Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 17A, 49447-49453 [2010-20070]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 156 (Friday, August 13, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49447-49453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20070]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 0907271170-0314-02]
RIN 0648-AY10


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 17A

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 17A 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 
establish an annual catch limit (ACL) for red snapper of zero, which 
means all harvest and possession of red snapper in or from the South 
Atlantic EEZ would be prohibited, and for a vessel with a Federal 
commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic 
snapper-grouper, harvest and possession of red snapper would be 
prohibited in or from state or Federal waters. To constrain red snapper 
harvest to the ACL, this rule would implement an area closure for South 
Atlantic snapper-grouper that extends from southern Georgia to northern 
Florida where all harvest and possession of snapper-grouper would be 
prohibited (except when fishing with black sea bass pots or 
spearfishing gear for species other than red snapper), and require the 
use of non-stainless steel circle hooks north of 28[deg] N. lat. 
Additionally, Amendment 17A would establish a rebuilding plan for red 
snapper, require a monitoring program as the accountability measure 
(AM) for red snapper, and specify a proxy for the fishing mortality 
rate that will produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and specify 
optimum yield (OY). The intended effects of this rule are to end 
overfishing of South Atlantic red snapper and rebuild the stock.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern time, on 
September 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ``0648-AY10'', by any 
one of the following methods:
    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via 
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov
    Fax: 727-824-5308, Attn: Kate Michie
    Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue 
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
    Instructions: No comments will be posted for public viewing until 
after the comment period is over. 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.
    To submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, enter ``NOAA-NMFS-2010-0035'' in the keyword 
search, then check the box labeled ``Select to find documents accepting 
comments or submissions'', then select ``Send a Comment or 
Submission.'' 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 17A 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 17A includes an 
Environmental Assessment, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA), a Regulatory Impact Review, and a Social Impact Assessment/
Fishery Impact Statement.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery 
is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and 
implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management

[[Page 49448]]

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

Background

    On July 8, 2008, the Council was notified that South Atlantic red 
snapper is undergoing overfishing and is overfished. This determination 
was based upon a review of the 2008 assessment of this species by the 
Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review panel and the Council's 
Scientific and Statistical Committee. To immediately address 
overfishing of red snapper and at the Council's request, an interim 
rule prohibiting all harvest and possession of red snapper in Federal 
waters, and in state waters for vessels holding Federal snapper-grouper 
permits, was published in the Federal Register (74 FR 63673, December 
4, 2009). The extension of this interim rule (74 FR 27658, May 8, 2010) 
will expire December 5, 2010. Amendment 17A and this proposed rule 
would establish long-term management measures to end overfishing of red 
snapper, including the prohibition on the harvest and possession of red 
snapper, as well as other management measures that will help rebuild 
the stock.

Management Measures Contained in this Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would prohibit the harvest and possession of red 
snapper in or from Federal waters, in the South Atlantic, and in or 
from adjacent state waters for vessels holding Federal snapper-grouper 
permits. However, because the red snapper stock is part of a multi-
species fishery, i.e., red snapper co-occur with vermilion snapper, 
tomtate, scup, red porgy, white grunt, black sea bass, red grouper, 
scamp, and other snapper-grouper species, there is significant bycatch 
of red snapper for fishermen targeting other snapper-grouper. This is a 
significant issue because release mortality rates for red snapper are 
estimated to be 40 percent for the recreational sector and 90 percent 
for the commercial sector (due to deeper waters fished by the 
commercial sector). Because bycatch mortality rates of red snapper are 
very high, and they are often caught while targeting co-occurring 
snapper-grouper species, a harvest prohibition of red snapper alone 
will not end overfishing. Therefore, this proposed rule also includes 
an area closure where harvest of all snapper-grouper species would be 
prohibited (except when fishing with black sea bass pots with valid 
identification tags or spearfishing gear for species other than red 
snapper). The proposed closed area encompasses locations from which the 
highest amount of landings of red snapper are reported, primarily off 
the coast of southern Georgia and the north and central east coast of 
Florida between the depths of 98 ft (30 m) and 240 ft (73 m).
    Within the proposed snapper-grouper closed area, fishing for 
species other than red snapper using black sea bass pots that have a 
valid identification tag issued by the Regional Administrator (RA) 
attached and spearfishing gear would be permitted. Black sea bass pots 
would be permitted in the closed area because commercial logbook data 
show that red snapper are rarely taken as bycatch in these pots. Also, 
allowing the use of black sea pots within the closed area could help 
mitigate adverse socioeconomic effects caused by an area closure 
without impeding efforts to end overfishing of red snapper.
    The use of spearfishing gear would be permitted in the closed area 
when fishing for species other than red snapper because spearfishing 
gear is highly selective and would be the least likely of all fishing 
gears to result in red snapper bycatch. Allowing the use of 
spearfishing gear may also help to offset, to a small degree, some of 
the adverse socioeconomic impacts expected from a large area closure. 
In addition to the exemptions for black sea bass pots and spearfishing 
gear, this proposed rule also includes a provision to allow transit of 
vessels with snapper-grouper species on board other than red snapper 
through the proposed closed area with gear appropriately stowed.
    In addition to the area closure, this proposed rule would require 
the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for snapper-
grouper species with hook-and-line gear and natural baits north of 
28[deg] N. lat. Some studies show that circle hooks may be beneficial 
in reducing bycatch mortality of fish species as compared to J hooks.

Red Snapper Monitoring Program

    In addition to the measures contained in this proposed rule, 
Amendment 17A would require a red snapper monitoring program that would 
utilize, but not be limited to, fishery independent data collection 
methods. The monitoring program would be designed to monitor rebuilding 
progress of the stock, and data would be employed in red snapper 
assessments. Stock assessments would be used to determine if the stock 
is rebuilding, or if additional regulatory modifications are needed to 
end overfishing.
    Sampling could include deployment of chevron traps, cameras, and 
hook-and-line gear at randomly selected stations within the proposed 
closed area as well outside the closed area. The preferred independent 
monitoring program would continue the long-term data series from the 
Marine Resources Monitoring Assessment and Prediction (MARMAP) survey 
and would likely add a complementary sampling program to expand needed 
coverage. The improved sampling plan may increase the (1) spatial 
footprint to include areas from central Florida to Cape Hatteras, North 
Carolina, (2) sample size, and (3) number of gear types from current 
survey levels, thereby considerably improving program effectiveness. 
Aspects of the current sampling program (survey design, chevron traps, 
short bottom longline and rod and reel sampling) would remain the core 
of the improved program, enabling comparisons of data collected in the 
improved program with those collected during previous years by MARMAP. 
Additional gear could be added and utilized by both the Southeast 
Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) and MARMAP, with gear effectiveness 
research performed by the SEFSC. SEFSC could coordinate with MARMAP to 
plan annual survey efforts (e.g., spatiotemporal focus of sampling) as 
guided by the Council and NMFS data needs. The improved monitoring 
program would inform fishery management decisions and would likely 
contribute to improved management of the stock.

Rebuilding Plan

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that a rebuilding plan be 
specified for any federally-managed species determined to be 
overfished. Rebuilding plans consist of a rebuilding schedule and a 
rebuilding strategy. Amendment 17A would define a rebuilding schedule 
of 35 years for red snapper. The rebuilding time period would end in 
2044, and would reduce, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse 
socioeconomic impacts while still achieving the rebuilding goal.
    Amendment 17A includes a rebuilding strategy equal to 98 percent of 
FMSY (98%F30%SPR) based a constant FREBUILD 
of 0.145, and the ACL would be zero. Under this rebuilding strategy, an 
initial 76 percent reduction in total mortality would be required, and 
the OY value would be 2,425,000 lb (1,083,632 kg) whole weight with a 
53 percent probability of rebuilding by 2044. The AM for red snapper 
would include monitoring the catch per unit effort using both fishery-
independent and fishery-dependent data gathering methods to track 
changes in biomass.

[[Page 49449]]

Maximum Sustainable Yield Proxy

    Amendment 17A would specify a proxy for the fishing mortality rate 
that will produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). 
Initially, the Council determined FMSY proxy of F40%SPR 
should be used for red snapper because it is more conservative than the 
current FMSY proxy of F30%SPR, and would require 
a more significant harvest reduction to end overfishing. However, at 
their June 2010 meeting, the Council changed their preferred 
alternative from F40%SPR to F30%SPR. The Council recommended 
that the status quo FMSY proxy (F30%SPR) be maintained until 
the SEFSC is able to conduct a comprehensive review of how FMSY 
proxies should be applied across all southeastern fisheries. The 
Council also suggested that the decision to apply a specific FMSY 
proxy should be made comprehensively, considering all southeastern 
fisheries, rather than on a species-by-species basis. Therefore, the 
Council determined it would be advantageous to first determine what 
methodology would be most appropriate for assigning FMSY 
proxies to species/stocks in the southeast before proceeding with a 
change to the current FMSY proxy for red snapper.
    Additionally, the Council previously specified the Minimum Stock 
Size Threshold (MSST) as the biomass using the formula MSST = (1-
M)*SSBMSY. This formula is recommended in the 1998 Technical 
Guidance Document developed by NMFS (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/
SPO-31) and represents 1 minus the natural mortality multiplied by the 
spawning stock biomass at MSY. The updated MSST value from the most 
recent red snapper stock assessment is 12,247,000 lb (5,555,146 kg), 
whole weight.

Availability of Amendment 17A

    Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed 
above are contained in Amendment 17A. The availability of Amendment 17A 
was announced in the Federal Register on July 29, 2010, (75 FR 44753). 
Written comments on Amendment 17A must be received by September 27, 
2010. All comments received on Amendment 17A or on this proposed rule 
during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the 
preamble to the final rule.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with Amendment 17A, 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.
    NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the 
economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on 
small entities. A description of the action, why it is being 
considered, and the objectives of, and legal basis for this action are 
contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the 
SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis is 
available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA 
follows.
    The proposed rule, which consists of several actions, would 
introduce changes to the management of South Atlantic snapper-grouper 
fisheries. This rule would prohibit all commercial and recreational 
harvest and possession of red snapper year-round in the South Atlantic 
EEZ. Prohibition of red snapper applies in the South Atlantic on board 
a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat or 
commercial permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, 
without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e., in state or 
Federal waters. Furthermore, this rule would prohibit commercial and 
recreational harvest and possession of all snapper-grouper species 
year-round in an area that includes commercial logbook grids 2880, 
2980, and 3080 between 98 ft (16 fathoms; 30 m) and 240 ft (40 fathoms; 
73 m), except when fish (other than red snapper) are harvested with 
black sea bass pots that have a valid identification tag issued by the 
RA attached or fish (other than red snapper) are harvested with 
spearfishing gear. The prohibition on possession does not apply to a 
person aboard a vessel that is in transit with other snapper-grouper 
species on board and with fishing gear appropriately stowed. Finally, 
this proposed rule would require the use of non-stainless steel circle 
hooks when fishing for snapper-grouper with snapper-grouper hook-and-
line gear and natural baits north of 28[deg] N. lat.
    The Magnuson Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the 
proposed rule.
    No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been 
identified. The proposed rule would not alter existing reporting, 
record keeping, or other compliance requirements, except when the 
vessel is in transit across the proposed closed area, during which, 
fishing gear must be appropriately stowed, or when the vessel is 
selected for the fishery independent monitoring program to track the 
progress of red snapper.
    This proposed rule is expected to directly affect commercial 
harvesting and for-hire fishing operations. The Small Business 
Administration (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 $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990, recreational 
industries).
    From 2003-2007, an average of 944 vessels per year was permitted to 
operate in the commercial snapper-grouper fishery. Of these vessels, 
749 held transferable permits and 195 held non-transferable permits. On 
average, 890 vessels landed 6.43 million lb (2.92 million kg) of 
snapper-grouper and 1.95 million lb (0.88 million kg) of other species 
on snapper-grouper trips. Total dockside revenues from snapper-grouper 
species stood at $13.81 million (2007 dollars) and from other species, 
at $2.30 million (2007 dollars). Considering revenues from both 
snapper-grouper and other species, the revenues per vessel were 
$18,101. An average of 27 vessels per year harvested more than 50,000 
lb (22,680 kg) of snapper-grouper species per year, generating at 
least, at an average price of $2.15 (2007 dollars) per pound, dockside 
revenues of $107,500. Vessels that operate in the snapper-grouper 
fishery may also operate in other fisheries, the revenues of which 
cannot be determined with available data and are not reflected in these 
totals.
    Although a vessel that possesses a commercial snapper-grouper 
permit can harvest the various snapper-grouper species, not all 
permitted vessels landed all of the snapper-grouper species most 
affected by this amendment, i.e. red snapper, gag, vermilion snapper, 
black sea bass, black grouper, and red grouper. The following average 
number of vessels landed the subject species in 2003-2007: 292 vessels 
landed gag, 253 vessels landed vermilion snapper, 220 vessels landed 
red snapper, 237 vessels landed black sea bass, 323 vessels landed 
black grouper, and 402 vessels landed red grouper. Combining revenues 
from snapper-grouper and

[[Page 49450]]

other species on the same trip, the average revenue (2007 dollars) per 
vessel for vessels landing the subject species were $20,551 for gag, 
$28,454 for vermilion snapper, $22,168 for red snapper, $19,034 for 
black sea bass, $7,186 for black grouper, and $17,164 for red grouper.
    Based on revenue information, all commercial vessels directly 
affected by the proposed rule are considered small entities.
    The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee 
on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual 
angler (head) basis. For the period 2003-2007, an average of 1,635 
vessels was permitted to operate in the snapper-grouper for-hire 
fishery, of which 82 are estimated to have operated as headboats. 
Within the total number of vessels, 227 also possessed a commercial 
snapper-grouper permit and are included in the summary information 
provided on the commercial sector. The charterboat annual average gross 
revenue is estimated to range from approximately $62,000-$84,000 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 corresponding estimates are $170,000-
$362,000 for Florida vessels, and $149,000-$317,000 for vessels in the 
other states.
    Based on these average revenue figures, all for-hire operations 
directly affected by the proposed rule are considered small entities.
    Some fleet activity may exist in both the commercial and for-hire 
snapper-grouper sectors but its extent is unknown, and all vessels are 
treated as independent entities in this analysis.
    All entities that are expected to be directly affected by the 
proposed rule are considered small entities, so no disproportionate 
effects on small entities relative to large entities are expected.
    The proposed rule is expected to reduce short-run harvests and 
fishing opportunities of commercial and for-hire vessels that, in turn, 
would reduce their short-run revenues and profits. In the following 
discussion, net operating revenue is considered equivalent to profit.
    Prohibiting all commercial and recreational harvest and possession 
of red snapper year-round in the South Atlantic EEZ and prohibiting all 
commercial and recreational harvest and possession of species (except 
when caught with spearfishing gear or black sea bass pots that have a 
valid identification tag issued by the RA attached) in the snapper-
grouper fishery year-round in the area that includes commercial logbook 
grids 2880, 2980, and 3080 between 98 ft (16 fathoms; 30 m) and 240 ft 
(40 fathoms; 73 m) is expected to reduce net operating revenues of 
commercial vessels operating in the South Atlantic by an average of 
approximately $430,000 (4.8 percent). This measure is also expected to 
reduce the net operating revenues of for-hire vessels operating in the 
South Atlantic by approximately $5.04 million. Most of the effects 
would be borne by commercial and for-hire vessels operating in 
northeast Florida and Georgia. Moreover, most of the effects would fall 
on commercial vessels using vertical lines and on headboats. However, 
it is highly probable that the effects on headboats are overestimated 
due to overestimation of affected target trips by headboats.
    Exempting from the closed area prohibition harvests of snapper-
grouper species, except red snapper, caught with spearfishing gear or 
black sea bass pots that have valid identification tags would mitigate 
the effects of the area closures on commercial vessels. These effects 
are already incorporated in the estimated effects of the fishing 
prohibition on red snapper and fishing prohibition on snapper-grouper 
in the closed areas. There are no known recreational spearfishing 
activities in the closed areas.
    Requiring the use of non-stainless steel circle hooks when fishing 
for snapper-grouper species with snapper-grouper hook-and-line gear 
north of 28[deg] N. lat. is expected to increase the fishing costs of 
some commercial and for-hire vessels. Depending on the physical 
structure of a fish's mouth and the way that they take bait, the circle 
hook requirement may reduce the harvest of some desired species. The 
potential cost increase and harvest reduction cannot be estimated, 
although they are deemed to be relatively small considering that circle 
hooks are already used on some vessels.
    The estimated short-run reductions in the net operating revenues of 
the directly affected small entities, particularly for-hire vessels, 
may be considered substantial. Small entities operating off of 
northeast Florida and Georgia are expected to bear most of the short-
run adverse economic effects.
    Fifteen alternatives, four of which comprise the proposed action, 
and three sub-alternatives, one of which is the proposed action, were 
considered for the red snapper management measures. The first 
alternative to the proposed action, the no action alternative, would 
not conform to the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to end the 
overfished and overfishing conditions of red snapper. The second 
alternative to the proposed action would prohibit all commercial and 
recreational harvest and possession of red snapper year-round in the 
South Atlantic EEZ. This alternative has been determined to be 
insufficient to rebuild the red snapper stock within the specified 
timeframe due to discard mortalities from fishing for co-occurring 
snapper-grouper species. The third alternative to the proposed action 
would close four logbook grids and would close all water depths in the 
four subject areas. This alternative would result in larger short-run 
adverse economic effects than the proposed action. The fourth 
alternative to the proposed action would close four logbook grids and 
would close more water depths in the shallower parts of the four 
subject areas. This alternative would result in larger short-run 
adverse economic effects than the proposed measure. The fifth 
alternative to the proposed action is similar to the proposed action, 
except that it would close four, instead of three, logbook grids. This 
alternative would result in slightly larger short-run adverse economic 
effects than the proposed action. The sixth alternative to the proposed 
action would close four logbook grids and would close more water depths 
in the deeper parts of the four subject areas. This alternative would 
result in larger short-run adverse economic effects than the proposed 
action. The seventh alternative to the proposed action differs from the 
proposed action by closing four additional areas and all water depths 
in the subject seven areas. This alternative would result in 
substantially larger short-run adverse economic effects than the 
proposed action. The eighth alternative to the proposed action differs 
from the proposed action by closing four additional areas and more 
water depths in the shallower parts of the subject seven areas. This 
alternative would result in substantially larger short-run adverse 
economic effects than the proposed action. The ninth alternative to the 
proposed action differs from the proposed action by closing four 
additional areas. This alternative would result in substantially larger 
short-run adverse economic effects than the proposed action. The tenth 
alternative to the proposed action differs from the proposed action by 
closing four additional areas and more water depths in the deeper parts 
of the subject seven areas. This alternative would result in 
substantially larger short-run adverse

[[Page 49451]]

economic effects than the proposed action. The eleventh alternative to 
the proposed action would, in combination with any of the alternatives 
that would prohibit harvest and possession of red snapper and close 
four or seven areas to snapper-grouper fishing, allow harvest and 
possession of snapper-grouper species (except red snapper) with bottom 
longline gear in the closed areas deeper than 50 fathoms (91 m). 
Relative to the proposed action, this alternative would have small 
adverse effects on commercial vessels and no effects on for-hire 
vessels. Three sub-alternatives, including the proposed action, were 
considered for vessels transiting through the closed areas. The first 
sub-alternative would be less restrictive than the proposed action by 
not requiring that fishing gear be appropriately stowed when vessels 
transit through the closed areas. This alternative would slightly 
mitigate the adverse economic effects of the closed areas, but it could 
compromise the effectiveness of enforcing regulations in the closed 
areas. The second sub-alternative to the proposed action would be less 
restrictive than the proposed action for vessels with wreckfish on 
board. This alternative would particularly avoid the potential 
unintended adverse effects on vessels fishing for wreckfish, but it 
could also compromise the effectiveness of enforcing regulations in the 
closed areas.
    Three alternatives, including the proposed action, were considered 
for requiring the use of circle hooks. The first alternative to the 
proposed action, the no action alternative, would allow but would not 
require the use of circle hooks, and so would not entail any additional 
fishing cost. On the other hand, it would not take advantage of the 
potential afforded by circle hooks in reducing discard and bycatch 
mortality of red snapper, particularly in the center of the red snapper 
fishing area. The second alternative to the proposed action would 
require the use of circle hooks throughout the South Atlantic EEZ and 
not just north of 28[deg] N. lat. as in the proposed action. This 
alternative could entail higher fishing costs than the proposed action. 
It could also lower vessel revenues when some species cannot be 
effectively caught with circle hooks, particularly in the southern 
areas where red snapper harvest is relatively low.
    In addition to the foregoing actions, Amendment 17A also considered 
various alternatives for establishing an MSY proxy, a rebuilding 
schedule, a rebuilding strategy, and a monitoring program for red 
snapper.
    The proposed action on the MSY proxy for red snapper is the no 
action alternative, which would use F30%SPR as the FMSY 
proxy. The proposed action on the rebuilding strategy for red snapper 
would define a rebuilding strategy that sets FOY equal to 98 
percent FMSY (98%F30%SPR), specify an ACL based on landings, 
establish an ACL of zero for 2010 which would remain in effect beyond 
2010 until modified. OY at equilibrium would be 2,425,000 lb (1,099,961 
kg) whole weight. The proposed action on the monitoring programs is to 
establish a fishery independent monitoring program to track the 
progress of red snapper. Sampling would include deployment of chevron 
traps, cameras, and snapper-grouperhook-and-line at randomly selected 
stations.
    Two alternatives, including the proposed action which is the no 
action alternative, were considered for the MSY/MSY proxy for red 
snapper. The only alternative to the proposed action uses F40%SPR 
as the proxy for FMSY. This alternative is more conservative 
than the proposed action, and thus provides more assurance that 
overfishing would be ended and the stock rebuilt within the specified 
time frame. However, the Council recommended that the status quo proxy 
of FMSY be maintained until the SEFSC is able to conduct a 
comprehensive review of how FMSY proxies should be applied 
across all southeastern fisheries. The Council is considering a more 
comprehensive approach for assigning MSY proxies for red snapper and 
other species in southeastern fisheries.
    Four alternatives, including the proposed action, were considered 
for the red snapper rebuilding schedule. The first alternative to the 
proposed action, the no action alternative, would not define a 
rebuilding schedule for red snapper. Considering that a previous 
rebuilding schedule expired in 2006 and the stock is overfished, this 
alternative would not meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. The 
second alternative to the proposed action would define a rebuilding 
schedule equal to 15 years, which is the shortest possible period to 
rebuild in the absence of fishing mortality. Even if retention of red 
snapper is prohibited, red snapper would still be caught since they 
have temporal and spatial coincidence with other species fishermen 
target. Hence, adopting this alternative would mean more stringent 
regulations than those of the proposed action, thereby affecting a 
wider range of fisheries and more economically important snapper-
grouper species. This would result in much larger economic effects in 
the short run which may or may not be recouped in the long run unless 
those other affected snapper-grouper species become substantially 
abundant and fisheries become more economically important. The third 
alternative to the proposed action would define a rebuilding schedule 
equal to 25 years, which is the mid-point between the shortest possible 
(15 years) and maximum (35 years) timeframe to rebuild the stock. This 
alternative would require more stringent regulations in the short run 
and thus more short-run adverse economic effects than the proposed 
action. Uncertainties associated with assessments and effectiveness of 
proposed management measures to reduce red snapper mortality, 
particularly due to incidental catches, present some issues on 
rebuilding the stock in a timeframe shorter than the proposed action.
    Nine alternatives, including the proposed action, were considered 
for the rebuilding strategy, OY, ACL, and AM. With the exception of the 
no action alternative, each alternative includes two sub-alternatives 
for the ACL, and each ACL in turn includes three alternatives for the 
AM. It may be noted that the three AM alternatives, which all include 
monitoring programs, are identical for all alternatives and sub-
alternatives, so they do not merit additional discussions here. The 
first alternative to the proposed action, the no action alternative, 
would not specify an ACL and so would not meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
requirements. In addition, it would set FOY at a level 
equivalent to 85 percent F40%SPR such that OY at equilibrium 
equals 2,196,000 lb (996,089 kg) whole weight. This would then imply 
more restrictive measures than the proposed action, resulting in larger 
adverse economic effects in the short run. With a lower OY level, it 
also would tend to generate lower long-run economic benefits than the 
proposed action, although it could result in a more sustainable fishery 
because it is more biologically conservative. The second alternative to 
the proposed action would define a red snapper rebuilding strategy that 
sets FOY at a level equivalent to 85 percent F40%SPR such that OY at 
equilibrium equals 2,199,000 lb (997,450 kg) whole weight. This 
alternative would imply more restrictive measures in the short run, 
resulting in larger short-run adverse economic effects and potentially 
lower long-run benefits than the proposed action. Being more 
biologically conservative, however, than the proposed action, this 
alternative may provide a higher probability of a more

[[Page 49452]]

sustainable fishery. The first sub-alternative would base the ACL on 
landings, with the ACL equal to zero in 2010. This is identical to the 
proposed action. The second sub-alternative would base the ACL on total 
removal, with the ACL equal to 89,000 lb (40,370 kg) whole weight in 
2010. This would still require prohibition of red snapper harvest by 
both the commercial and recreational sectors. In addition, this would 
require monitoring of dead discards so that total removal would not 
exceed the ACL. The difficulty of monitoring dead discards, together 
with the likelihood that self-reported discards would be understated, 
raises concerns regarding the eventual effectiveness of the rebuilding 
strategy. The third alternative to the proposed action would define a 
red snapper rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 
75 percent F40%SPR such that OY at equilibrium equals 2,104,000 lb 
(954,358 kg) whole weight. This alternative would imply more 
restrictive measures in the short-run, resulting in larger short-run 
adverse economic effects and potentially lower long-run benefits than 
the proposed action. Because it is more biologically conservative than 
the proposed action, it may provide a higher probability of a more 
sustainable fishery. The first sub-alternative is identical to the 
proposed action. The second sub-alternative would base the ACL on total 
removal, with the ACL equal to 79,000 lb (35,834 kg) whole weight in 
2010. This sub-alternative raises similar issues of concern associated 
with the monitoring of dead discards. The fourth alternative to the 
proposed action would define a red snapper rebuilding strategy that 
sets FOY at a level equivalent to 65 percent F40%SPR 
such that OY at equilibrium equals 1,984,000 lb (899,927 kg) whole 
weight. This alternative would imply more restrictive measures in the 
short run, resulting in larger short-run adverse economic effects. With 
a lower OY, it may result in lower long-run benefits than the proposed 
action, although it may provide a higher probability of a more 
sustainable fishery because it is more biologically conservative. The 
first sub-alternative is identical to the proposed action. The second 
sub-alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal 
to 68,000 lb (30,844 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative 
raises similar issues of concern associated with the monitoring of dead 
discards. The fifth alternative to the proposed action would define a 
red snapper rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 
97 percent F40%SPR such that OY at equilibrium equals 
2,287,000 lb (1,037,366 kg) whole weight. This alternative would imply 
more restrictive measures in the short run, resulting in larger short-
run adverse economic effects. Because of a lower OY, it may result in 
lower long-run benefits than the proposed action, although it may 
result in a higher probability of a more sustainable fishery due to its 
being more biologically conservative than the proposed action. The 
first sub-alternative is identical to the proposed action. The second 
sub-alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal 
to 68,000 lb (30,844 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative 
raises similar issues of concern associated with the monitoring of dead 
discards. The sixth alternative to the proposed action would define a 
red snapper rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 
85 percent F30%SPR such that OY at equilibrium equals 2,392,000 lb 
(1,084,993 kg) whole weight. This alternative would imply more 
restrictive measures than the proposed action in the short run, 
resulting in larger short-run adverse economic effects and potentially 
lower long-run benefits because of a lower OY. The first sub-
alternative is identical to the proposed action. The second sub-
alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the ACL equal to 
125,000 lb (56,699 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-alternative 
raises similar issues of concern associated with the monitoring of dead 
discards, although the higher ACL than that of previous sub-
alternatives would tend to mitigate but not erase such concerns. The 
seventh alternative to the proposed action would define a red snapper 
rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 
75 percent F30%SPR such that OY at equilibrium equals 
2,338,000 lb (1,060,499 kg) whole weight. This alternative would imply 
more restrictive measures in the short run, resulting in lower short-
run adverse economic effects and potentially higher long-run benefits 
because of a lower OY. The first sub-alternative is identical to the 
proposed action. The second sub-alternative would base the ACL on total 
removal, with the ACL equal to 111,000 lb (50,349 kg) whole weight in 
2010. This sub-alternative raises similar issues of concern associated 
with the monitoring of dead discards, although the higher ACL than that 
of some previous sub-alternatives would tend to mitigate but not erase 
such concerns. The eighth alternative to the proposed action would 
define a red snapper rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a 
level equivalent to 65 percent F30%SPR such that OY at 
equilibrium equals 2,257,000 lb (1,023,758 kg) whole weight. This 
alternative would imply more restrictive measures than the proposed 
action in the short run, resulting in lower short-run adverse economic 
effects and potentially lower long-run benefits because of a lower OY. 
The first sub-alternative is identical to the proposed action. The 
second sub-alternative would base the ACL on total removal, with the 
ACL equal to 97,000 lb (43,998 kg) whole weight in 2010. This sub-
alternative raises similar issues of concern associated with the 
monitoring of dead discards, particularly that the ACL is lower than 
that of some previous sub-alternatives.
    Three alternatives, including the proposed action, were considered 
for the red snapper monitoring program. The first alternative, the no 
action alternative, would not entail any additional cost by utilizing 
existing data collection programs. However, existing data collection 
programs may not be adequate to collect vital information on red 
snapper during the time harvest of the species is prohibited. The 
second alternative to the proposed action would establish a red snapper 
fishery dependent monitoring program involving for-hire vessels. This 
alternative offers some potential, as does the proposed action, in 
collecting the needed information on red snapper, especially during the 
period when harvest of the species is prohibited. Although the near 
ideal approach is to combine this alternative with the proposed action, 
funding for both may not be available on a continuing basis.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

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

    Dated: August 10, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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.  622.32, paragraph (b)(3)(vi) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  622.32  Prohibited and limited-harvest species.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

[[Page 49453]]

    (3) * * *
    (vi) Red snapper may not be harvested or possessed in or from the 
South Atlantic EEZ. Such fish caught in the South Atlantic EEZ must be 
released immediately with a minimum of harm. In addition, for a person 
on board a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter 
vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been 
issued, the provisions of this closure apply in the South Atlantic, 
regardless of where such fish are harvested, i.e., in state or Federal 
waters.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  622.35, paragraph (l) is revised to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (l) Area closure for South Atlantic snapper-grouper. (1) No person 
may harvest or possess a South Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from the 
South Atlantic EEZ in the closed area defined in paragraph (1)(2) of 
this section, except a person harvesting South Atlantic snapper-grouper 
(see Sec.  622.32(b)(3) for the current prohibitions on the harvest and 
possession of red snapper and other snapper-grouper species) with 
spearfishing gear or with a sea bass pot that has a valid 
identification tag issued by the RA attached, as specified in Sec.  
622.6(b)(1)(i)(B). This prohibition on possession does not apply to a 
person aboard a vessel that is transiting through the closed area with 
fishing gear appropriately stowed as specified in paragraph (l)(3) of 
this section.
    (2) The area closure for South Atlantic snapper-grouper is bounded 
by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Point                      North lat.      West long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                                         28[deg]00'00''    80[deg]00'00
                                                                     ''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) For the purpose of paragraph (l)(1) of this section, continuous 
transiting or transit through means that a fishing vessel crosses the 
area closure on a constant heading, along a continuous straight line 
course, while underway, making way, not anchored, and by means of a 
source of power at all times (not including drifting by means of the 
prevailing water current or weather conditions). Fishing gear 
appropriately stowed means -
    (i) A longline may be left on the drum if all gangions and hooks 
are disconnected and stowed below deck. Hooks cannot be baited. All 
buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on 
deck.
    (ii) A trawl or try net may remain on deck, but trawl doors must be 
disconnected from such net and must be secured.
    (iii) A gillnet, stab net, or trammel net must be left on the drum. 
Any additional such nets not attached to the drum must be stowed below 
deck.
    (iv) Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, sinker, flasher, or bait) 
used with an automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, trolling gear, 
handline, or rod and reel must be disconnected and stowed separately 
from such fishing gear. A rod and reel must be removed from the rod 
holder and stowed securely on or below deck.
    (v) A crustacean trap or golden crab trap cannot be baited. All 
buoys must be disconnected from the gear; however, buoys may remain on 
deck.
    (vi) Other stowage methods may be authorized by the Regional 
Administrator in the future. These would be published in the Federal 
Register and become effective at that time.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  622.37, paragraph (e)(1)(v) is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  622.37  Size limits.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Red snapper -20 inches (50.8 cm), TL, however, see Sec.  
622.32(b)(3)(vii) for the current prohibition on the harvest and 
possession of red snapper.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec.  622.39, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) and (d)(1)(viii) are 
revised and paragraph (d)(1)(ix) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.39  Bag and possession limits.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Snappers, combined -10. However, excluded from this 10-fish 
bag limit are cubera snapper, measuring 30 inches (76.2 cm), TL, or 
larger, in the South Atlantic off Florida, and red snapper and 
vermilion snapper. (See Sec.  622.32(b)(3)(vii) for the prohibition on 
harvest and possession of red snapper and Sec.  622.32(c)(2) for 
limitations on cubera snapper measuring 30 inches (76.2 cm), TL, or 
larger, in or from the South Atlantic EEZ off Florida.)
* * * * *
    (viii) South Atlantic snapper-grouper, combined -20. However, 
excluded from this 20-fish bag limit are tomtate, blue runner, and 
those specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii), and (ix) of this 
section.
    (ix) No red snapper may be retained.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec.  622.41, paragraph (n) introductory text is revised and 
paragraph (n)(2) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.41  Species specific limitations.

* * * * *
    (n) * * * For a person on board a vessel to harvest or possess 
South Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from the South Atlantic EEZ, the 
vessel must possess on board and such person must use the gear as 
specified in paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) Non-stainless steel circle hooks. Non-stainless steel circle 
hooks are required when fishing with hook-and-line gear and natural 
baits north of 28[deg] N. lat.
    7. In Sec.  622.45, paragraph (d)(10) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.45  Restrictions on sale and purchase.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (10) No person may sell or purchase a red snapper harvested from or 
possessed in the South Atlantic, i.e., state or Federal waters, by a 
vessel for which a Federal commercial permit for South Atlantic 
snapper-grouper has been issued.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-20070 Filed 8-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S