act will not change. Additionally,
because NMFS will continue to consult and provide conservation
recommendations for EFH of all other Council-managed species, the
ability to consistently protect and conserve fishery habitats,
including all habitats utilized by red drum, will not be significantly
changed.
NMFS understands this rule to be consistent with the spirit and
intent of E.O. 13449, because comparable EFH protections for Atlantic
red drum will be maintained under previously noted FMPs for Council-
managed species, and comparable fishery management regulations under
the Atlantic Coastal Act will take the place of current regulations
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and because comparable habitat
consultation will occur under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Furthermore, the Atlantic Coastal Act clearly includes habitat
conservation among its intended goals with regards to state-federal
cooperation by stating: ``The Secretary in cooperation with the
Secretary of the Interior shall develop and implement a program to
support the interstate fishery management efforts of the Commission.
The program shall include activities to support and enhance State
cooperation in collection, management, and analysis of fishery data;
law enforcement, habitat conservation; fishery research, including
biological and socioeconomic research; and fishery management
planning'' (16 U.S.C. 5103).
Classification
The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that the
transfer of management authority is necessary for the conservation and
management of the Atlantic red drum fishery and that it is consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received
regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility
analysis was not required, and none was prepared.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
50 CFR Part 697
Fisheries, Fishing.
Dated: September 30, 2008.
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 parts 622 and 697, are
amended as follows:
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
[[Page 58061]]
Sec. 622.1 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 622.1, Table 1, the entries for ``Atlantic Coast Red Drum
FMP'' are removed.
Sec. 622.32 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 622.32, remove paragraph (b)(3), and redesignate paragraph
(b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3); remove newly redesignated paragraph
(b)(3)(iii), and redesignate newly redesignated paragraphs (b)(3)(iv)
through (vi) as paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) through (v).
Sec. 622.48 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 622.48, remove paragraph (k), and redesignate paragraphs
(l) and (m) as paragraphs (k) and (l), respectively.
PART 697--ATLANTIC COASTAL FISHERIES COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
0
5. The authority citation for part 697 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
0
6. In Sec. 697.2, the definition of ``Atlantic red drum'' is added and
the definition of ``Regional Administrator'' is revised, in
alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 697.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Atlantic red drum, also called redfish, means Sciaenops ocellatus,
or a part thereof, found in the waters of the Atlantic Ocean off the
Atlantic coastal states, to the outer boundary of the EEZ, as specified
in Sec. 600.10 of this chapter, from the boundary of the United States
and Canada, to the boundary between the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
as specified in Sec. 600.105(c) of this chapter.
* * * * *
Regional Administrator, means Regional Administrator, Northeast
Region, NMFS, or Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS,
whichever has the applicable jurisdiction, or a respective designee.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 697.7, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 697.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(f) Atlantic red drum fishery. In addition to the prohibitions set
forth in Sec. 600.725 of this chapter, it is unlawful for any person
to do any of the following:
(1) Harvest or possess Atlantic red drum in the EEZ south of a line
extending in a direction of 115[deg] from true north commencing at a
point at 40[deg]29.6' N. lat., 73[deg]54.1' W. long., such point being
the intersection of the New Jersey/New York boundary with the 3-nm line
denoting the seaward limit of state waters, and north of the
demarcation line between the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council described in Sec.
600.105(c) of this chapter.
(2) Fail to release immediately without further harm, all Atlantic
red drum caught in the EEZ area described in paragraph (f)(1) of this
section.
0
8. In Sec. 697.22, the introductory text and paragraph (a)(1) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 697.22 Exempted fishing.
The Regional Administrator or Director may exempt any person or
vessel from the requirements of this part for the conduct of exempted
fishing beneficial to the management of the American lobster, weakfish,
Atlantic red drum, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, or
horseshoe crab resource or fishery, pursuant to the provisions of Sec.
600.745 of this chapter.
(a) * * *
(1) Have a detrimental effect on the American lobster, weakfish,
Atlantic red drum, Atlantic striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon, or
horseshoe crab resource or fishery; or
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-23586 Filed 10-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S