Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 15B; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, 31225-31235 [E9-15465]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
requirements; a requirement for
Councils to have procedures for
proposed regulations; designation of an
alternate for the Indian tribal
representative of the Pacific Fishery
Management Council; requirements for
nominating individuals to the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council;
revisions to the process and deadline for
governors to submit Council member
nominations to the Secretary;
restrictions on direct or indirect
lobbying by Council members, Council
staff, and contractors; addition of
lobbying and advocacy as types of
financial interest activities that must be
reported by affected individuals; and
the requirement for new Council
members to attend a training course.
Additionally, this proposed rule would
implement several minor changes in
Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302, as
well as a number of technical changes
and minor corrections, unrelated to the
reauthorization of the Act. Many of the
key aspects of this proposed rule
reiterate statutory requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is
including this statutory text in
regulations so that relevant Council
process provisions both statutory and
regulatory are presented together for
ease of reference.
On March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13386),
NMFS published this proposed rule
with a comment period ending July 6,
2009. Because this proposed rule
primarily affects the Councils, their
input is critical in ensuring that
questions regarding the requirements of
this proposed rule are raised and
responded to prior to a final rule being
published. The original comment period
allowed enough time for almost all
Councils to have a meeting and discuss
this proposed rule during the comment
period. The Councils have now
requested that the comment period be
extended to allow all Councils to have
two meetings during the comment
period. NMFS agrees with this request
and extends the comment period until
November 2, 2009 to allow the Councils
and the public adequate time to
understand this proposed rule, discuss
its effects on their circumstances, and
provide their comments.
Dated: June 24, 2009.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. E9–15466 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 080226312–9085–01]
RIN 0648–AW12
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern
Atlantic States; Amendment 15B; Reef
Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
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 Amendment 15B 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). This
proposed rule would, for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper, require a private
recreational vessel that fishes in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), if
selected by NMFS, to maintain and
submit fishing records; require a vessel
that fishes in the EEZ, if selected by
NMFS, to carry an observer and install
an electronic logbook (ELB) and/or
video monitor provided by NMFS;
prohibit the sale of snapper-grouper
harvested or possessed in the EEZ under
the bag limits and prohibit the sale of
snapper-grouper harvested or possessed
under the bag limits by vessels with a
Federal charter vessel/headboat permit
for South Atlantic snapper-grouper
regardless of where the snapper-grouper
were harvested; require an owner and
operator of a vessel for which a
commercial or charter vessel/headboat
permit has been issued and that has on
board any hook-and-line gear to comply
with sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish
release protocols, possess on board
specific gear to ensure proper release of
such species, and comply with
guidelines for proper care and release of
such species that are incidentally
caught; and expand the allowable
transfer of a commercial vessel permit
under the limited access program and
extend the allowable period for renewal
of such a permit. Amendment 15B also
proposes to revise the stock status
determination criteria for golden tilefish
and specify commercial/recreational
allocations for snowy grouper and red
porgy. In addition, NMFS proposes to
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31225
remove language specifying commercial
quotas for snowy grouper that are no
longer in effect and proposes to revise
sea turtle bycatch mitigation
requirements applicable to the Gulf reef
fish fishery to add two devices that were
inadvertently omitted from a prior rule.
The intended effects of this rule are to
provide additional information for, and
otherwise improve the effective
management of, the South Atlantic
snapper-grouper fishery; minimize the
impacts on incidentally caught
threatened and endangered sea turtles
and smalltooth sawfish; and remove
outdated language.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rule must be received no later
than 5:00 p.m., eastern time, on August
4, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by RIN 0648–AW12, by any
one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal https://
www.regulations.gov
• Fax: 727–824–5308, Attn: 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 (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required
fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe
PDF file formats only.
Copies of Amendment 15B 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 15B
includes a Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a Regulatory
Impact Review, and a Social Impact
Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement.
Comments regarding the burden-hour
estimates or other aspects of the
collection-of-information requirements
contained in this proposed rule may be
submitted in writing to Jason Rueter,
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
31226
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, and
to David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail at
DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or by fax
to 202–395–7285.
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Amendment 15B
Monitor and Assess Bycatch
Current data collection methods do
not adequately capture the true
magnitude of bycatch in the fishery for
South Atlantic snapper-grouper. An
improved ability to monitor and assess
bycatch in the fishery would provide
better estimates of interactions with
protected species and improve the
quality of stock assessments so that
management measures may be
implemented in a timely manner to
prevent stock collapse and/or speed
recovery of overfished stocks.
Accordingly, this proposed rule
would expand the existing requirement
for fishing reports to include such
private recreational vessels as are
selected by the Science and Research
Director, Southeast Fisheries Science
Center, NMFS (SRD).
Similarly, this proposed rule would
require an owner and operator of a
vessel with a commercial vessel or
charter vessel/headboat permit for
South Atlantic snapper-grouper and an
owner and operator of a private
recreational vessel in that fishery, if
selected by the SRD, to carry a NMFSapproved observer on trips selected by
the SRD and/or participate in a NMFSsponsored ELB or video monitoring
reporting program as directed by the
SRD.
To initiate an ELB or video
monitoring program, NMFS would send
a letter to an owner or operator of a
selected vessel advising of his or her
obligation to participate in the program.
In cooperation with the owner or
operator, NMFS staff or an authorized
representative would meet at the
selected vessel to install the NMFSfurnished ELB and/or video monitor on
the vessel and to collect basic vessel and
gear information that would later be
correlated with the ELB or video
monitoring information. Using the
Global Positioning System, an ELB
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
would automatically record vessel
position information over time from
which conclusions could be drawn
regarding vessel activity, e.g., the vessel
is fishing or transiting. At intervals
determined by NMFS, the ELB memory
unit or video monitor tape would be
removed and provided to the SRD. The
owner or operator could either mail the
memory unit or tape to the SRD or
arrange for a NMFS or state port agent
to collect the unit or tape. The ELB
program would supplement existing
post-trip interview data and is intended
to provide better estimates of the
amount and location of effort occurring
during a trip.
With an ELB, bycatch in the fishery
would be estimated from a second
sampling program based on observer
data. NMFS would use total effort
estimates based on best available
scientific information to extrapolate
observer-collected data into overall
estimates of total finfish and
invertebrate bycatch. A pilot program
using ELBs started in 1999, with
increasing coverage each year. The units
have proved to be reliable and the data
retrieved have provided substantial new
information regarding the effort of the
fishery in which it was used.
Video monitoring hardware and
software could provide a cost-effective
and reliable system of monitoring
bycatch, release mortality, handling of
fishes, and other shipboard practices.
These systems have been shown to be
useful in monitoring bycatch in other
parts of the country. Pertinent data
collected by a video electronic
monitoring system would include
species caught, number of hooks,
location, depth, date, time, and
disposition of released organisms. These
data would provide information needed
to help rebuild and maintain sustainable
fisheries and determine what impact the
fishery has on the survival of species.
Data collected could be used to assess
the fish species composition associated
with the habitat affected by fishing gear,
allowing for a better understanding of
the ecosystem. Information would also
be collected on protected resources
encountered by fishing gear. The use of
technology to record species, capture
position, and disposition of released
fishes has the potential to augment the
collection of bycatch information and
lessen the need for observers. Video
technology could be used on vessels
that cannot take a human observer for
safety reasons or vessel limitations or
other reasons. Previous experience
indicates video monitoring is very
effective for monitoring catches from
longline gear due to the size and types
of species collected. It is also
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
substantially less expensive than
observer coverage for comparable data
collection.
These additional information sources
combined with existing requirements
would comprise part of the program to
monitor and assess bycatch in the South
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. NMFS
would also rely on state cooperation,
specifically funded projects, and the
Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics
Program’s Release, Discard and
Protected Species Module, as that
module is implemented.
Modification of the Sales Provisions
Current regulations allow the sale of
snapper-grouper taken from the South
Atlantic EEZ, up to the allowed bag
limit, to be sold to a licensed dealer if
the seller possesses a state-issued
license to sell fish, whether or not the
seller has a commercial vessel permit.
Fish harvested and marketed in this
manner, whether harvested by for-hire
vessels or private anglers, are counted
against the commercial quotas, resulting
in accelerated quota closures and
reducing the amount and value of
harvests allocated to the commercial
sector. Accelerated closures impose
additional economic losses through
market disruption and forced alteration
of fishing practices, including
transference of effort to other resources
that may be less valuable and/or more
expensive to catch. The effects of this
situation are exacerbated by the current
reduced commercial quotas. In addition,
such fish are also counted against the
recreational allocations, thus
complicating fishery assessments.
Accordingly, this rule would prohibit
the sale of South Atlantic snappergrouper harvested or possessed in the
EEZ and possessed under the bag limits.
This prohibition would apply not only
to a person fishing from a private
recreational vessel but also to a person
fishing from a vessel operating as a
charter vessel or headboat even if such
charter vessel/headboat has a
commercial vessel permit. In addition,
this rule would prohibit the sale of
snapper-grouper harvested or possessed
under the bag limits by a vessel for
which a Federal charter vessel/headboat
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, regardless of
where the snapper-grouper were
harvested, i.e., in state or Federal
waters.
Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish
Bycatch
NMFS concluded in a biological
opinion that reasonable and prudent
measures are necessary and appropriate
to minimize the impacts on incidentally
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
31227
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
caught threatened and endangered sea
turtles and smalltooth sawfish taken in
the South Atlantic snapper-grouper
fishery. Therefore, measures are needed
to comply with the biological opinion
and to enhance the protection of
threatened and endangered sea turtles
and smalltooth sawfish.
This proposed rule would require a
vessel for which a commercial or charter
vessel/headboat permit has been issued
for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and
has any hook-and-line gear on board to
possess a document provided by NMFS
titled, ‘‘Careful Release Protocols for Sea
Turtle Release With Minimal Injury;’’
post the sea turtle handling and release
guidelines provided by NMFS on the
vessel; and, as specified in § 622.10(c) of
this rule, have 12 types of sea turtle
bycatch mitigation gear on board and
follow specified release handling
measures for a sea turtle or smalltooth
sawfish that is caught incidentally.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Limited Access Permits for South
Atlantic Snapper-Grouper
Currently, a transferable commercial
vessel permit issued under the limited
access program may be transferred only
to an immediate family member of the
holder. An ‘‘immediate family member’’
is specified as a husband, wife, son,
daughter, brother, sister, mother, or
father. This restriction has made it
difficult for owners of individually
owned vessels to change to corporate
ownership and realize the associated
benefits. Accordingly, the Council
proposes and this rule would allow
transfer to a corporation, provided the
shareholders of the corporation are
limited to the original permit holder at
the time of the transfer and his or her
immediate family members. Subsequent
additional shareholders would be
limited to immediate family members.
These requirements would also apply to
renewal of permits.
Currently, a limited access permit
must be renewed not later than 60 days
after its expiration. The Council finds
that this limitation is overly
burdensome and has limited
management benefits. Accordingly this
rule would extend the permit renewal
period to one year.
Commercial/Recreational Allocations
for Snowy Grouper and Red Porgy
The FMP currently does not specify
commercial and recreational allocations
for snowy grouper or red porgy. While
commercial quotas are established for
these species, lack of recreational
allocations precludes specifications of
allowable recreational catch and
appropriate measures to prevent
overfishing by that sector. Accordingly,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
the Council proposes to establish such
commercial and recreational allocations.
For snowy grouper, the Council
proposes allocations of 95 percent for
commercial catch and 5 percent for
recreational catch, which are based on
the percentage of commercial and
recreational landings during 1986–2005.
Beginning in 2009, the commercial
quota would be 82,900 lb (37,603 kg),
gutted weight, and the recreational
allocation would be 523 fish, which is
the equivalent of 4,400 lb (1,996 kg),
gutted weight.
For red porgy, the Council proposes
allocations of 50 percent for commercial
catch and 50 percent for recreational
catch based on the percentage of
commercial and recreational landings
during 2001–2005. Beginning in 2009,
the commercial quota would be 190,050
lb (86,205 kg), gutted weight, and the
recreational allocation would be
190,050 lb (86,205 kg), gutted weight.
Accordingly, this rule would establish
the commercial quotas indicated above.
Approved recreational and commercial
allocations would be considered
legitimate measures of the FMP, but
would not appear in codified text.
Stock Status Determination Criteria for
Golden Tilefish
Section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act requires that the regional fishery
management councils: (1) assess the
condition of managed stocks, (2) specify
within their fishery management plans
objective and measurable criteria for
identifying when the stocks are
overfished and when overfishing is
occurring (referred to by NMFS as stock
status determination criteria), and (3)
amend their fishery management plans
to include measures to rebuild
overfished stocks and maintain them at
healthy levels capable of producing
maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
NMFS’ national standard guidelines
direct the councils to meet these
statutory requirements by incorporating
into each FMP estimates of certain
biomass-based stock status
determination criteria for each stock,
including a designation of the stock
biomass that will produce MSY. By
evaluating the current stock biomass
and fishing mortality rate in relation to
these criteria, fishery managers can
determine whether a fishery is
overfished or undergoing overfishing,
and whether current management
measures are sufficient to prevent
overfishing and achieve the optimum
yield (OY).
The required criteria include MSY,
OY, minimum stock size threshold
(MSST), and maximum fishing mortality
threshold (MFMT). MSST is the biomass
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
level below which a stock is considered
overfished. MFMT is the maximum
level of fishing mortality that a stock
can withstand while still producing
MSY on a continuing basis and above
which overfishing is considered to be
occurring.
In the past for snapper-grouper
species, the Council has specified either
numeric values, proxies, or nothing at
all for the criteria described above. A
recent stock assessment of golden
tilefish has provided numerical values
for MSY, OY, and MSST for that
species. (Currently, MFMT is defined as
the level of fishing mortality that will
produce MSY and would remain
unchanged.) The Council proposes the
following changes based on the golden
tilefish assessment:
Current Value
Proposed
Value
MSY
Not specified
336,425 lb
(152.60 mt),
whole
weight
OY
Not specified
326,554 lb
(148.12 mt),
whole
weight
MSST
1,783,650 lb
(809.05 mt),
whole weight
1,454,063 lb
(659.55 mt),
whole
weight
Approved stock status criteria, as with
the proposed recreational allocations for
snowy grouper and red porgy, would be
considered legitimate measures of the
FMP, but would not appear in codified
text.
Availability of Amendment 15B
Additional background and rationale
for the measures discussed above are
contained in Amendment 15B. The
availability of Amendment 15B was
announced in the Federal Register on
June 4, 2009, (74 FR 26827). Written
comments on Amendment 15B must be
received by August 3, 2009. All
comments received on Amendment 15B
or on this proposed rule during their
respective comment periods will be
addressed in the preamble to the final
rule.
Additional Measures Proposed by
NMFS
As general housekeeping changes,
NMFS proposes to--(1) remove the
outdated 2006 and 2007 commercial
quotas and commercial trip limits for
snowy grouper at § 622.42(e)(1) and
§ 622.44(c)(3), respectively; and (2)
rearrange and consolidate the
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
31228
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
restrictions on sale/purchase of South
Atlantic snapper-grouper at § 622.45(d).
In addition, NMFS proposes to revise
§ 622.10(b)(1) to add two devices to the
list of required sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear for commercial and
charter vessel/headboats in the Gulf reef
fish fishery that were inadvertently
omitted in the final rule published
August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45428). For
vessels with a freeboard height of 4 ft
(1.2 m) or less, a tire is added to the list.
For vessels with a freeboard height of
greater than 4 ft (1.2 m), a tire and a
long-handled device to pull an
‘‘inverted V’’ in the fishing line are
added to the list.
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 15B, other provisions
of 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 15B; a notice of availability
was published on June 4, 2009, (74 FR
26827).
An IRFA was prepared, as required by
section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA
describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have
on small entities. A description of the
action, why it is being considered, and
the legal basis for this action are
contained at the beginning of this
section in the preamble and in the
SUMMARY section of the preamble. A
summary of the analysis follows. A copy
of this analysis is available from the
Council (see ADDRESSES).
The purpose of this rule is to specify
quotas for snowy grouper and red porgy;
modify the sales provisions of snappergrouper caught or possessed under the
bag limit; implement a plan to monitor
and assess bycatch; implement
measures to minimize the impacts of
incidental sea turtle and smalltooth
sawfish take; and ease the requirements
of snapper-grouper permit renewal and
transfer. These measures are expected to
provide additional information for, and
otherwise improve the effective
management of, the South Atlantic
snapper-grouper fishery, and minimize
the impacts on incidentally caught
threatened and endangered sea turtles
and smalltooth sawfish. The MagnusonStevens Act provides the statutory basis
for the proposed rule. In addition to
these actions, Amendment 15B
established allocation ratios for snowy
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
grouper and red porgy, and management
reference points and stock status criteria
for golden tilefish.
No duplicative, overlapping, or
conflicting Federal rules have been
identified.
This proposed action is expected to
directly impact commercial fishers and
for-hire operators. The SBA has
established size criteria for all major
industry sectors in the U.S. including
fish harvesters and for-hire operations.
A business involved in fish harvesting
is classified as a small business if it is
independently owned and operated, is
not dominant in its field of operation
(including its affiliates), and has
combined annual receipts not in excess
of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111,
finfish fishing) for all its affiliated
operations worldwide. For for-hire
vessels, the other qualifiers apply and
the annual receipts threshold is $6.5
million (NAICS code 713990,
recreational industries).
From 2001–2005, an average of 1,127
vessels per year were permitted to
operate in the commercial snappergrouper fishery. However, over the
2004–2006 fishing years, an average of
717 vessels per year that were permitted
to operate in the commercial snappergrouper fishery recorded snappergrouper sales. The average annual
dockside value of snapper-grouper sold
by these vessels was approximately
$12.96 million (nominal dollars), while
the value of all other species sold by
these vessels was approximately $14.33
million (nominal dollars), or total
average annual revenues of
approximately $27.29 million. The
average annual dockside revenue per
vessel from sales of all marine species
for this period was approximately
$38,000.
In 2005, 1,328 vessels were permitted
to operate in the Federal snappergrouper for-hire fishery, of which 82 are
estimated to have operated as
headboats, and 1246 are charter vessels.
Within these 1,328 vessels, 201 vessels
also possessed a commercial snappergrouper permit and would be included
in the summary information provided
on the commercial sector. The charter
vessels charge a fee on a vessel basis,
and headboats charge a fee on an
individual angler (head) basis. The
charter vessel annual average gross
revenue is estimated to range from
approximately $62,000-$84,000 (2005
dollars) for Florida vessels, $73,000$89,000 for North Carolina vessels,
$68,000-$83,000 for Georgia vessels, and
$32,000-$39,000 for South Carolina
vessels. For headboats, the appropriate
estimates are $170,000-$362,000 for
Florida vessels, and $149,000-$317,000
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
for vessels in the other states. From
2004–2006, an average of 159 vessels
per year with the for-hire snappergrouper permit had recorded sales of
snapper-grouper species. The total
average annual revenues from snappergrouper species were approximately
$316,000 (nominal dollars), while
average annual revenues for all other
species was approximately $1.52
million (nominal dollars), for total
average annual revenues from fish sales
of approximately $1.84 million. The
average annual revenue per for-hire
vessel from fish sales of all marine
species for this period was
approximately $11,600. It should be
noted that these revenues are not
included in the average gross for-hire
revenues listed above, which only
reflect revenues from charter fees.
The proposed prohibition of bag-limit
sales would affect vessels that have
historically sold snapper-grouper but do
not possess or fish under a Federal
commercial snapper-grouper permit.
From 2004–2006, an average of 1,439
fishing vessels per year that could not
be associated with either a Federal
commercial or Federal for-hire snappergrouper permit had recorded snappergrouper sales. Total average annual
revenues from snapper-grouper species
for these vessels were approximately
$2.09 million (nominal dollars), while
average revenues from all other species
were approximately $28.59 million
(nominal dollars), for total average
annual revenues of approximately
$30.67 million. The average annual
revenue per vessel from sales of all
marine species for this period was
approximately $21,000.
Some fleet activity may exist in both
the commercial and for-hire snappergrouper sectors, but the extent of such
is unknown, and all vessels are treated
as independent entities in this analysis.
Based on the average revenue figures
described above, it is determined, for
the purpose of this assessment, that all
fishing operations that would be
affected by this action are small entities.
This action does not explicitly impose
any new reporting, record-keeping or
other compliance requirements because
the action simply specifies the types of
requirements that could be imposed to
improve bycatch monitoring and
assessment and any individual vessel
would only be subject to any new
requirements if selected. However, the
proposed bycatch and monitoring
assessment action could result in a
requirement for the use of paper
logbooks, electronic logbooks, or video
cameras, or the carrying of observers to
aid in the monitoring of bycatch. All
commercial snapper-grouper trips are
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
currently required to complete logbook
records, with each report estimated to
take 10 minutes to complete. Over the
years 2001–2005, commercial vessels
operating in the snapper-grouper fishery
took almost 16,000 trips, or
approximately 14 trips per vessel.
Assuming modification to the current
logbook to include bycatch increased
the time required to complete the form
by 25 percent, then the additional
annual time burden to complete the
form fishery-wide would be
approximately 667 hours or 0.6 hours
per vessel.
The headboat sector is also currently
required to complete logbook reports for
all trips, estimated to take 18 minutes
per report. Assuming an average of 322
trips per vessel (note that many vessels
take multiple trips per day, so the
average number of trips does not equal
days fished), 82 headboats, and a 25–
percent increase in the amount of time
required to complete the form to
account for bycatch, the resultant
increased annual time burden to the
industry would be approximately 1,980
hours, or 24 hours per vessel.
Although charter vessels currently are
required to complete logbooks if
selected, no vessels in the charter-vessel
sector are currently selected and
required to submit logbooks. Assuming
it took a charter vessel the same amount
of time required for a commercial vessel
to complete a bycatch-augmented
logbook, 12.5 minutes, 1,246 charter
vessels and 146 trips per charter vessels
per year, if all vessels were required to
complete logbooks, the total annual time
burden to the industry would be
approximately 37,900 hours or 30.4
hours per vessel.
There would be no anticipated costs
of logbook reporting beyond the
opportunity cost of completing the
logbook forms. Current logbook
programs provide fishermen with
addressed, pre-paid envelopes for
returning completed forms. Completing
the logbooks would not be expected to
require special skills.
Similar burden estimates are not
available for the use of electronic
logbooks. Electronic logbooks would be
expected to take less time to complete
because certain response variables could
be preprogrammed and transmission
would be simplified. Logbooks are
estimated to cost $500 per unit, but
responsibility for this expense is
undetermined at this time. Considering
the widespread familiarity with and
usage of computers throughout today’s
society, special skills to use an
electronic logbook would not be
expected, though some initial training
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
or demonstration and a short learning
curve would be logical.
The use of video cameras to monitor
and record bycatch is likely a method
that would, if used, be imposed on only
a small portion of participants in the
snapper-grouper fishery due to its cost
and complexity. Purchase, installation,
and maintenance costs of video systems
would likely be borne by the
government, though some cost-sharing
with fishermen may occur. Additional
details are unavailable at this time, so
concrete determinations on fishermen
burden or skill requirements cannot be
made.
The proposed rule would be expected
to directly affect all vessels that operate
in the commercial snapper-grouper
fishery, all vessels that have a Federal
snapper-grouper for-hire permit, and all
vessels that harvest snapper-grouper
from the EEZ and sell their catch to
federally permitted dealers. All affected
entities have been determined, for the
purpose of this analysis, to be small
entities. Therefore, it is determined that
the proposed action would affect a
substantial number of small entities.
Since all entities that would be expected
to be affected by the proposed rule are
considered small entities, no
disproportionate effects on small
entities relative to large entities would
be expected.
Only four of the proposed actions, the
two proposed changes in quota, the
proposed prohibition on bag-limit sales,
and the proposed gear requirements to
minimize the incidental take of sea
turtles and smalltooth sawfish, are
expected to have direct economic
impacts on fishing entities. The
proposed snowy grouper quota of
82,900 lb (37,603 kg) gutted weight
would result in a loss of 1,100 lb (499
kg) of snowy grouper to the commercial
sector. Assuming an average ex-vessel
price of $2.31 per pound (2006 dollars),
this reduction would be valued at
approximately $2,500, or a loss of
approximately $13 per vessel active in
the fishery (190 vessels; 2001–2005
average number of commercial vessels
per year with snowy grouper landings).
The proposed red porgy quota of
190,050 lbs (86,205 kg) gutted weight
would result in a gain of 63,050 lb
(28,599 kg) gutted weight of red porgy
to the commercial sector. This gain is
comprised of approximately 59,000 lbs
(26,762 kg) gutted weight resulting from
the increase in red porgy TAC as a result
of the rebuilding strategy implemented
through Amendment 15A and the
remaining increase resulting from a one
percent increase in the commercial
allocation established by Amendment
15B. Assuming an average ex-vessel
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31229
price of $1.40 per pound (2006 dollars),
the total gain in commercial quota
would be valued at approximately
$88,300, or a gain of approximately
$493 per vessel active in the fishery
(179 vessels; 2001–2005 average number
of commercial vessels per year with red
porgy landings).
Assuming the implementation of
compatible regulations in all states, thus
encompassing snapper-grouper
harvested in both state and Federal
waters as well as marketed through all
state and federally permitted dealers,
the proposed elimination of bag-limit
sales is projected to result in the transfer
of approximately $2.4 million in
nominal ex-vessel revenues (2004–2006
average) from for-hire and commercial
fishing vessels that do not have a
Federal commercial snapper-grouper
permit to the federally permitted
commercial snapper-grouper sector.
This would constitute a total reduction
of approximately $316,000 per year for
fish sales by vessels in the federally
permitted for-hire fishery, or a 17–
percent reduction in average annual
gross revenues from fish sales per
vessel, and approximately $2.085
million per year in sales for commercial
vessels that do not posses a Federal
commercial snapper-grouper permit, or
a 7–percent reduction in average annual
gross revenues per vessel. It should be
noted that snapper-grouper fish sales by
federally permitted for-hire vessels,
estimated at approximately $2,000 per
vessel on average, constitute a minor
portion of total average annual
revenues, with the majority of revenues
coming from charter fees. As discussed
above, South Atlantic charter vessels are
estimated to have average gross annual
revenues of approximately $32,000$89,000, across all states, while
headboat average annual revenues are
estimated to range from $149,000$362,000.
If compatible regulations are not
adopted in any state, the estimated
reduction in bag-limit sales revenues
would be limited to those harvests that
originate from the EEZ by all vessels,
bag limit harvests from state waters by
vessels with the Federal charter vessel/
headboat permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper, and harvests that are
marketed through dealers with a Federal
permit. This would lower the reduction
in bag-limit sales to approximately
$1.562-$1.799 million, accounting for
the estimated portion of bag-limit sales
that originate in state waters
(approximately 9 percent) and the
estimated portion of bag-limit sales that
are marketed through dealers without
Federal licenses (approximately 21–35
percent). For the Federal for-hire sector,
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31230
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
using the average EEZ bag-limit sales
(approximately $267,000) and dealer
proportions (approximately 11 percent
state dealer sales if the North Carolina
and South Carolina proportion is
applied throughout and 34 percent
otherwise), the reduction in bag limit
sales would be approximately $175,000$238,000. For the non-Federal sector,
using the average EEZ bag-limit sales
(approximately $1.921 million) and
dealer proportions (approximately 23
percent state dealer sales if the North
Carolina and South Carolina proportion
is applied throughout and 35 percent
otherwise), the reduction would be
approximately $1.246 million to $1.483
million. These values equate to
approximately a 10–13 percent
reduction in average annual for-hire
fish-sales revenues ($175,000-$238,000/
159 vessels/$11,568 total average annual
revenues) and approximately a 4–5
percent reduction in average annual
revenues to non-federally permitted
vessels ($1.246-$1.483 million/1,439
vessels/$21,317 total average revenues).
The transference of these revenues to
the Federal commercial snapper-grouper
sector would result in an estimated
increase of approximately 9 percent in
nominal ex-vessel revenues per year
($2.4 million/717 vessels/$38,000
average annual revenues) if compatible
regulations are adopted by all states,
and from 5 percent to 6 percent if no
states adopt compatible regulations
($1.422-$1.729 million/717 vessels/
$38,000 average annual revenues).
The proposed gear requirements to
minimize the incidental take impact on
sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish are
estimated to increase vessel gear costs
by $617-$1,115, based on low and high
estimated costs, respectively, for each of
the 12 different pieces of required gear
and assuming the vessel does not
already possess any of the required gear.
Few actual vessels would be expected to
have to incur the maximum cost,
however, since most vessels are
expected to already possess and use
most of this gear or allowable
substitutes. For-hire vessels that
exclusively harvest fish through
snorkeling or diving activities and do
not possess hook-and-line gear on-board
would not have to carry the required
gear. For those vessels that needed to
carry the gear, any costs would be onetime expenditures, subject to breakage
or loss replacement.
Three alternatives, including the
status quo, were considered for the
action to address the sale of snappergrouper harvested under the bag limit.
The proposed rule would prohibit the
purchase and sale of bag-limit fish
harvested from or possessed in the EEZ
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
by vessels that did not possess the
Federal commercial snapper-grouper
permit, and bag-limit fish harvested in
either state or EEZ waters by vessels that
possess the Federal charter vessel/
headboat permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper. The first alternative,
the status quo, would continue to allow
the sale of snapper-grouper harvested
under the bag limit, continue to allow
the Federal commercial snapper-grouper
quota to be harvested and sold by
vessels that did not possess the Federal
commercial snapper-grouper permit,
continue increased commercial quota
pressure and accelerated quota closures,
result in continued adverse economic
effects on the Federal commercial
snapper-grouper sector, and not achieve
the Council’s objectives.
The second alternative to the
proposed prohibition of sales of
snapper-grouper harvested under the
bag limit would allow continued sales
by vessels with a Federal for-hire
snapper-grouper permit. While this
would reduce the adverse economic
effects on the Federal commercial
snapper-grouper sector associated with
the status quo, these effects would not
be eliminated, thereby generating less
net economic benefits for this sector and
associated businesses than the proposed
action.
Four alternatives, including the status
quo, were considered for the action to
establish a program to monitor and
assess bycatch. The proposed rule
would require the use of a variety of
bycatch monitoring methods, which
include observers and use of an ELB or
video monitoring program, until the
Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics
Program (ACCSP) bycatch monitoring
program can be implemented. The first
alternative to the proposed program, the
status quo, would only utilize existing
information, would not improve current
capabilities to monitor and assess
bycatch, and would not achieve the
Council’s objectives. The second
alternative to the proposed bycatch
monitoring and assessment program
would require the implementation of
the ACCSP bycatch monitoring program.
The ACCSP is a cooperative statefederal program whose mission is to
design, implement, and conduct marine
fisheries statistics data collection
programs and to integrate those data
into a single data management system
that will meet the needs of fishery
managers, scientists, and fishermen. The
ACCSP design includes data modules
for catch and effort data, permit and
vessel registration, biological data,
bycatch data, quota monitoring data,
economic data, and sociological data.
These modules are being implemented
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on a priority basis consistent with
available funding. At this time, funding
is not available for implementation of
the bycatch data module. While this
program would generate the best data in
the shortest period of time, with
accompanying social and economic
benefits, the program lacks the
flexibility of allowing interim methods
until such time as the preferred methods
can be funded and adopted. As a result,
this alternative would not meet the
Council’s objectives. The overall cost to
implement the ACCSP bycatch
monitoring program has not been
identified.
The third alternative to the proposed
bycatch monitoring and assessment
program would implement a program
that is less comprehensive than the
proposed program. This program would
require a variety of reporting and
monitoring tools, including observers,
logbooks, and video monitoring, among
other methods, but would be less
structured and systematic than the
ACCSP program or the proposed
program. The cost of this program is
unknown. As a result of being less
structured and systematic, however, this
program would be expected to be less
costly than the proposed program, but
would also be expected to result in
poorer data and generate fewer longterm benefits than the proposed
program.
Three alternatives, including the
status quo, were considered for the
action to establish sea turtle and
smalltooth sawfish take impact
minimization measures. The proposed
rule would require a number of impact
minimization measures, including the
carrying of release equipment. The first
alternative to the proposed equipment
requirements, the status quo, would not
achieve the desired take-impact
minimization and would not meet the
Council’s objectives.
The second alternative to the
proposed equipment requirements
would require the acquisition of less
costly equipment (vessels with less than
four feet of freeboard would be required
to carry less release gear and vessels
with more than four feet of freeboard
would have more gear substitution
options). However, these requirements
would not be expected to result in the
same reduction in bycatch impact
minimization for these species and, as a
result, would not be expected to result
in as much protection for the species
and net economic and social benefits for
society.
Three alternatives, including the
status quo, were considered for the
action to establish the permit renewal
period. The proposed rule would allow
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
1 year after permit expiration for permit
renewal. The first alternative to the
proposed renewal period, the status
quo, would retain the current 60-day
renewal requirement and would not
achieve the Council’s objective of
increasing permit renewal flexibility.
The second alternative to the
proposed renewal period would allow 6
months after permit expiration for
permit renewal. While this would add
greater flexibility for permit renewal
relative to the status quo, thereby
reducing the likelihood of unintended
permit loss and associated economic
losses, this alternative would not be
consistent with the permit renewal
period of most other permits and would
not be as flexible as the proposed action.
Having common renewal periods makes
it possible to renew all permits at the
same time, decreases the burden
associated with permit renewal, and
decreases the possibility of unintended
permit loss due to non-renewal.
Seven alternatives, including the
status quo, were considered for the
action to establish options for transfer
provisions for permits owned by
corporations comprised of family
members. The proposed rule would
allow the transfer of the permit to a
corporation comprised solely of
immediate family members. Five of the
alternatives are variations of the
proposed action and vary by differences
in required action if the proposed
requirement for the submission of the
annual corporate report includes
shareholders not listed on the original
permit application. The first alternative
to the proposed transferability option,
the status quo, would continue to
require a two-for-one permit exchange
in order for a permit holder to
incorporate their business operation and
change the ownership of the permit to
the corporation. Current permit holders
would be prevented from receiving the
tax and other financial benefits of
incorporation without incurring the
added expense of purchasing a second
snapper-grouper permit. Because this
restriction was outside the scope of the
Council’s original intent for the two-forone permit transfer requirement,
maintaining the status quo would not
achieve the Council’s objectives.
The second alternative to the
proposed permit transferability option
would treat the addition of family
members as corporate shareholders the
same as non-family members. Thus,
once a permit is transferred to a
corporation, renewal of the permit
would not be restricted by change in
shareholders. This alternative would
allow the most liberal transfer flexibility
but would not preserve the Council’s
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
intent to promote family-owned fishing
businesses.
The third alternative to the proposed
permit transferability option would not
allow a permit to be renewed and
transferred if the annual corporate
report showed a shareholder not listed
on the original corporate
documentation. This alternative would
be the most restrictive of the sub-set of
alternatives that allow family
incorporation. Because this alternative
would eliminate the flexibility to
change corporate shareholders even
among family members, this alternative
would result in less economic benefits
than the proposed action.
The fourth alternative to the proposed
permit transferability option would
require a two-for-one transfer if the
annual corporate report showed a
shareholder not listed on the original
corporate documentation. This
requirement would increase the cost of
transfer because of the cost of a second
permit, estimated to cost between
$9,000 and $21,000, and generate less
net economic benefits than the proposed
action.
The fifth alternative to the proposed
permit transferability option would
require either a two-for-one transfer or
a transfer back to person who is an
immediate family member of the permit
holder who originally transferred the
permit to the family corporation if the
annual corporate report showed a
shareholder not listed on the original
corporate documentation. This
requirement would either increase the
cost of transfer or eliminate the tax and
financial benefits of incorporation and,
thus, generate less net economic
benefits than the proposed action.
The sixth alternative to the proposed
permit transferability option would
eliminate the two-for-one permit
transfer requirement. Permit holders
would be able to transfer their permit to
corporations, family owned or
otherwise, and freely change
shareholders without incurring the cost
of obtaining an additional permit. While
this would create the most flexible
transfer conditions, it would eliminate
the ability to reduce the size of the
commercial snapper-grouper fleet
through permit renewal requirements.
While the optimal fleet size to maximize
social and economic benefits to the
nation has not been identified, the
fishery is believed by the Council to still
be overcapitalized and further
contraction is necessary. Thus, this
alternative would generate less net
economic benefits than the proposed
action.
In addition to the actions discussed
above, Amendment 15B considered
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31231
alternatives to establish allocation ratios
for snowy grouper and red porgy, and
management reference points and stock
status criteria for golden tilefish. These
alternatives are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Four alternatives, including the status
quo, were considered for the action to
set the snowy grouper allocation, which
was necessary to establish the
commercial quota and recreational
allocation. The proposed action would
set the allocation to the recreational
sector equal to 5 percent, resulting in a
commercial allocation of 95 percent and
a recreational allocation of 5 percent.
The first alternative to the proposed
action, the status quo, would not
establish commercial and recreational
allocations. Because allocations are
necessary to quantify the commercial
quota, this alternative would not
achieve the Council’s objective.
The second alternative to the
proposed snowy grouper allocation
would set the recreational allocation to
7 percent, while the third alternative
would set the recreational allocation to
12 percent. Both alternatives would be
expected to increase the economic
benefits to the recreational sector while
reducing the economic benefits to the
commercial sector. Net economic
benefits to the nation cannot be
determined with available data. These
alternatives were not selected as the
proposed snowy grouper allocation
because they were derived from shorter
time periods than the proposed action,
1992–2005 and just 2005, respectively,
compared to 1986–2005 for the
proposed action, resulting in excessive
influence of unrealistic spikes in
recreational landings.
Four alternatives, including the status
quo, were considered for the action to
set the red porgy allocation. The
proposed action would set both the
commercial and recreational allocations
equal at 50 percent. The status quo
would not establish commercial and
recreational allocations. Because
allocations are necessary to quantify the
commercial quota, this alternative
would not achieve the Council’s
objective.
The second alternative to the
proposed red porgy allocation would set
the recreational sector allocation to 32
percent, while the third alternative
would set the recreational allocation to
56 percent. Each sector would be
expected to receive increased or
decreased economic benefits relative to
the status quo as their allocation
increased or decreased. Net benefits to
the nation under any alternative cannot
be quantified with available data.
Neither of these alternatives were
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31232
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
selected as the preferred action since
each would involve substantial changes
from what the Council believes, based
on advisory panel comment, is the most
equitable allocation which is the
average sector harvest from 1999–2003,
or 49 percent commercial and 51
percent recreational. The proposed
action varies from this allocation by
only one percentage point, allocating 50
percent of the TAC to each sector. While
not precisely matching the average
1999–2003 harvest, the Council believes
that the proposed allocation equitably
accounts for the increased value of red
porgy to the recreational sector while
reversing declines in commercial
harvests due to previous regulatory
action.
Two alternatives, including the status
quo, were considered for the action to
specify MSY for golden tilefish. The
proposed MSY is approximately
336,000 lb (152,407 kg) whole weight.
The first alternative to the proposed
MSY, the status quo, is likely an
overestimate since the associated yield
is approximately 736,000 lb (333,844 kg)
whole weight and a harvest level this
high has not been recorded since 1995,
suggesting that the MSY is
inappropriate for this resource.
Allowing harvest at this level may lead
to excessive exploitation, precipitating
the imposition of restrictive
management measures and reductions
in economic and social benefits relative
to the proposed action.
Four alternatives, including the status
quo, were considered for the action to
specify OY for golden tilefish. The
proposed OY is estimated at
approximately 327,000 lb (148,325 kg)
whole weight. Similar to the status quo
MSY, the first alternative to the
proposed OY, the status quo, is likely an
overestimate and inappropriate for this
resource since it is estimated at
approximately 364,000 lb (165,108 kg)
whole weight, which is greater than the
proposed MSY. The second and third
alternatives would establish OYs of
approximately 315,000 lb (142,882 kg)
whole weight and approximately
333,000 lb (151,046 kg) whole weight,
respectively and are, respectively, more
and less conservative than the proposed
action. The second alternative to the
proposed OY is believed to be more
conservative than necessary to protect
the resource and would be expected to
result in greater foregone economic
benefits than the proposed action.
Conversely, the third alternative to the
proposed OY is believed to be
insufficiently conservative to protect the
resource. The proposed OY is believed
to be the appropriate choice to minimize
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
foregone economic benefits while
protecting the resource.
Three alternatives, including the
status quo, were considered for the
action to specify the MSST for golden
tilefish. The proposed MSST would
establish a value of approximately 1.454
million lb (0.660 million kg) whole
weight. The first alternative to the
proposed MSST, the status quo, would
establish an MSST of approximately
1.784 million lb (0.809 million kg)
whole weight, would require the largest
minimum stock size, and would
increase the likelihood that the resource
be declared overfished, necessitating
harvest reductions and imposing short
term adverse economic impacts. The
second alternative to the proposed
MSST would require the smallest
minimum stock size of approximately
969,000 lb (439,531 kg) whole weight.
While this specification would
minimize, among the three alternatives,
the likelihood of the stock being
declared overfished, this stock level is
believed to be insufficiently
conservative to provide adequate
protection to the resource. The proposed
MSST specifies a minimum stock size
intermediate to the other alternatives
and is believed to be the appropriate
choice to minimize the likelihood of
triggering restrictive management while
protecting the resource.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with, a
collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), unless that
collection of information displays a
currently valid Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) control number.
This proposed rule contains
collection-of-information requirements
subject to the PRA applicable to vessels
in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper
fishery--namely, requirements for: (1)
submission of logbooks by private
recreational vessels; (2) notification of
vessel trips related to vessel observers;
(3) preparation of vessel and gear
characterization forms for vessels
selected to participate in the ELB and
video monitoring program; (4)
installation of ELBs and data
downloads; (5) installation of video
monitors and data downloads; and (6)
change of ownership of a vessel with a
transferable commercial vessel permit.
These requirements have been
submitted to OMB for approval. The
public reporting burdens for these
collections of information are estimated
to average--(1) 10 minutes for each
logbook submission, (2) 4 minutes for
each notification of a vessel trip, (3) 20
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minutes for each vessel and gear
characterization form, (4) 31 minutes for
each ELB installation and data
download, (5) 8 hours for each video
monitor installation and data download,
and (6) 20 minutes for each change of
ownership. These estimates of the
public reporting burdens include the
time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing
the collections of information. Public
comment is sought regarding: whether
these proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
the accuracy of the burden estimates;
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collections of information,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Send comments
regarding the burden estimates or any
other aspect of the collection-ofinformation requirements, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: June 24, 2009.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, 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
‘‘Smalltooth sawfish’’ is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 622.2
Definitions and acronyms.
*
*
*
*
*
Smalltooth sawfish means the species
Pristis pectinata, or a part thereof.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 622.5, paragraphs (a)(1)(iv),
(b)(1), and (b)(2) are revised and
paragraph (g) is added to read as
follows:
§ 622.5
*
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
*
Recordkeeping and reporting.
*
30JNP1
*
*
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) South Atlantic snapper-grouper—
(A) General reporting requirements. The
owner or operator of a vessel for which
a commercial permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper has been issued, as
required under § 622.4(a)(2)(vi), or
whose vessel fishes for or lands South
Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from
state waters adjoining the South
Atlantic EEZ, who is selected to report
by the SRD must maintain a fishing
record on a form available from the SRD
and must submit such record as
specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(B) Electronic logbook/video
monitoring reporting. The owner or
operator of a vessel for which a
commercial permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper has been issued, as
required under § 622.4(a)(2)(vi), who is
selected to report by the SRD must
participate in the NMFS-sponsored
electronic logbook and/or video
monitoring reporting program as
directed by the SRD. Compliance with
the reporting requirements of this
paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B) is required for
permit renewal.
(C) Wreckfish reporting. The
wreckfish shareholder under § 622.15,
or operator of a vessel for which a
commercial permit for wreckfish has
been issued, as required under
§ 622.4(a)(2)(vii), must-(1) Maintain a fishing record on a
form available from the SRD and must
submit such record as specified in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) Make available to an authorized
officer upon request all records of
offloadings, purchases, or sales of
wreckfish.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Coastal migratory pelagic fish, reef
fish, snapper-grouper, and Atlantic
dolphin and wahoo—(i) General
reporting requirement. The owner or
operator of a vessel for which a charter
vessel/headboat permit for Gulf coastal
migratory pelagic fish, South Atlantic
coastal migratory pelagic fish, Gulf reef
fish, South Atlantic snapper-grouper, or
Atlantic dolphin and wahoo has been
issued, as required under § 622.4(a)(1),
or whose vessel fishes for or lands such
coastal migratory pelagic fish, reef fish,
snapper-grouper, or Atlantic dolphin or
wahoo in or from state waters adjoining
the applicable Gulf, South Atlantic, or
Atlantic EEZ, who is selected to report
by the SRD must maintain a fishing
record for each trip, or a portion of such
trips as specified by the SRD, on forms
provided by the SRD and must submit
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
such record as specified in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(ii) Electronic logbook/video
monitoring reporting. The owner or
operator of a vessel for which a charter
vessel/headboat permit for South
Atlantic snapper-grouper has been
issued, as required under § 622.4(a)(1),
who is selected to report by the SRD
must participate in the NMFSsponsored electronic logbook and/or
video monitoring reporting program as
directed by the SRD. Compliance with
the reporting requirements of this
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is required for
permit renewal.
(2) Reporting deadlines—(i) Charter
vessels. Completed fishing records
required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section for charter vessels must be
submitted to the SRD weekly,
postmarked not later than 7 days after
the end of each week (Sunday).
Information to be reported is indicated
on the form and its accompanying
instructions.
(ii) Headboats. Completed fishing
records required by paragraph (b)(1)(i)
of this section for headboats must be
submitted to the SRD monthly and must
either be made available to an
authorized statistical reporting agent or
be postmarked not later than 7 days
after the end of each month. Information
to be reported is indicated on the form
and its accompanying instructions.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Private recreational vessels in the
South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery.
The owner or operator of a vessel that
fishes for or lands South Atlantic
snapper-grouper in or from the South
Atlantic EEZ who is selected to report
by the SRD must—
(1) Maintain a fishing record for each
trip, or a portion of such trips as
specified by the SRD, on forms provided
by the SRD. Completed fishing records
must be submitted to the SRD monthly
and must either be made available to an
authorized statistical reporting agent or
be postmarked not later than 7 days
after the end of each month. Information
to be reported is indicated on the form
and its accompanying instructions.
(2) Participate in the NMFS-sponsored
electronic logbook and/or video
monitoring reporting program as
directed by the SRD.
4. In § 622.7, paragraph (d) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 622.7
Prohibitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Falsify or fail to maintain, submit,
or provide information or fail to comply
with inspection requirements or
restrictions, as specified in § 622.5.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31233
5. In § 622.8, paragraph (a)(6) is added
to read as follows:
§ 622.8
At-sea observer coverage.
(a) * * *
(6) South Atlantic snapper-grouper. (i)
A vessel for which a Federal
commercial vessel permit for South
Atlantic snapper-grouper or a charter
vessel/headboat permit for South
Atlantic snapper-grouper has been
issued must carry a NMFS-approved
observer, if the vessel’s trip is selected
by the SRD for observer coverage. Vessel
permit renewal is contingent upon
compliance with this paragraph (a)(6)(i).
(ii) Any other vessel that fishes for
South Atlantic snapper-grouper in the
South Atlantic EEZ must carry a NMFSapproved observer, if the vessel’s trip is
selected by the SRD for observer
coverage.
*
*
*
*
*
6. In § 622.10, paragraph (b)(1) is
revised and paragraph (c) is added to
read as follows:
§ 622.10 Conservation measures for
protected resources.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Sea turtle conservation measures.
(i) The owner or operator of a vessel for
which a commercial vessel permit for
Gulf reef fish or a charter vessel/
headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has
been issued, as required under
§§ 622.4(a)(2)(v) and 622.4(a)(1)(i),
respectively, must post inside the
wheelhouse, or within a waterproof case
if no wheelhouse, a copy of the
document provided by NMFS titled,
‘‘Careful Release Protocols for Sea
Turtle Release With Minimal Injury,’’
and must post inside the wheelhouse, or
in an easily viewable area if no
wheelhouse, the sea turtle handling and
release guidelines provided by NMFS.
(ii) Such owner or operator must also
comply with the sea turtle bycatch
mitigation measures, including gear
requirements and sea turtle handling
requirements, specified in
§§ 635.21(c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this chapter,
respectively.
(iii) Those permitted vessels with a
freeboard height of 4 ft (1.2 m) or less
must have on board a dipnet, tire, shorthandled dehooker, long-nose or needlenose pliers, bolt cutters, monofilament
line cutters, and at least two types of
mouth openers/mouth gags. This
equipment must meet the specifications
described in §§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(E)
through (L) of this chapter with the
following modifications: the dipnet
handle can be of variable length, only
one NMFS-approved short-handled
dehooker is required (i.e.,
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31234
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G) or (H) of this
chapter); and life rings, seat cushions,
life jackets, and life vests or any other
comparable, cushioned, elevated surface
that allows boated sea turtles to be
immobilized, may be used as
alternatives to tires for cushioned
surfaces as specified in
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) of this chapter. Those
permitted vessels with a freeboard
height of greater than 4 ft (1.2 m) must
have on board a dipnet, tire, longhandled line clipper, a short-handled
and a long-handled dehooker, a longhandled device to pull an inverted ‘‘V’’,
long-nose or needle-nose pliers, bolt
cutters, monofilament line cutters, and
at least two types of mouth openers/
mouth gags. This equipment must meet
the specifications described in
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(A) through (L) of this
chapter with the following
modifications: only one NMFSapproved long-handled dehooker
(§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(B) or (C)) of this
chapter and one NMFS-approved shorthandled dehooker (§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G)
or (H) of this chapter) are required; and
life rings, seat cushions, life jackets, and
life vests, or any other comparable,
cushioned, elevated surface that allows
boated sea turtles to be immobilized,
may be used as alternatives for
cushioned surfaces as specified in
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) South Atlantic snapper-grouper
commercial vessels and charter vessels/
headboats—(1) Sea turtle conservation
measures. (i) The owner or operator of
a vessel for which a commercial vessel
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper or a charter vessel/headboat
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, as required
under §§ 622.4(a)(2)(vi) and
622.4(a)(1)(i), respectively, and whose
vessel has on board any hook-and-line
gear, must post inside the wheelhouse,
or within a waterproof case if no
wheelhouse, a copy of the document
provided by NMFS titled, ‘‘Careful
Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release
With Minimal Injury,’’ and must post
inside the wheelhouse, or in an easily
viewable area if no wheelhouse, the sea
turtle handling and release guidelines
provided by NMFS.
(ii) Such owner or operator must also
comply with the sea turtle bycatch
mitigation measures, including gear
requirements and sea turtle handling
requirements, specified in
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this chapter,
respectively.
(iii) The required gear must meet the
specifications described in
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(A) through (L) of this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
chapter with the following
modifications: only one NMFSapproved long-handled dehooker
(§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(B) or (C) of this
chapter) and one NMFS-approved shorthandled dehooker (§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G)
or (H) of this chapter) are required; and
life rings, seat cushions, life jackets, life
vests, or any other comparable,
cushioned, elevated surface that allows
boated sea turtles to be immobilized,
may be used as alternatives to tires for
cushioned surfaces as specified in
§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) of this chapter.
(2) Smalltooth sawfish conservation
measures. The owner or operator of a
vessel for which a commercial vessel
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper or a charter vessel/headboat
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, as required
under §§ 622.4(a)(2)(vi) and
622.4(a)(1)(i), respectively, that
incidentally catches a smalltooth
sawfish must—
(i) Keep the sawfish in the water at all
times;
(ii) If it can be done safely, untangle
the line if it is wrapped around the saw;
(iii) Cut the line as close to the hook
as possible; and
(iv) Not handle the animal or attempt
to remove any hooks on the saw, except
with a long-handled dehooker.
§ 622.15 [Amended]
7. In § 622.15, in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)
and (c)(5) remove cross references to
‘‘§ 622.5(a)(1)(iv)(B)’’ and add in its
place the cross reference
‘‘§ 622.5(a)(1)(iv)(C)(1)’’.
8. In § 622.18, paragraphs (b)(1)(ii)
and (c) are revised to read as follows:
§ 622.18 South Atlantic snapper-grouper
limited access.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) A transferable permit may be
transferred upon a change of ownership
of a permitted vessel with such permit—
(A) From one to another of the
following: husband, wife, son, daughter,
brother, sister, mother, or father; or
(B) From an individual to a
corporation whose shares are all held by
the individual or by the individual and
one or more of the following: husband,
wife, son, daughter, brother, sister,
mother, or father. The application for
transfer of a permit under this paragraph
(b)(1)(ii)(B) and each application for
renewal of such permit must be
accompanied by a current annual report
of the corporation that specifies all
shareholders of the corporation. A
permit will not be renewed if the annual
report shows a new shareholder other
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
than a husband, wife, son, daughter,
brother, sister, mother, or father.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Renewal. NMFS will not reissue a
commercial vessel permit for South
Atlantic snapper-grouper if the permit is
revoked or if the RA does not receive an
application for renewal within one year
of the permit’s expiration date.
9. In § 622.42, paragraphs (e)(1) and
(e)(6) are revised to read as follows:
§ 622.42
Quotas.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) Snowy grouper. (i) For the fishing
year that commences January 1, 2008—
84,000 lb (38,102 kg).
(ii) For the fishing year that
commences January 1, 2009, and for
subsequent fishing years—82,900 lb
(37,603 kg).
*
*
*
*
*
(6) Red porgy. (i) For the fishing year
that commences January 1, 2008—
127,000 lb (57,606 kg).
(ii) For the fishing year that
commences January 1, 2009, and for
subsequent fishing years–190,050 lb
(86,205 kg).
*
*
*
*
*
10. In § 622.44, paragraph (c)(3) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 622.44
Commercial trip limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(3) Snowy grouper. (i) Until the quota
specified in § 622.42(e)(1) is reached—
100 lb (45 kg).
(ii) See § 622.43(a)(5) for the
limitations regarding snowy grouper
after the fishing year quota is reached.
*
*
*
*
*
11. In § 622.45, paragraph (d) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 622.45
Restrictions on sale/purchase.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) South Atlantic snapper-grouper.
(1) A South Atlantic snapper-grouper
harvested or possessed in the EEZ on
board a vessel that does not have a valid
commercial permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper, as required under
§ 622.4(a)(2)(vi), or a South Atlantic
snapper-grouper harvested in the EEZ
and possessed under the bag limits
specified in § 622.39(d), may not be sold
or purchased. In addition, a South
Atlantic snapper-grouper harvested or
possessed by a vessel that is operating
as a charter vessel or headboat with a
Federal charter vessel/headboat permit
for South Atlantic snapper-grouper may
not be sold or purchased regardless of
where harvested, i.e., in state or Federal
waters.
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
(2) A person may sell South Atlantic
snapper-grouper harvested in the EEZ
only to a dealer who has a valid permit
for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, as
required under § 622.4(a)(4).
(3) A person may purchase South
Atlantic snapper-grouper harvested in
the EEZ only from a vessel that has a
valid commercial permit for South
Atlantic snapper-grouper, as required
under § 622.4(a)(2)(vi).
(4) A warsaw grouper or speckled
hind in or from the South Atlantic EEZ
may not be sold or purchased.
(5) No person may sell or purchase a
snowy grouper, golden tilefish, greater
amberjack, vermilion snapper, black sea
bass, or red porgy harvested from or
possessed in the South Atlantic, i.e., in
state or Federal waters, by a vessel for
which a valid Federal commercial
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued for the
remainder of the fishing year after the
applicable commercial quota for that
species specified in § 622.42(e) has been
reached. The prohibition on sale/
purchase during these periods does not
apply to such of the applicable species
that were harvested, landed ashore, and
sold prior to the applicable commercial
quota being reached and were held in
cold storage by a dealer or processor.
(6) During January, February, March,
and April, no person may sell or
purchase a red porgy harvested from the
South Atlantic EEZ or, if harvested by
a vessel for which a valid Federal
commercial permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper has been issued,
harvested from the South Atlantic, i.e.,
in state or Federal waters. The
prohibition on sale/purchase during
VerDate Nov<24>2008
19:49 Jun 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
January through April does not apply to
red porgy that were harvested, landed
ashore, and sold prior to January 1 and
were held in cold storage by a dealer or
processor. This prohibition also does
not apply to a dealer’s purchase or sale
of red porgy harvested from an area
other than the South Atlantic, provided
such fish is accompanied by
documentation of harvest outside the
South Atlantic. The requirements for
such documentation are specified in
paragraph (d)(9) of this section.
(7) During April, no person may sell
or purchase a greater amberjack
harvested from the South Atlantic EEZ
or, if harvested by a vessel for which a
valid Federal commercial permit for
South Atlantic snapper-grouper has
been issued, harvested from the South
Atlantic, i.e., in state or Federal waters.
The prohibition on sale/purchase during
April does not apply to greater
amberjack that were harvested, landed
ashore, and sold prior to April 1 and
were held in cold storage by a dealer or
processor. This prohibition also does
not apply to a dealer’s purchase or sale
of greater amberjack harvested from an
area other than the South Atlantic,
provided such fish is accompanied by
documentation of harvest outside the
South Atlantic. The requirements for
such documentation are specified in
paragraph (d)(9) of this section.
(8) During January through April, no
person may sell or purchase a gag, black
grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind,
rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, tiger
grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby, or
coney harvested from or possessed in
the South Atlantic EEZ or, if harvested
or possessed by a vessel for which a
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
31235
valid Federal commercial permit for
South Atlantic snapper-grouper has
been issued, harvested from the South
Atlantic, i.e., in state or Federal waters.
The prohibition on sale/purchase during
January through April does not apply to
such species that were harvested,
landed ashore, and sold prior to January
1 and were held in cold storage by a
dealer or processor. This prohibition
also does not apply to a dealer’s
purchase or sale of such species
harvested from an area other than the
South Atlantic, provided such fish is
accompanied by documentation of
harvest outside the South Atlantic. The
requirements for such documentation
are specified in paragraph (d)(9) of this
section.
(9) The documentation supporting a
dealer’s purchase or sale of applicable
species during the times specified in
paragraphs (d)(6) through (d)(8) of this
section must contain:
(i) The information specified in part
300, subpart K, of this title for marking
containers or packages of fish or wildlife
that are imported, exported, or
transported in interstate commerce;
(ii) The official number, name, and
home port of the vessel harvesting the
applicable species;
(iii) The port and date of offloading
from the vessel harvesting the
applicable species; and
(iv) A statement signed by the dealer
attesting that the applicable species was
harvested from an area other than the
South Atlantic.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–15465 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–S
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31225-31235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15465]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 080226312-9085-01]
RIN 0648-AW12
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment
15B; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
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 Amendment 15B 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). This proposed rule
would, for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, require a private
recreational vessel that fishes in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ),
if selected by NMFS, to maintain and submit fishing records; require a
vessel that fishes in the EEZ, if selected by NMFS, to carry an
observer and install an electronic logbook (ELB) and/or video monitor
provided by NMFS; prohibit the sale of snapper-grouper harvested or
possessed in the EEZ under the bag limits and prohibit the sale of
snapper-grouper harvested or possessed under the bag limits by vessels
with a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper regardless of where the snapper-grouper were harvested;
require an owner and operator of a vessel for which a commercial or
charter vessel/headboat permit has been issued and that has on board
any hook-and-line gear to comply with sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish
release protocols, possess on board specific gear to ensure proper
release of such species, and comply with guidelines for proper care and
release of such species that are incidentally caught; and expand the
allowable transfer of a commercial vessel permit under the limited
access program and extend the allowable period for renewal of such a
permit. Amendment 15B also proposes to revise the stock status
determination criteria for golden tilefish and specify commercial/
recreational allocations for snowy grouper and red porgy. In addition,
NMFS proposes to remove language specifying commercial quotas for snowy
grouper that are no longer in effect and proposes to revise sea turtle
bycatch mitigation requirements applicable to the Gulf reef fish
fishery to add two devices that were inadvertently omitted from a prior
rule. The intended effects of this rule are to provide additional
information for, and otherwise improve the effective management of, the
South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery; minimize the impacts on
incidentally caught threatened and endangered sea turtles and
smalltooth sawfish; and remove outdated language.
DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later
than 5:00 p.m., eastern time, on August 4, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW12, by any
one of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov
Fax: 727-824-5308, Attn: 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 (enter ``N/A'' in the required
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or
Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of Amendment 15B 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 15B includes a
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social
Impact Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement.
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of
the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted in writing to Jason Rueter,
[[Page 31226]]
Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, and to David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail
at David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov, or by fax to 202-395-7285.
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.
Amendment 15B
Monitor and Assess Bycatch
Current data collection methods do not adequately capture the true
magnitude of bycatch in the fishery for South Atlantic snapper-grouper.
An improved ability to monitor and assess bycatch in the fishery would
provide better estimates of interactions with protected species and
improve the quality of stock assessments so that management measures
may be implemented in a timely manner to prevent stock collapse and/or
speed recovery of overfished stocks.
Accordingly, this proposed rule would expand the existing
requirement for fishing reports to include such private recreational
vessels as are selected by the Science and Research Director, Southeast
Fisheries Science Center, NMFS (SRD).
Similarly, this proposed rule would require an owner and operator
of a vessel with a commercial vessel or charter vessel/headboat permit
for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and an owner and operator of a
private recreational vessel in that fishery, if selected by the SRD, to
carry a NMFS-approved observer on trips selected by the SRD and/or
participate in a NMFS-sponsored ELB or video monitoring reporting
program as directed by the SRD.
To initiate an ELB or video monitoring program, NMFS would send a
letter to an owner or operator of a selected vessel advising of his or
her obligation to participate in the program. In cooperation with the
owner or operator, NMFS staff or an authorized representative would
meet at the selected vessel to install the NMFS-furnished ELB and/or
video monitor on the vessel and to collect basic vessel and gear
information that would later be correlated with the ELB or video
monitoring information. Using the Global Positioning System, an ELB
would automatically record vessel position information over time from
which conclusions could be drawn regarding vessel activity, e.g., the
vessel is fishing or transiting. At intervals determined by NMFS, the
ELB memory unit or video monitor tape would be removed and provided to
the SRD. The owner or operator could either mail the memory unit or
tape to the SRD or arrange for a NMFS or state port agent to collect
the unit or tape. The ELB program would supplement existing post-trip
interview data and is intended to provide better estimates of the
amount and location of effort occurring during a trip.
With an ELB, bycatch in the fishery would be estimated from a
second sampling program based on observer data. NMFS would use total
effort estimates based on best available scientific information to
extrapolate observer-collected data into overall estimates of total
finfish and invertebrate bycatch. A pilot program using ELBs started in
1999, with increasing coverage each year. The units have proved to be
reliable and the data retrieved have provided substantial new
information regarding the effort of the fishery in which it was used.
Video monitoring hardware and software could provide a cost-
effective and reliable system of monitoring bycatch, release mortality,
handling of fishes, and other shipboard practices. These systems have
been shown to be useful in monitoring bycatch in other parts of the
country. Pertinent data collected by a video electronic monitoring
system would include species caught, number of hooks, location, depth,
date, time, and disposition of released organisms. These data would
provide information needed to help rebuild and maintain sustainable
fisheries and determine what impact the fishery has on the survival of
species. Data collected could be used to assess the fish species
composition associated with the habitat affected by fishing gear,
allowing for a better understanding of the ecosystem. Information would
also be collected on protected resources encountered by fishing gear.
The use of technology to record species, capture position, and
disposition of released fishes has the potential to augment the
collection of bycatch information and lessen the need for observers.
Video technology could be used on vessels that cannot take a human
observer for safety reasons or vessel limitations or other reasons.
Previous experience indicates video monitoring is very effective for
monitoring catches from longline gear due to the size and types of
species collected. It is also substantially less expensive than
observer coverage for comparable data collection.
These additional information sources combined with existing
requirements would comprise part of the program to monitor and assess
bycatch in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. NMFS would also
rely on state cooperation, specifically funded projects, and the
Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program's Release, Discard and
Protected Species Module, as that module is implemented.
Modification of the Sales Provisions
Current regulations allow the sale of snapper-grouper taken from
the South Atlantic EEZ, up to the allowed bag limit, to be sold to a
licensed dealer if the seller possesses a state-issued license to sell
fish, whether or not the seller has a commercial vessel permit. Fish
harvested and marketed in this manner, whether harvested by for-hire
vessels or private anglers, are counted against the commercial quotas,
resulting in accelerated quota closures and reducing the amount and
value of harvests allocated to the commercial sector. Accelerated
closures impose additional economic losses through market disruption
and forced alteration of fishing practices, including transference of
effort to other resources that may be less valuable and/or more
expensive to catch. The effects of this situation are exacerbated by
the current reduced commercial quotas. In addition, such fish are also
counted against the recreational allocations, thus complicating fishery
assessments. Accordingly, this rule would prohibit the sale of South
Atlantic snapper-grouper harvested or possessed in the EEZ and
possessed under the bag limits. This prohibition would apply not only
to a person fishing from a private recreational vessel but also to a
person fishing from a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat
even if such charter vessel/headboat has a commercial vessel permit. In
addition, this rule would prohibit the sale of snapper-grouper
harvested or possessed under the bag limits by a vessel for which a
Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-
grouper has been issued, regardless of where the snapper-grouper were
harvested, i.e., in state or Federal waters.
Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Bycatch
NMFS concluded in a biological opinion that reasonable and prudent
measures are necessary and appropriate to minimize the impacts on
incidentally
[[Page 31227]]
caught threatened and endangered sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish
taken in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. Therefore,
measures are needed to comply with the biological opinion and to
enhance the protection of threatened and endangered sea turtles and
smalltooth sawfish.
This proposed rule would require a vessel for which a commercial or
charter vessel/headboat permit has been issued for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper and has any hook-and-line gear on board to possess a
document provided by NMFS titled, ``Careful Release Protocols for Sea
Turtle Release With Minimal Injury;'' post the sea turtle handling and
release guidelines provided by NMFS on the vessel; and, as specified in
Sec. 622.10(c) of this rule, have 12 types of sea turtle bycatch
mitigation gear on board and follow specified release handling measures
for a sea turtle or smalltooth sawfish that is caught incidentally.
Limited Access Permits for South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper
Currently, a transferable commercial vessel permit issued under the
limited access program may be transferred only to an immediate family
member of the holder. An ``immediate family member'' is specified as a
husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, or father. This
restriction has made it difficult for owners of individually owned
vessels to change to corporate ownership and realize the associated
benefits. Accordingly, the Council proposes and this rule would allow
transfer to a corporation, provided the shareholders of the corporation
are limited to the original permit holder at the time of the transfer
and his or her immediate family members. Subsequent additional
shareholders would be limited to immediate family members. These
requirements would also apply to renewal of permits.
Currently, a limited access permit must be renewed not later than
60 days after its expiration. The Council finds that this limitation is
overly burdensome and has limited management benefits. Accordingly this
rule would extend the permit renewal period to one year.
Commercial/Recreational Allocations for Snowy Grouper and Red Porgy
The FMP currently does not specify commercial and recreational
allocations for snowy grouper or red porgy. While commercial quotas are
established for these species, lack of recreational allocations
precludes specifications of allowable recreational catch and
appropriate measures to prevent overfishing by that sector.
Accordingly, the Council proposes to establish such commercial and
recreational allocations.
For snowy grouper, the Council proposes allocations of 95 percent
for commercial catch and 5 percent for recreational catch, which are
based on the percentage of commercial and recreational landings during
1986-2005. Beginning in 2009, the commercial quota would be 82,900 lb
(37,603 kg), gutted weight, and the recreational allocation would be
523 fish, which is the equivalent of 4,400 lb (1,996 kg), gutted
weight.
For red porgy, the Council proposes allocations of 50 percent for
commercial catch and 50 percent for recreational catch based on the
percentage of commercial and recreational landings during 2001-2005.
Beginning in 2009, the commercial quota would be 190,050 lb (86,205
kg), gutted weight, and the recreational allocation would be 190,050 lb
(86,205 kg), gutted weight.
Accordingly, this rule would establish the commercial quotas
indicated above. Approved recreational and commercial allocations would
be considered legitimate measures of the FMP, but would not appear in
codified text.
Stock Status Determination Criteria for Golden Tilefish
Section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the regional
fishery management councils: (1) assess the condition of managed
stocks, (2) specify within their fishery management plans objective and
measurable criteria for identifying when the stocks are overfished and
when overfishing is occurring (referred to by NMFS as stock status
determination criteria), and (3) amend their fishery management plans
to include measures to rebuild overfished stocks and maintain them at
healthy levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
NMFS' national standard guidelines direct the councils to meet these
statutory requirements by incorporating into each FMP estimates of
certain biomass-based stock status determination criteria for each
stock, including a designation of the stock biomass that will produce
MSY. By evaluating the current stock biomass and fishing mortality rate
in relation to these criteria, fishery managers can determine whether a
fishery is overfished or undergoing overfishing, and whether current
management measures are sufficient to prevent overfishing and achieve
the optimum yield (OY).
The required criteria include MSY, OY, minimum stock size threshold
(MSST), and maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT). MSST is the
biomass level below which a stock is considered overfished. MFMT is the
maximum level of fishing mortality that a stock can withstand while
still producing MSY on a continuing basis and above which overfishing
is considered to be occurring.
In the past for snapper-grouper species, the Council has specified
either numeric values, proxies, or nothing at all for the criteria
described above. A recent stock assessment of golden tilefish has
provided numerical values for MSY, OY, and MSST for that species.
(Currently, MFMT is defined as the level of fishing mortality that will
produce MSY and would remain unchanged.) The Council proposes the
following changes based on the golden tilefish assessment:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Current Value Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSY Not specified 336,425 lb
(152.60 mt),
whole weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OY Not specified 326,554 lb
(148.12 mt),
whole weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSST 1,783,650 lb 1,454,063 lb
(809.05 mt), (659.55 mt),
whole weight whole weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved stock status criteria, as with the proposed recreational
allocations for snowy grouper and red porgy, would be considered
legitimate measures of the FMP, but would not appear in codified text.
Availability of Amendment 15B
Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed
above are contained in Amendment 15B. The availability of Amendment 15B
was announced in the Federal Register on June 4, 2009, (74 FR 26827).
Written comments on Amendment 15B must be received by August 3, 2009.
All comments received on Amendment 15B or on this proposed rule during
their respective comment periods will be addressed in the preamble to
the final rule.
Additional Measures Proposed by NMFS
As general housekeeping changes, NMFS proposes to--(1) remove the
outdated 2006 and 2007 commercial quotas and commercial trip limits for
snowy grouper at Sec. 622.42(e)(1) and Sec. 622.44(c)(3),
respectively; and (2) rearrange and consolidate the
[[Page 31228]]
restrictions on sale/purchase of South Atlantic snapper-grouper at
Sec. 622.45(d).
In addition, NMFS proposes to revise Sec. 622.10(b)(1) to add two
devices to the list of required sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear for
commercial and charter vessel/headboats in the Gulf reef fish fishery
that were inadvertently omitted in the final rule published August 9,
2006 (71 FR 45428). For vessels with a freeboard height of 4 ft (1.2 m)
or less, a tire is added to the list. For vessels with a freeboard
height of greater than 4 ft (1.2 m), a tire and a long-handled device
to pull an ``inverted V'' in the fishing line are added to the list.
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 15B, other provisions of 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 15B; a notice of
availability was published on June 4, 2009, (74 FR 26827).
An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the RFA (RFA).
The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at
the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY
section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of
this analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
The purpose of this rule is to specify quotas for snowy grouper and
red porgy; modify the sales provisions of snapper-grouper caught or
possessed under the bag limit; implement a plan to monitor and assess
bycatch; implement measures to minimize the impacts of incidental sea
turtle and smalltooth sawfish take; and ease the requirements of
snapper-grouper permit renewal and transfer. These measures are
expected to provide additional information for, and otherwise improve
the effective management of, the South Atlantic snapper-grouper
fishery, and minimize the impacts on incidentally caught threatened and
endangered sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish. The Magnuson-Stevens Act
provides the statutory basis for the proposed rule. In addition to
these actions, Amendment 15B established allocation ratios for snowy
grouper and red porgy, and management reference points and stock status
criteria for golden tilefish.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been
identified.
This proposed action is expected to directly impact commercial
fishers and for-hire operators. The SBA has established size criteria
for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish harvesters
and for-hire operations. A business involved in fish harvesting is
classified as a small business if it is independently owned and
operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its
affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0
million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated
operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, the other qualifiers apply
and the annual receipts threshold is $6.5 million (NAICS code 713990,
recreational industries).
From 2001-2005, an average of 1,127 vessels per year were permitted
to operate in the commercial snapper-grouper fishery. However, over the
2004-2006 fishing years, an average of 717 vessels per year that were
permitted to operate in the commercial snapper-grouper fishery recorded
snapper-grouper sales. The average annual dockside value of snapper-
grouper sold by these vessels was approximately $12.96 million (nominal
dollars), while the value of all other species sold by these vessels
was approximately $14.33 million (nominal dollars), or total average
annual revenues of approximately $27.29 million. The average annual
dockside revenue per vessel from sales of all marine species for this
period was approximately $38,000.
In 2005, 1,328 vessels were permitted to operate in the Federal
snapper-grouper for-hire fishery, of which 82 are estimated to have
operated as headboats, and 1246 are charter vessels. Within these 1,328
vessels, 201 vessels also possessed a commercial snapper-grouper permit
and would be included in the summary information provided on the
commercial sector. The charter vessels charge a fee on a vessel basis,
and headboats charge a fee on an individual angler (head) basis. The
charter vessel annual average gross revenue is estimated to range from
approximately $62,000-$84,000 (2005 dollars) for Florida vessels,
$73,000-$89,000 for North Carolina vessels, $68,000-$83,000 for Georgia
vessels, and $32,000-$39,000 for South Carolina vessels. For headboats,
the appropriate estimates are $170,000-$362,000 for Florida vessels,
and $149,000-$317,000 for vessels in the other states. From 2004-2006,
an average of 159 vessels per year with the for-hire snapper-grouper
permit had recorded sales of snapper-grouper species. The total average
annual revenues from snapper-grouper species were approximately
$316,000 (nominal dollars), while average annual revenues for all other
species was approximately $1.52 million (nominal dollars), for total
average annual revenues from fish sales of approximately $1.84 million.
The average annual revenue per for-hire vessel from fish sales of all
marine species for this period was approximately $11,600. It should be
noted that these revenues are not included in the average gross for-
hire revenues listed above, which only reflect revenues from charter
fees.
The proposed prohibition of bag-limit sales would affect vessels
that have historically sold snapper-grouper but do not possess or fish
under a Federal commercial snapper-grouper permit. From 2004-2006, an
average of 1,439 fishing vessels per year that could not be associated
with either a Federal commercial or Federal for-hire snapper-grouper
permit had recorded snapper-grouper sales. Total average annual
revenues from snapper-grouper species for these vessels were
approximately $2.09 million (nominal dollars), while average revenues
from all other species were approximately $28.59 million (nominal
dollars), for total average annual revenues of approximately $30.67
million. The average annual revenue per vessel from sales of all marine
species for this period was approximately $21,000.
Some fleet activity may exist in both the commercial and for-hire
snapper-grouper sectors, but the extent of such is unknown, and all
vessels are treated as independent entities in this analysis. Based on
the average revenue figures described above, it is determined, for the
purpose of this assessment, that all fishing operations that would be
affected by this action are small entities.
This action does not explicitly impose any new reporting, record-
keeping or other compliance requirements because the action simply
specifies the types of requirements that could be imposed to improve
bycatch monitoring and assessment and any individual vessel would only
be subject to any new requirements if selected. However, the proposed
bycatch and monitoring assessment action could result in a requirement
for the use of paper logbooks, electronic logbooks, or video cameras,
or the carrying of observers to aid in the monitoring of bycatch. All
commercial snapper-grouper trips are
[[Page 31229]]
currently required to complete logbook records, with each report
estimated to take 10 minutes to complete. Over the years 2001-2005,
commercial vessels operating in the snapper-grouper fishery took almost
16,000 trips, or approximately 14 trips per vessel. Assuming
modification to the current logbook to include bycatch increased the
time required to complete the form by 25 percent, then the additional
annual time burden to complete the form fishery-wide would be
approximately 667 hours or 0.6 hours per vessel.
The headboat sector is also currently required to complete logbook
reports for all trips, estimated to take 18 minutes per report.
Assuming an average of 322 trips per vessel (note that many vessels
take multiple trips per day, so the average number of trips does not
equal days fished), 82 headboats, and a 25-percent increase in the
amount of time required to complete the form to account for bycatch,
the resultant increased annual time burden to the industry would be
approximately 1,980 hours, or 24 hours per vessel.
Although charter vessels currently are required to complete
logbooks if selected, no vessels in the charter-vessel sector are
currently selected and required to submit logbooks. Assuming it took a
charter vessel the same amount of time required for a commercial vessel
to complete a bycatch-augmented logbook, 12.5 minutes, 1,246 charter
vessels and 146 trips per charter vessels per year, if all vessels were
required to complete logbooks, the total annual time burden to the
industry would be approximately 37,900 hours or 30.4 hours per vessel.
There would be no anticipated costs of logbook reporting beyond the
opportunity cost of completing the logbook forms. Current logbook
programs provide fishermen with addressed, pre-paid envelopes for
returning completed forms. Completing the logbooks would not be
expected to require special skills.
Similar burden estimates are not available for the use of
electronic logbooks. Electronic logbooks would be expected to take less
time to complete because certain response variables could be
preprogrammed and transmission would be simplified. Logbooks are
estimated to cost $500 per unit, but responsibility for this expense is
undetermined at this time. Considering the widespread familiarity with
and usage of computers throughout today's society, special skills to
use an electronic logbook would not be expected, though some initial
training or demonstration and a short learning curve would be logical.
The use of video cameras to monitor and record bycatch is likely a
method that would, if used, be imposed on only a small portion of
participants in the snapper-grouper fishery due to its cost and
complexity. Purchase, installation, and maintenance costs of video
systems would likely be borne by the government, though some cost-
sharing with fishermen may occur. Additional details are unavailable at
this time, so concrete determinations on fishermen burden or skill
requirements cannot be made.
The proposed rule would be expected to directly affect all vessels
that operate in the commercial snapper-grouper fishery, all vessels
that have a Federal snapper-grouper for-hire permit, and all vessels
that harvest snapper-grouper from the EEZ and sell their catch to
federally permitted dealers. All affected entities have been
determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small entities.
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed action would affect a
substantial number of small entities. Since all entities that would be
expected to be affected by the proposed rule are considered small
entities, no disproportionate effects on small entities relative to
large entities would be expected.
Only four of the proposed actions, the two proposed changes in
quota, the proposed prohibition on bag-limit sales, and the proposed
gear requirements to minimize the incidental take of sea turtles and
smalltooth sawfish, are expected to have direct economic impacts on
fishing entities. The proposed snowy grouper quota of 82,900 lb (37,603
kg) gutted weight would result in a loss of 1,100 lb (499 kg) of snowy
grouper to the commercial sector. Assuming an average ex-vessel price
of $2.31 per pound (2006 dollars), this reduction would be valued at
approximately $2,500, or a loss of approximately $13 per vessel active
in the fishery (190 vessels; 2001-2005 average number of commercial
vessels per year with snowy grouper landings). The proposed red porgy
quota of 190,050 lbs (86,205 kg) gutted weight would result in a gain
of 63,050 lb (28,599 kg) gutted weight of red porgy to the commercial
sector. This gain is comprised of approximately 59,000 lbs (26,762 kg)
gutted weight resulting from the increase in red porgy TAC as a result
of the rebuilding strategy implemented through Amendment 15A and the
remaining increase resulting from a one percent increase in the
commercial allocation established by Amendment 15B. Assuming an average
ex-vessel price of $1.40 per pound (2006 dollars), the total gain in
commercial quota would be valued at approximately $88,300, or a gain of
approximately $493 per vessel active in the fishery (179 vessels; 2001-
2005 average number of commercial vessels per year with red porgy
landings).
Assuming the implementation of compatible regulations in all
states, thus encompassing snapper-grouper harvested in both state and
Federal waters as well as marketed through all state and federally
permitted dealers, the proposed elimination of bag-limit sales is
projected to result in the transfer of approximately $2.4 million in
nominal ex-vessel revenues (2004-2006 average) from for-hire and
commercial fishing vessels that do not have a Federal commercial
snapper-grouper permit to the federally permitted commercial snapper-
grouper sector. This would constitute a total reduction of
approximately $316,000 per year for fish sales by vessels in the
federally permitted for-hire fishery, or a 17-percent reduction in
average annual gross revenues from fish sales per vessel, and
approximately $2.085 million per year in sales for commercial vessels
that do not posses a Federal commercial snapper-grouper permit, or a 7-
percent reduction in average annual gross revenues per vessel. It
should be noted that snapper-grouper fish sales by federally permitted
for-hire vessels, estimated at approximately $2,000 per vessel on
average, constitute a minor portion of total average annual revenues,
with the majority of revenues coming from charter fees. As discussed
above, South Atlantic charter vessels are estimated to have average
gross annual revenues of approximately $32,000-$89,000, across all
states, while headboat average annual revenues are estimated to range
from $149,000-$362,000.
If compatible regulations are not adopted in any state, the
estimated reduction in bag-limit sales revenues would be limited to
those harvests that originate from the EEZ by all vessels, bag limit
harvests from state waters by vessels with the Federal charter vessel/
headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, and harvests that
are marketed through dealers with a Federal permit. This would lower
the reduction in bag-limit sales to approximately $1.562-$1.799
million, accounting for the estimated portion of bag-limit sales that
originate in state waters (approximately 9 percent) and the estimated
portion of bag-limit sales that are marketed through dealers without
Federal licenses (approximately 21-35 percent). For the Federal for-
hire sector,
[[Page 31230]]
using the average EEZ bag-limit sales (approximately $267,000) and
dealer proportions (approximately 11 percent state dealer sales if the
North Carolina and South Carolina proportion is applied throughout and
34 percent otherwise), the reduction in bag limit sales would be
approximately $175,000-$238,000. For the non-Federal sector, using the
average EEZ bag-limit sales (approximately $1.921 million) and dealer
proportions (approximately 23 percent state dealer sales if the North
Carolina and South Carolina proportion is applied throughout and 35
percent otherwise), the reduction would be approximately $1.246 million
to $1.483 million. These values equate to approximately a 10-13 percent
reduction in average annual for-hire fish-sales revenues ($175,000-
$238,000/159 vessels/$11,568 total average annual revenues) and
approximately a 4-5 percent reduction in average annual revenues to
non-federally permitted vessels ($1.246-$1.483 million/1,439 vessels/
$21,317 total average revenues).
The transference of these revenues to the Federal commercial
snapper-grouper sector would result in an estimated increase of
approximately 9 percent in nominal ex-vessel revenues per year ($2.4
million/717 vessels/$38,000 average annual revenues) if compatible
regulations are adopted by all states, and from 5 percent to 6 percent
if no states adopt compatible regulations ($1.422-$1.729 million/717
vessels/$38,000 average annual revenues).
The proposed gear requirements to minimize the incidental take
impact on sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish are estimated to increase
vessel gear costs by $617-$1,115, based on low and high estimated
costs, respectively, for each of the 12 different pieces of required
gear and assuming the vessel does not already possess any of the
required gear. Few actual vessels would be expected to have to incur
the maximum cost, however, since most vessels are expected to already
possess and use most of this gear or allowable substitutes. For-hire
vessels that exclusively harvest fish through snorkeling or diving
activities and do not possess hook-and-line gear on-board would not
have to carry the required gear. For those vessels that needed to carry
the gear, any costs would be one-time expenditures, subject to breakage
or loss replacement.
Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to address the sale of snapper-grouper harvested under the
bag limit. The proposed rule would prohibit the purchase and sale of
bag-limit fish harvested from or possessed in the EEZ by vessels that
did not possess the Federal commercial snapper-grouper permit, and bag-
limit fish harvested in either state or EEZ waters by vessels that
possess the Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper. The first alternative, the status quo, would continue
to allow the sale of snapper-grouper harvested under the bag limit,
continue to allow the Federal commercial snapper-grouper quota to be
harvested and sold by vessels that did not possess the Federal
commercial snapper-grouper permit, continue increased commercial quota
pressure and accelerated quota closures, result in continued adverse
economic effects on the Federal commercial snapper-grouper sector, and
not achieve the Council's objectives.
The second alternative to the proposed prohibition of sales of
snapper-grouper harvested under the bag limit would allow continued
sales by vessels with a Federal for-hire snapper-grouper permit. While
this would reduce the adverse economic effects on the Federal
commercial snapper-grouper sector associated with the status quo, these
effects would not be eliminated, thereby generating less net economic
benefits for this sector and associated businesses than the proposed
action.
Four alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to establish a program to monitor and assess bycatch. The
proposed rule would require the use of a variety of bycatch monitoring
methods, which include observers and use of an ELB or video monitoring
program, until the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program
(ACCSP) bycatch monitoring program can be implemented. The first
alternative to the proposed program, the status quo, would only utilize
existing information, would not improve current capabilities to monitor
and assess bycatch, and would not achieve the Council's objectives. The
second alternative to the proposed bycatch monitoring and assessment
program would require the implementation of the ACCSP bycatch
monitoring program. The ACCSP is a cooperative state-federal program
whose mission is to design, implement, and conduct marine fisheries
statistics data collection programs and to integrate those data into a
single data management system that will meet the needs of fishery
managers, scientists, and fishermen. The ACCSP design includes data
modules for catch and effort data, permit and vessel registration,
biological data, bycatch data, quota monitoring data, economic data,
and sociological data. These modules are being implemented on a
priority basis consistent with available funding. At this time, funding
is not available for implementation of the bycatch data module. While
this program would generate the best data in the shortest period of
time, with accompanying social and economic benefits, the program lacks
the flexibility of allowing interim methods until such time as the
preferred methods can be funded and adopted. As a result, this
alternative would not meet the Council's objectives. The overall cost
to implement the ACCSP bycatch monitoring program has not been
identified.
The third alternative to the proposed bycatch monitoring and
assessment program would implement a program that is less comprehensive
than the proposed program. This program would require a variety of
reporting and monitoring tools, including observers, logbooks, and
video monitoring, among other methods, but would be less structured and
systematic than the ACCSP program or the proposed program. The cost of
this program is unknown. As a result of being less structured and
systematic, however, this program would be expected to be less costly
than the proposed program, but would also be expected to result in
poorer data and generate fewer long-term benefits than the proposed
program.
Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to establish sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish take impact
minimization measures. The proposed rule would require a number of
impact minimization measures, including the carrying of release
equipment. The first alternative to the proposed equipment
requirements, the status quo, would not achieve the desired take-impact
minimization and would not meet the Council's objectives.
The second alternative to the proposed equipment requirements would
require the acquisition of less costly equipment (vessels with less
than four feet of freeboard would be required to carry less release
gear and vessels with more than four feet of freeboard would have more
gear substitution options). However, these requirements would not be
expected to result in the same reduction in bycatch impact minimization
for these species and, as a result, would not be expected to result in
as much protection for the species and net economic and social benefits
for society.
Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to establish the permit renewal period. The proposed rule
would allow
[[Page 31231]]
1 year after permit expiration for permit renewal. The first
alternative to the proposed renewal period, the status quo, would
retain the current 60-day renewal requirement and would not achieve the
Council's objective of increasing permit renewal flexibility.
The second alternative to the proposed renewal period would allow 6
months after permit expiration for permit renewal. While this would add
greater flexibility for permit renewal relative to the status quo,
thereby reducing the likelihood of unintended permit loss and
associated economic losses, this alternative would not be consistent
with the permit renewal period of most other permits and would not be
as flexible as the proposed action. Having common renewal periods makes
it possible to renew all permits at the same time, decreases the burden
associated with permit renewal, and decreases the possibility of
unintended permit loss due to non-renewal.
Seven alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to establish options for transfer provisions for permits
owned by corporations comprised of family members. The proposed rule
would allow the transfer of the permit to a corporation comprised
solely of immediate family members. Five of the alternatives are
variations of the proposed action and vary by differences in required
action if the proposed requirement for the submission of the annual
corporate report includes shareholders not listed on the original
permit application. The first alternative to the proposed
transferability option, the status quo, would continue to require a
two-for-one permit exchange in order for a permit holder to incorporate
their business operation and change the ownership of the permit to the
corporation. Current permit holders would be prevented from receiving
the tax and other financial benefits of incorporation without incurring
the added expense of purchasing a second snapper-grouper permit.
Because this restriction was outside the scope of the Council's
original intent for the two-for-one permit transfer requirement,
maintaining the status quo would not achieve the Council's objectives.
The second alternative to the proposed permit transferability
option would treat the addition of family members as corporate
shareholders the same as non-family members. Thus, once a permit is
transferred to a corporation, renewal of the permit would not be
restricted by change in shareholders. This alternative would allow the
most liberal transfer flexibility but would not preserve the Council's
intent to promote family-owned fishing businesses.
The third alternative to the proposed permit transferability option
would not allow a permit to be renewed and transferred if the annual
corporate report showed a shareholder not listed on the original
corporate documentation. This alternative would be the most restrictive
of the sub-set of alternatives that allow family incorporation. Because
this alternative would eliminate the flexibility to change corporate
shareholders even among family members, this alternative would result
in less economic benefits than the proposed action.
The fourth alternative to the proposed permit transferability
option would require a two-for-one transfer if the annual corporate
report showed a shareholder not listed on the original corporate
documentation. This requirement would increase the cost of transfer
because of the cost of a second permit, estimated to cost between
$9,000 and $21,000, and generate less net economic benefits than the
proposed action.
The fifth alternative to the proposed permit transferability option
would require either a two-for-one transfer or a transfer back to
person who is an immediate family member of the permit holder who
originally transferred the permit to the family corporation if the
annual corporate report showed a shareholder not listed on the original
corporate documentation. This requirement would either increase the
cost of transfer or eliminate the tax and financial benefits of
incorporation and, thus, generate less net economic benefits than the
proposed action.
The sixth alternative to the proposed permit transferability option
would eliminate the two-for-one permit transfer requirement. Permit
holders would be able to transfer their permit to corporations, family
owned or otherwise, and freely change shareholders without incurring
the cost of obtaining an additional permit. While this would create the
most flexible transfer conditions, it would eliminate the ability to
reduce the size of the commercial snapper-grouper fleet through permit
renewal requirements. While the optimal fleet size to maximize social
and economic benefits to the nation has not been identified, the
fishery is believed by the Council to still be overcapitalized and
further contraction is necessary. Thus, this alternative would generate
less net economic benefits than the proposed action.
In addition to the actions discussed above, Amendment 15B
considered alternatives to establish allocation ratios for snowy
grouper and red porgy, and management reference points and stock status
criteria for golden tilefish. These alternatives are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Four alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to set the snowy grouper allocation, which was necessary to
establish the commercial quota and recreational allocation. The
proposed action would set the allocation to the recreational sector
equal to 5 percent, resulting in a commercial allocation of 95 percent
and a recreational allocation of 5 percent. The first alternative to
the proposed action, the status quo, would not establish commercial and
recreational allocations. Because allocations are necessary to quantify
the commercial quota, this alternative would not achieve the Council's
objective.
The second alternative to the proposed snowy grouper allocation
would set the recreational allocation to 7 percent, while the third
alternative would set the recreational allocation to 12 percent. Both
alternatives would be expected to increase the economic benefits to the
recreational sector while reducing the economic benefits to the
commercial sector. Net economic benefits to the nation cannot be
determined with available data. These alternatives were not selected as
the proposed snowy grouper allocation because they were derived from
shorter time periods than the proposed action, 1992-2005 and just 2005,
respectively, compared to 1986-2005 for the proposed action, resulting
in excessive influence of unrealistic spikes in recreational landings.
Four alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to set the red porgy allocation. The proposed action would
set both the commercial and recreational allocations equal at 50
percent. The status quo would not establish commercial and recreational
allocations. Because allocations are necessary to quantify the
commercial quota, this alternative would not achieve the Council's
objective.
The second alternative to the proposed red porgy allocation would
set the recreational sector allocation to 32 percent, while the third
alternative would set the recreational allocation to 56 percent. Each
sector would be expected to receive increased or decreased economic
benefits relative to the status quo as their allocation increased or
decreased. Net benefits to the nation under any alternative cannot be
quantified with available data. Neither of these alternatives were
[[Page 31232]]
selected as the preferred action since each would involve substantial
changes from what the Council believes, based on advisory panel
comment, is the most equitable allocation which is the average sector
harvest from 1999-2003, or 49 percent commercial and 51 percent
recreational. The proposed action varies from this allocation by only
one percentage point, allocating 50 percent of the TAC to each sector.
While not precisely matching the average 1999-2003 harvest, the Council
believes that the proposed allocation equitably accounts for the
increased value of red porgy to the recreational sector while reversing
declines in commercial harvests due to previous regulatory action.
Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the
action to specify MSY for golden tilefish. The proposed MSY is
approximately 336,000 lb (152,407 kg) whole weight. The first
alternative to the proposed MSY, the status quo, is likely an
overestimate since the associated yield is approximately 736,000 lb
(333,844 kg) whole weight and a harvest level this high has not been
recorded since 1995, suggesting that the MSY is inappropriate for this
resource. Allowing harvest at this level may lead to excessive
exploitation, precipitating the imposition of restrictive management
measures and reductions in economic and social benefits relative to the
proposed action.
Four alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to specify OY for golden tilefish. The proposed OY is
estimated at approximately 327,000 lb (148,325 kg) whole weight.
Similar to the status quo MSY, the first alternative to the proposed
OY, the status quo, is likely an overestimate and inappropriate for
this resource since it is estimated at approximately 364,000 lb
(165,108 kg) whole weight, which is greater than the proposed MSY. The
second and third alternatives would establish OYs of approximately
315,000 lb (142,882 kg) whole weight and approximately 333,000 lb
(151,046 kg) whole weight, respectively and are, respectively, more and
less conservative than the proposed action. The second alternative to
the proposed OY is believed to be more conservative than necessary to
protect the resource and would be expected to result in greater
foregone economic benefits than the proposed action. Conversely, the
third alternative to the proposed OY is believed to be insufficiently
conservative to protect the resource. The proposed OY is believed to be
the appropriate choice to minimize foregone economic benefits while
protecting the resource.
Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for
the action to specify the MSST for golden tilefish. The proposed MSST
would establish a value of approximately 1.454 million lb (0.660
million kg) whole weight. The first alternative to the proposed MSST,
the status quo, would establish an MSST of approximately 1.784 million
lb (0.809 million kg) whole weight, would require the largest minimum
stock size, and would increase the likelihood that the resource be
declared overfished, necessitating harvest reductions and imposing
short term adverse economic impacts. The second alternative to the
proposed MSST would require the smallest minimum stock size of
approximately 969,000 lb (439,531 kg) whole weight. While this
specification would minimize, among the three alternatives, the
likelihood of the stock being declared overfished, this stock level is
believed to be insufficiently conservative to provide adequate
protection to the resource. The proposed MSST specifies a minimum stock
size intermediate to the other alternatives and is believed to be the
appropriate choice to minimize the likelihood of triggering restrictive
management while protecting the resource.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number.
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements
subject to the PRA applicable to vessels in the South Atlantic snapper-
grouper fishery--namely, requirements for: (1) submission of logbooks
by private recreational vessels; (2) notification of vessel trips
related to vessel observers; (3) preparation of vessel and gear
characterization forms for vessels selected to participate in the ELB
and video monitoring program; (4) installation of ELBs and data
downloads; (5) installation of video monitors and data downloads; and
(6) change of ownership of a vessel with a transferable commercial
vessel permit.
These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. The
public reporting burdens for these collections of information are
estimated to average--(1) 10 minutes for each logbook submission, (2) 4
minutes for each notification of a vessel trip, (3) 20 minutes for each
vessel and gear characterization form, (4) 31 minutes for each ELB
installation and data download, (5) 8 hours for each video monitor
installation and data download, and (6) 20 minutes for each change of
ownership. These estimates of the public reporting burdens include the
time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collections of information. Public comment is sought regarding:
whether these proposed collections of information are necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether
the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden
estimates; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the
collections of information, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send
comments regarding the burden estimates or any other aspect of the
collection-of-information requirements, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: June 24, 2009.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, 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 ``Smalltooth sawfish'' is
added in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 622.2 Definitions and acronyms.
* * * * *
Smalltooth sawfish means the species Pristis pectinata, or a part
thereof.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 622.5, paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), (b)(1), and (b)(2) are
revised and paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.
* * * * *
[[Page 31233]]
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) South Atlantic snapper-grouper--(A) General reporting
requirements. The owner or operator of a vessel for which a commercial
permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, as required
under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(vi), or whose vessel fishes for or lands South
Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from state waters adjoining the South
Atlantic EEZ, who is selected to report by the SRD must maintain a
fishing record on a form available from the SRD and must submit such
record as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(B) Electronic logbook/video monitoring reporting. The owner or
operator of a vessel for which a commercial permit for South Atlantic
snapper-grouper has been issued, as required under Sec.
622.4(a)(2)(vi), who is selected to report by the SRD must participate
in the NMFS-sponsored electronic logbook and/or video monitoring
reporting program as directed by the SRD. Compliance with the reporting
requirements of this paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B) is required for permit
renewal.
(C) Wreckfish reporting. The wreckfish shareholder under Sec.
622.15, or operator of a vessel for which a commercial permit for
wreckfish has been issued, as required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(vii),
must--
(1) Maintain a fishing record on a form available from the SRD and
must submit such record as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(2) Make available to an authorized officer upon request all
records of offloadings, purchases, or sales of wreckfish.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Coastal migratory pelagic fish, reef fish, snapper-grouper, and
Atlantic dolphin and wahoo--(i) General reporting requirement. The
owner or operator of a vessel for which a charter vessel/headboat
permit for Gulf coastal migratory pelagic fish, South Atlantic coastal
migratory pelagic fish, Gulf reef fish, South Atlantic snapper-grouper,
or Atlantic dolphin and wahoo has been issued, as required under Sec.
622.4(a)(1), or whose vessel fishes for or lands such coastal migratory
pelagic fish, reef fish, snapper-grouper, or Atlantic dolphin or wahoo
in or from state waters adjoining the applicable Gulf, South Atlantic,
or Atlantic EEZ, who is selected to report by the SRD must maintain a
fishing record for each trip, or a portion of such trips as specified
by the SRD, on forms provided by the SRD and must submit such record as
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(ii) Electronic logbook/video monitoring reporting. The owner or
operator of a vessel for which a charter vessel/headboat permit for
South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, as required under Sec.
622.4(a)(1), who is selected to report by the SRD must participate in
the NMFS-sponsored electronic logbook and/or video monitoring reporting
program as directed by the SRD. Compliance with the reporting
requirements of this paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is required for permit
renewal.
(2) Reporting deadlines--(i) Charter vessels. Completed fishing
records required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section for charter
vessels must be submitted to the SRD weekly, postmarked not later than
7 days after the end of each week (Sunday). Information to be reported
is indicated on the form and its accompanying instructions.
(ii) Headboats. Completed fishing records required by paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section for headboats must be submitted to the SRD
monthly and must either be made available to an authorized statistical
reporting agent or be postmarked not later than 7 days after the end of
each month. Information to be reported is indicated on the form and its
accompanying instructions.
* * * * *
(g) Private recreational vessels in the South Atlantic snapper-
grouper fishery. The owner or operator of a vessel that fishes for or
lands South Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ
who is selected to report by the SRD must--
(1) Maintain a fishing record for each trip, or a portion of such
trips as specified by the SRD, on forms provided by the SRD. Completed
fishing records must be submitted to the SRD monthly and must either be
made available to an authorized statistical reporting agent or be
postmarked not later than 7 days after the end of each month.
Information to be reported is indicated on the form and its
accompanying instructions.
(2) Participate in the NMFS-sponsored electronic logbook and/or
video monitoring reporting program as directed by the SRD.
4. In Sec. 622.7, paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(d) Falsify or fail to maintain, submit, or provide information or
fail to comply with inspection requirements or restrictions, as
specified in Sec. 622.5.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 622.8, paragraph (a)(6) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.8 At-sea observer coverage.
(a) * * *
(6) South Atlantic snapper-grouper. (i) A vessel for which a
Federal commercial vessel permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper or
a charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has
been issued must carry a NMFS-approved observer, if the vessel's trip
is selected by the SRD for observer coverage. Vessel permit renewal is
contingent upon compliance with this paragraph (a)(6)(i).
(ii) Any other vessel that fishes for South Atlantic snapper-
grouper in the South Atlantic EEZ must carry a NMFS-approved observer,
if the vessel's trip is selected by the SRD for observer coverage.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 622.10, paragraph (b)(1) is revised and paragraph (c)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.10 Conservation measures for protected resources.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Sea turtle conservation measures. (i) The owner or operator of
a vessel for which a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish or a
charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, as
required under Sec. Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(v) and 622.4(a)(1)(i),
respectively, must post inside the wheelhouse, or within a waterproof
case if no wheelhouse, a copy of the document provided by NMFS titled,
``Careful Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release With Minimal
Injury,'' and must post inside the wheelhouse, or in an easily viewable
area if no wheelhouse, the sea turtle handling and release guidelines
provided by NMFS.
(ii) Such owner or operator must also comply with the sea turtle
bycatch mitigation measures, including gear requirements and sea turtle
handling requirements, specified in Sec. Sec. 635.21(c)(5)(i) and (ii)
of this chapter, respectively.
(iii) Those permitted vessels with a freeboard height of 4 ft (1.2
m) or less must have on board a dipnet, tire, short-handled dehooker,
long-nose or needle-nose pliers, bolt cutters, monofilament line
cutters, and at least two types of mouth openers/mouth gags. This
equipment must meet the specifications described in Sec. Sec.
635.21(c)(5)(i)(E) through (L) of this chapter with the following
modifications: the dipnet handle can be of variable length, only one
NMFS-approved short-handled dehooker is required (i.e.,