Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Amendment 10, 59102-59108 [2011-24550]
Download as PDF
59102
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
0250)—Oregon Title V Operating
Permits.
OAR 340–228—Requirements for Fuel
Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur
Content, Mercury Rules (0672 Emission
Caps, 0673 Monitoring Requirements for
the Hg Emission Standards, 0676 Heat
Input Determinations 0674, 0676 Coal
Sampling and Analysis, and 0678 Hg
Mass Emissions Measurement Prior to
Any Control Devices 0678).
OAR 340–228—Requirements for Fuel
Burning Equipment and Fuel Sulfur
Content Federal Acid Rain Program
(0300).
OAR 340–230—Incinerator
Regulations.
OAR 340–234–0010—Standards for
Wood Products Industries—EPA is not
acting on references to total reduced
sulfur from smelt dissolving tanks,
sewers, drains, categorically
insignificant activities, and wastewater
treatment facilities in the revised
definition of other sources.
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
Councils (Councils). If implemented,
this rule would revise the lobster
species contained within the fishery
management unit, establish an annual
catch limit (ACL) for spiny lobster,
revise the Federal spiny lobster tailseparation permitting requirements,
revise the regulations specifying the
condition of spiny lobster landed during
a fishing trip, modify the undersized
attractant regulations, modify the
framework procedures, and incorporate
the state of Florida’s derelict trap
removal program into the Federal
regulations that apply to the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ) off Florida.
Additionally, this rule would revise
codified text to reflect updated contact
information for the state of Florida and
regulatory references for the Florida
Administrative Code. The intent of this
proposed rule is to specify ACLs for
spiny lobster while maintaining catch
levels consistent with achieving
optimum yield (OY) for the resource.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 24, 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Dated: September 15, 2011.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011–24525 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 622 and 640
[Docket No. 100305126–1558–03]
RIN 0648–AY72
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Spiny
Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic; Amendment 10
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to
implement Amendment 10 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny
Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic (FMP), as prepared
and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic Fishery Management
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the proposed rule identified by
NOAA–NMFS–2011–0106 by any of the
following methods:
• Electronic submissions: Submit
electronic comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Mail: Susan Gerhart, 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.
To submit comments through the
Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov, click on ‘‘submit a
comment,’’ then enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–
2011–0106’’ in the keyword search and
click on ‘‘search.’’ To view posted
comments during the comment period,
enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2011–0106’’ in
the keyword search and click on
‘‘search.’’ NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter N/A in the required
field if you wish to remain anonymous).
You may submit attachments to
electronic comments in Microsoft Word,
Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file
formats only.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Comments received through means
not specified in this rule will not be
considered.
Electronic copies of documents
supporting this proposed rule, which
include a draft environmental impact
statement and an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA), may be
obtained from the Southeast Regional
Office Web site at https://sero.nmfs.noaa.
gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727–824–
5305, or e-mail: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.
gov.
The spiny
lobster fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
(Gulf) and the South Atlantic is
managed under the FMP. The FMP was
prepared by the Councils and
implemented through regulations at 50
CFR parts 622 and 640 under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The 2006 revisions to the MagnusonStevens Act require that in 2011, for
FMPs for fisheries determined by the
Secretary to not be subject to
overfishing, ACLs must be established at
a level that prevents overfishing and
helps to achieve OY within a fishery.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires
NMFS and regional fishery management
councils to prevent overfishing and
achieve, on a continuing basis, the OY
from Federally managed stocks. These
mandates are intended to ensure fishery
resources are managed for the greatest
overall benefit to the nation, particularly
with respect to providing food
production and recreational
opportunities, and protecting marine
ecosystems.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Management Measures Contained in
This Proposed Rule
This rule would remove four species
from the FMP; establish an ACL and an
ACT for spiny lobster; revise the
requirements for the Federal spiny
lobster tail-separation permit; revise the
regulations specifying the condition of
lobster landed during a fishing trip;
modify the regulations with respect to
the use of undersized attractants;
modify the framework procedures; and
incorporate the state of Florida’s derelict
trap removal program into the Federal
regulations that apply to the EEZ off of
Florida. Additionally, this rule would
revise codified text throughout the
spiny lobster regulations to update
relevant contact information and
regulatory references.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:07 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
Removal of Species From the Fishery
Management Unit
Five species of lobster are currently
within the FMP: the Caribbean spiny
lobster (Panulirus argus), the smoothtail
spiny lobster (Panulirus laevicaus), the
spotted spiny lobster (Panulirus
guttatus), the Spanish slipper lobster
(Scyllarides aequinoctialis), and the
ridged slipper lobster (Scyllarides
nodifer). At present, only the Caribbean
spiny lobster and the ridged slipper
lobster have associated regulatory text;
the other species are in the fishery
management unit for data collection
purposes only. This rule would remove
all species from the FMP except the
Caribbean spiny lobster (spiny lobster).
The Councils and NMFS have
determined these other lobster species
are not in need of Federal management
at this time. Although these species are
targeted in some areas, landings are
relatively low. Furthermore, individual
states have the option to extend their
regulations into Federal waters for these
other lobster species. Also, most
landings of these other species are off
Florida, and Florida regulations
concerning the taking of egg-bearing
females, or stripping or removing eggs,
are more conservative than Federal
regulations for most of these species.
Therefore, if Florida were to extend its
regulations into Federal waters, these
species could receive greater protection
than under current management. If
landings or effort changed for the other
lobster species and the Councils
determined management at the Federal
level was needed, these species could be
added back into the FMP at a later date.
Spiny Lobster ACL and Accountability
Measure
In 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
was re-authorized and included a
number of changes to improve the
conservation of managed fishery
resources. Included in these changes are
requirements that fishery management
councils establish both a mechanism for
specifying ACLs at a level such that
overfishing does not occur in a fishery
and accountability measures (AMs) to
help ensure that ACLs are not exceeded
and to mitigate any ACL overages that
may occur. Guidance also requires
fishery management councils to
establish a control rule to determine
allowable biological catch (ABC).
The Councils accepted the ABC
control rule developed by the Gulf
Council’s Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC), which set the ABC for
spiny lobster at 7.32 million lb (3.32
million kg). The Councils chose not to
set sector allocations and set a stock
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59103
ACL equal to the ABC. Therefore, the
spiny lobster stock ACL is proposed to
be set at 7.32 million lb (3.32 million
kg). An ACT was set at 90 percent of the
ACL, which is 6.59 million lb (2.99
million kg). If the ACT is exceeded in
any year, the Councils will convene a
scientific panel to review the ACL and
ACT, and determine if additional AMs
are needed. The ACT is proposed to
serve as the AM for the spiny lobster
stock. Landings have not exceeded the
ACT level since the 2000/2001 fishing
year. Therefore, it is unlikely the ACT
would be exceeded under the current
ACT preferred alternative based on
landings history. However, the updated
framework procedure contained within
this amendment would facilitate timely
adjustments of the ACT or ACL if
necessary.
Revisions to Federal Spiny Lobster TailSeparation Permit Requirements
Spiny Lobster Amendment 1 (July 15,
1987, 52 FR 22659) initially
implemented the Federal spiny lobster
tail-separation permit. The original
intent of the Councils was to confine
holders of this permit to the commercial
sector. However, the current
requirements for obtaining the Federal
spiny lobster tail-separation permit do
not restrict the permit to commercial
fishermen, which is contrary to the
Councils’ original intent. This rule
would require applicants for a Federal
spiny lobster tail-separation permit to
possess either (1) A Federal spiny
lobster permit or (2) a valid Florida
Restricted Species Endorsement and a
valid Crawfish Endorsement associated
with a valid Florida Saltwater Products
License.
Condition of Spiny Lobster Landed
During a Fishing Trip
Under certain situations and with
possession of a valid Federal tailseparation permit, Caribbean spiny
lobster tails may be separated from the
body onboard a fishing vessel. This tailseparation provision can create
difficulties for law enforcement
personnel in determining if the lobster
were originally of legal size. This rule
would require lobster to be landed
either all whole or all tailed during a
single fishing trip. Requiring lobsters to
be landed all whole or all tailed would
discourage selective tailing of
potentially undersized lobsters and
thereby aid the enforcement of the
minimum size limit.
Use of Undersized Attractants
Federal regulations allow as many as
50 spiny lobsters less than the minimum
size limit or one per trap, whichever is
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
59104
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
greater, to be retained aboard a vessel to
attract other lobsters for harvest.
Currently, Federal regulations are not
consistent with Florida regulations,
which allow the retention of as many as
50 spiny lobsters less than the minimum
size limit and one per trap. This rule
would change the Federal regulations
specific to the use of undersized
attractants to be consistent with current
Florida regulations. Additionally,
although approximately 10 percent
mortality is associated with the use of
undersized attractants, traps using nonlobster bait or no bait at all take up to
two to three times longer to harvest the
same amount of lobsters as traps that
use undersized attractants. This increase
in effort may increase the bycatch and
bycatch mortality of other species.
Therefore, the use of undersized
attractants that are consistent with
Florida regulations provides both
enforcement and biological benefits.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Modification of Generic Framework
Procedures
To facilitate timely adjustments to
harvest parameters and other
management measures, the Councils
have added the ability to adjust ACLs
and AMs, and establish and adjust target
catch levels, including ACTs, to the
current framework procedures. These
adjustments or additions may be
accomplished through a regulatory
amendment which is less time intensive
than an FMP amendment. By including
ACLs, AMs, and ACTs in the framework
procedure for specifying total allowable
catch, the Councils and NMFS would
have the flexibility to more promptly
alter those harvest parameters as new
scientific information becomes
available. The proposed addition of
other management options into the
framework procedures would also add
flexibility and the ability to more timely
respond to certain future Council
decisions through the framework
procedures.
Removal of Derelict Spiny Lobster Traps
in the EEZ Off Florida
On August 27, 2009, an Endangered
Species Act (ESA) biological opinion
evaluating the impacts of the continued
authorization of the spiny lobster
fishery on ESA-listed species was
completed. The opinion contained
specific terms and conditions required
to implement the prescribed reasonable
and prudent measures, including
consideration of alternatives to allow
the public to remove trap-related marine
debris in the EEZ off Florida. This
proposed rule would authorize the
removal of traps in Federal waters off
Florida through Florida’s trap cleanup
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
program, as provided in existing Florida
regulations. Florida’s trap cleanup
program includes provisions for public
participation.
Revisions To Update Contact
Information and Regulatory Reference
Text
This rule proposes to revise a number
of references within the regulations for
spiny lobster. Specifically, this
proposed rule would update the spiny
lobster regulations with the contact
information for the state of Florida
administrative offices and the relevant
references within the Florida statutes
and administrative code that are
contained within the Federal
regulations in 50 CFR parts 622 and 640.
These additional revisions are unrelated
to the actions contained in Amendment
10.
Actions in Amendment 10 That Are Not
Contained in This Rulemaking
Amendment 10 also contains nonregulatory actions to revise the
definitions of management thresholds.
Definitions of maximum sustainable
yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY),
overfishing, and overfished were set for
Caribbean spiny lobster in Amendment
6 to the FMP. Currently, the Councils
have different definitions for each
reference point. Amendment 10 would
set a single definition for each biological
reference point that would be used by
both Councils and allow for a more
consistent management of spiny lobster.
Currently, no allocations are set
between the commercial and
recreational sectors for spiny lobster.
The Councils considered setting such
allocations, but instead chose to not
sector allocations and therefore allow
for a stock ACL, stock ACT, and AM
that affects both sectors.
The Councils considered alternatives
to meet requirements from the 2009
biological opinion to establish lobster
closed areas and lobster gear trap line
marking requirements to protect
threatened and endangered species;
however, they chose to take no action at
this time to allow time for additional
stakeholder input. The Councils intend
to develop Amendment 11 to the Spiny
Lobster FMP to implement these
measures prior to the beginning of the
next spiny lobster commercial fishing
season that begins on August 6, 2012.
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 10 and the FMP
subject to this rulemaking, other
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 this 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 NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A
summary of the IRFA follows.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
the statutory basis for the proposed rule.
No duplicative, overlapping, or
conflicting Federal rules have been
identified.
The rule would affect all fishing in
the EEZ that is managed under the FMP
for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf and South
Atlantic. Landings of spiny lobster
occur predominantly in the Florida
Keys (Monroe County) and elsewhere in
south Florida. Relatively small (mostly
confidential) amounts have been
reported for other Gulf and South
Atlantic states since 1977. Fishing for
spiny lobster in Florida is managed
cooperatively by the Councils and the
state of Florida, which collects the data
used to analyze the activity. Including
fishing in Federal and state waters, the
numbers of commercial vessels,
commercial trips, and Florida spiny
lobster trap landings, traps with
commercial landings of spiny lobster in
Florida have all declined substantially
since the implementation of Florida’s
Trap Certificate Program in the early
1990’s, and productivity (CPUE) has
increased.
Businesses directly affected by the
proposed rule include those engaged in
commercial shellfish harvesting (NAICS
code 114112) and for-hire fishing
(NAICS code 713990), and they meet the
respective Small Business
Administration (SBA) criteria for being
small businesses. Commercial and forhire fishing vessels that fish for spiny
lobster in state and Federal waters off
Florida must meet applicable Florida
permitting requirements. An estimated
781 vessels landed spiny lobster
commercially in Florida, on average, in
the last 5 years. This includes 274
vessels (1,977 trips) with landings from
the EEZ off Florida, where an estimated
35 vessels (130 trips) landed both tailed
and whole lobsters on the same trips.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
On average, these 35 vessels have fewer,
but longer trips, higher trip landings,
haul more traps per trip, and they fish
at greater depths. Another 23 vessels
landed slipper lobster in Florida during
that time. While the number of for-hire
vessels that fish for spiny lobster in the
EEZ off Florida is not known, it is likely
that less than the 1,330 vessels that
currently have the necessary Florida
permits and licenses engage in for-hire
fishing for spiny lobster in state and
Federal waters. None of these for-hire
vessels are believed to have State
commercial fishing permits/licenses.
The for-hire vessels target other species
as well, because annual recreational
landings of spiny lobster occur
predominantly in late July through the
first week of September.
The majority of the actions in this
proposed rule are either administrative
in nature or would be expected to
accommodate status quo harvests or
fishing behavior. The possible exception
to this determination is the proposed
action relative to the possession and
landing of tailed lobsters in or from the
EEZ. Available data do not allow the
quantification of the number of vessels
that may be affected by this proposed
action. Approximately 35 vessels with
commercial landings from the EEZ
landed both tailed and whole lobsters
on the same trips. The effect on these
vessels of the requirement to land either
all tailed or all whole lobsters on one
trip is not known. The proposed action
may be a problem for for-hire vessels
with a limited holding capacity. It is
believed that some for-hire vessels may
have been tailing lobsters during trips.
The solution for these vessels may
simply be the purchase of additional ice
chests to store harvested lobster.
However, while this proposed action
may be limiting for some for-hire
vessels, this would not be expected to
be a problem, on average, for the for-hire
fleet because the majority of vessels
would not be expected to engage in the
practice of landing tailed lobsters, or
depend on this type of business for a
significant portion of their revenues. As
a result, the actions in this rule would
not be expected to significantly reduce
profits for a substantial number of small
entities. Public comment, however, is
requested on this determination because
of the absence of data related to the
potential effects of the proposed action
on the possession and landing of tailed
lobsters from the EEZ.
Alternatives were considered
regarding species other than Caribbean
spiny lobster (spiny lobster) in the FMP,
and the proposed action would remove
the other four lobster species from the
FMP. None of the alternatives would be
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
expected have an economic impact on
small entities because these species
addressed are either not currently
managed or are not significantly
harvested. One alternative, the no-action
alternative, would not meet the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act because three species would have
remained in the FMP for data collection
purposes only without the specification
of ACLs and AMs (which is no longer
allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act). The other alternatives were not
selected as preferred alternatives
because the Councils determined that
these species no longer required
management at the Federal level
because protection at the state level was
adequate.
Among the alternatives considered for
the action to set ACLs, the proposed
action specifies a single (stock) ACL,
whereby ACL = OY = ABC. The noaction alternative would not meet
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements.
The remaining alternatives to the
proposed action would specify higher or
lower ACLs, with each alternative
specifying either a single ACL for the
entire fishery or sector specific ACLs,
one ACL for the commercial sector, and
another ACL for the recreational sector.
Alternatives that would have resulted in
sector ACLs were not selected because
the adoption of sector ACLs would have
been inconsistent with the decision to
not adopt allocation ratios for the
sectors. Among the alternatives that
would establish stock ACLs, the
proposed action would be expected to
result in the greatest economic benefits
because it would allow the greatest total
harvest and support more recreational
trips and commercial revenues without
compromising the health of the resource
or jeopardizing future economic
benefits.
Several alternatives, including the noaction alternative, were considered for
the action to set ACTs. The proposed
action specifies an ACT which is less
than the ACL. Although an ACT is not
a required component of an FMP and
the absence of an ACT would allow a
harvest up to the level of the ACL, the
no-action alternative was not selected
because the Councils decided that an
ACT was appropriate for this stock due
to the uncertainty associated with
harvest monitoring, particularly
recreational landings. Similar to the
action to specify the ACL, the remaining
five alternatives to the proposed action
would specify different ACTs, with each
alternative specifying either a single
ACT for the entire fishery or sector
specific ACTs, one ACT for the
commercial sector, and another ACT for
the recreational sector. The alternatives
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59105
that would have resulted in sector ACTs
were not adopted because the adoption
of sector ACTs would have been
inconsistent with the decision to not
select allocation ratios or ACLs for the
sectors. Among the alternatives that
would not establish sector ACTs, other
than the no-action alternative, the
proposed action would be expected to
result in the greatest economic benefits
because it would allow the greatest total
harvest and support more recreational
trips and commercial revenues.
Several alternatives, including the noaction alternative, were considered for
the action to establish AMs. The noaction alternative would not meet the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to
establish AMs. The proposed action
would establish the ACT as the AM for
the spiny lobster stock. With the
exception of the no-action alternative
and an option to establish combined
sector AMs, the alternatives to the
proposed action would be inconsistent
with the adoption of other actions in
this proposed rule. Absent sector
allocations, ACLs, and ACTs, the
adoption of sector AMs would be
inappropriate. Further, adjustment of
sector seasons is not practical in the
absence of sector ACLs or ACTs. The
option that would establish combined
sector AMs was not adopted because the
Councils felt the proposed action would
provide an adequate buffer between the
target level of harvest and the annual
limit on harvest.
Among the alternatives, including the
no-action alternative, considered to
establish the framework procedure, the
proposed action incorporates two of the
alternatives, updating the current
protocol for cooperative management
and revising the current regulatory
amendment procedures by adopting the
base framework procedure. The noaction alternative was not selected
because the current protocol is out of
date with respect to terminology and
relevant agency names and authorities,
and the framework procedures are not
consistent with current assessment and
management methods. The proposed
action would facilitate implementation
of changes in management measures
required under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, such as changes in ACLs, ACTs,
and AMs. Two of the remaining
alternatives to the proposed action were
not selected because they could result in
a delay in the implementation of
necessary changes to the FMP. Such
delays would be expected to impede the
effective and efficient management of
the stock. The final alternative to the
proposed action was not adopted
because it would have given the
Councils and NMFS too much
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
59106
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
discretion to change management
outside of the plan amendment process.
Five alternatives, including the noaction alternative, were considered for
the action to revise the regulations
regarding undersized spiny lobsters.
The proposed action would allow
undersized spiny lobster not exceeding
50 per vessel and 1 per trap aboard each
vessel if used in the EEZ exclusively for
luring, decoying, or otherwise attracting
non-captive spiny lobsters into the trap.
The proposed action would be expected
to result in an unquantifiable increase in
economic benefits to spiny lobster
fishermen relative to the status quo. The
other alternatives, including the noaction alternative, were not selected
because they would not be consistent
with Florida regulations and would
result in greater restrictions on the
possession of undersized spiny lobsters
used as attractants. As a result, each of
these alternatives would be expected to
result in lower economic benefits than
the proposed action.
Four alternatives, including the noaction alternative, were considered for
the action to modify tailing
requirements. Two of the alternatives
are included in the proposed action,
which would require that all lobsters
from the EEZ be landed either all whole
or all tailed on a single trip, and require
that vessels applying for a Federal
tailing permit must have either the
requisite Florida permits/licenses for
commercial fishing for lobster or a
Federal spiny lobster permit. The noaction alternative was not selected
because the Federal tailing permit was
originally intended to allow tailing by
commercial fishermen on long trips but,
instead, current regulatory language has
allowed recreational fishermen to obtain
the permit, contrary to the Councils’
original intent. The remaining
alternative to the proposed action would
prohibit any Federal lobster tailseparation permits and was not selected
because it would be expected to result
in greater economic losses than the
proposed action.
Six alternatives, including the noaction alternative, were considered for
the action to designate authority to
remove derelict spiny lobster traps in
the EEZ off Florida. The no-action
alternative was not selected because it
would not allow the removal of derelict
traps, and would not, therefore, be
consistent with the Council’s objective
to limit the amount of derelict spiny
lobster gear in the EEZ off Florida. This
proposed rule would authorize the
removal of traps in Federal waters off
Florida through Florida’s trap cleanup
program, as provided in existing Florida
regulations, and would be expected to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
have the least economic impact on small
entities, based on public comment
provided by commercial fishermen. The
other alternatives to the proposed action
would allow the public to remove
derelict traps, or portions thereof,
during different portions of the closed
season. Assuming such authority only
resulted in the removal of derelict traps,
and not licensed and appropriate lobster
traps, none of the alternatives to the
proposed action, other than the noaction alternative, would be expected to
adversely affect ongoing activity in the
commercial sector during the
commercial open season because, by
definition, the removed traps would no
longer be part of an active business
operation. The no-action alternative
would also not be expected to affect
ongoing commercial activity because
derelict trap removal by the public
would not be allowed. The proposed
action was selected by the Councils to
allow the traps to be removed through
an existing, coordinated, and wellmanaged Florida program.
Additional actions and alternatives
were considered in the amendment but
are not included in this proposed rule
because they would either establish
management reference points or the
preferred action would not result in any
regulatory change. These actions and
alternatives are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
Alternative definitions for maximum
sustainable yield, the overfishing
threshold, and the overfished threshold
and other biological parameters for
spiny lobster were considered. The
respective alternatives proposed by the
Councils are intended to bring the FMP
into compliance with requirements of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are
based on SSC recommendations.
Defining these biological parameters for
a species does not alter the current
harvest or use of the resource.
Therefore, no economic impact on small
entities would be expected to result
from the specification of these
management parameters.
Among the alternatives considered by
the Councils to establish sector
allocations, the no-action alternative
was adopted as the proposed action.
The other alternatives would specify
allocations that would have varying
effects determined by the combination
of alternatives used to specify
allocations, ABC, ACL, OY, and ACT.
The result is that some single (stock) or
paired-set (sector) ACLs were greater
than or less than the respective statusquo landings. Any scenario where
allowable landings would be reduced
would be expected to result in a
reduction in economic benefits to the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
respective affected sector. The Councils
concluded that it was best to manage the
spiny lobster fishery without allocations
between the recreational and
commercial sectors because no
mechanism currently exists to track
recreational landings and the
commercial trip ticket data are not
compiled with sufficient speed to
support in-season quota monitoring.
Among the alternatives to specify an
ABC control rule, the proposed action
specifies the Gulf Council’s SSC
recommended ABC Control Rule. The
no-action alternative and two other
alternatives (for which the ABC
exceeded that recommended by the
SSC) would not meet Magnuson-Stevens
Act guidance that an ABC control rule
be used to set the ABC and that the SSC
recommend the ABC to the Council.
Each of the other alternatives to the
proposed action would specify a lower
ABC. Because specifying an ABC
control rule is an administrative action,
no direct economic effects on any small
entities would be expected to result
from any of these alternatives. The
proposed action was adopted because it
would be consistent with decisions
made for other species managed by the
Councils and would provide a
statistically based method of setting
ABC, even if a new stock assessment
changed the status of the stock. Further,
the remaining alternatives, other than
the no action alternative, were not
adopted because they would not allow
for changes to the ABC based on
subsequent stock assessments.
Including the no-action alternative,
four alternatives were considered for the
action to limit spiny lobster fishing to
certain areas in the EEZ off Florida to
protect threatened staghorn and elkhorn
corals. Each of the alternatives to the
proposed action would increase the
restrictions on where spiny lobster
fishing could occur relative to the status
quo. As a result, each of these
alternatives would be expected to result
in adverse economic effects to spiny
lobster fishermen relative to the status
quo. The no action alternative was
adopted as the proposed action in order
to allow more public input before taking
additional action and this action will be
re-addressed in a subsequent
amendment to the FMP.
Three alternatives, including the noaction alternative, were considered for
the action to require gear markings on
all lobster trap lines used in the EEZ off
Florida. Each of the alternatives to the
proposed action would impose new gear
marking requirements and, as a result,
each of these alternatives would be
expected to result in adverse economic
effects to spiny lobster fishermen
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
relative to the status quo. The no action
alternative was adopted as the proposed
action in order to allow for more public
input before taking additional action
and this action will be re-addressed in
a subsequent amendment to the FMP.
5. In § 640.1, the first sentence of
paragraph (b) is revised to read as
follows:
List of Subjects
*
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
50 CFR Part 640
Fisheries, Fishing, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: September 20, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 640 are
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 for
‘‘Caribbean spiny lobster’’ is removed
and the definition for ‘‘Caribbean spiny
lobster or spiny lobster’’ is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows.
§ 622.2
Definitions and acronyms.
*
*
*
*
*
Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny
lobster means the species Panulirus
argus, or a part thereof.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In § 622.6, a sentence is added to
the end of paragraph (b)(1)(iv) to read as
follows:
§ 622.6
Vessel and gear identification.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * * In the EEZ off Florida,
during times other than the authorized
fishing season, a Caribbean spiny lobster
trap, buoy, or any connecting lines will
be considered derelict and may be
disposed of in accordance with Rules
68B–55.002 and 68B–55.004 of the
Florida Administrative Code.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 640—SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY
OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND
SOUTH ATLANTIC
4. The authority for part 640
continues to read as follows:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
§ 640.1
Purpose and scope.
*
*
*
*
(b) This part governs the conservation
and management of Caribbean spiny
lobster (spiny lobster) in the EEZ in the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico off
the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states
from the Virginia/North Carolina border
south and through the Gulf of Mexico.
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
6. In § 640.2, the definitions for
‘‘slipper (Spanish) lobster’’ and ‘‘spiny
lobster’’ are removed and the definition
for ‘‘Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny
lobster’’ is added in alphabetical order
to read as follows:
§ 640.2
Definitions and acronyms.
*
*
*
*
*
Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny
lobster means the species Panulirus
argus, or a part thereof.
*
*
*
*
*
7. In § 640.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and
(a)(2) are revised to read as follows:
§ 640.4
Permits and fees.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) EEZ off Florida and spiny lobster
landed in Florida. For a person to sell,
trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, trade,
or barter, a spiny lobster harvested or
possessed in the EEZ off Florida, or
harvested in the EEZ other than off
Florida and landed from a fishing vessel
in Florida, or for a person to be exempt
from the daily bag and possession limit
specified in § 640.23(b)(1) for such
spiny lobster, such person must have
the licenses and certificates specified to
be a ‘‘commercial harvester,’’ as defined
in Rule 68B–24.002, Florida
Administrative Code, in effect as of July
1, 2008. This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained
from the Florida Division of Marine
Fisheries Management, 620 South
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399;
telephone: 850–488–4676. Copies may
be inspected at the Office of the
Regional Administrator; the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or
the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) Tail-separation permits. For a
person to possess aboard a fishing vessel
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
59107
a separated spiny lobster tail in or from
the EEZ as defined in § 640.1 (b), a valid
Federal tail-separation permit must be
issued to the vessel and must be on
board. Permitting prerequisites for the
tail-separation permit are either a valid
Federal vessel permit for spiny lobster
or a valid Florida Saltwater Products
License with a valid Florida Restricted
Species Endorsement and a valid
Crawfish Endorsement.
*
*
*
*
*
8. In § 640.6, paragraphs (a) and (c)
are revised to read as follows:
§ 640.6
Vessel and gear identification.
(a) EEZ off Florida. (1) An owner or
operator of a vessel that is used to
harvest spiny lobster by traps in the EEZ
off Florida must comply with the vessel
and gear identification requirements
specified in sections 379.367(2)(a)1. and
379.367(3), Florida Statutes, in effect as
of July 1, 2009, and in Rule 68B–
24.006(3), (4), and (5), Florida
Administrative Code, in effect as of July
1, 2008.
(2) An owner or operator of a vessel
that is used to harvest spiny lobsters by
diving in the EEZ off Florida must
comply with the vessel identification
requirements applicable to the
harvesting of spiny lobsters by diving in
Florida’s waters in Rule 68B–24.006(6),
Florida Administrative Code, in effect as
of July 1, 2008.
(3) The incorporation by reference in
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this
section of sections 379.367(2)(a)1. and
379.367(3), Florida Statutes, Rule 68B–
24.006(3), (4), and (5), and (6) Florida
Administrative Code, was approved by
the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may
be obtained from the Florida Division of
Marine Fisheries Management, 620
South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL
32399; telephone: 850–488–4676.
Copies may be inspected at the Office of
the Regional Administrator; the Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD;
or the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Unmarked traps and buoys. An
unmarked spiny lobster trap or buoy in
the EEZ is illegal gear.
(1) EEZ off Florida. Such trap or buoy,
and any connecting lines, during times
other than the authorized fishing
season, will be considered derelict and
may be disposed of in accordance with
Rules 68B–55.002 and 68B–55.004 of
the Florida Administrative Code. An
owner of such trap or buoy remains
subject to appropriate civil penalties.
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
59108
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(2) EEZ other than off Florida. Such
trap or buoy, and any connecting lines,
will be considered unclaimed or
abandoned property and may be
disposed of in any manner considered
appropriate by the Assistant
Administrator or an authorized officer.
An owner of such trap or buoy remains
subject to appropriate civil penalties.
9. In § 640.7, paragraph (g) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 640.7
Prohibitions.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Fail to return immediately to the
water a berried spiny lobster; strip eggs
from or otherwise molest a berried spiny
lobster; or possess a spiny lobster, or
part thereof, from which eggs,
swimmerettes, or pleopods have been
removed or stripped; as specified in
§ 640.21(a).
*
*
*
*
*
10. In § 640.20, paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is
removed, and paragraph (b)(3)(i) is
revised and two sentences are added at
the end of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 640.20
Seasons.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) In the EEZ off Florida, the rules
and regulations applicable to the
possession of spiny lobster traps in
Florida’s waters in Rule 68B–24.005(3),
(4), and (5), Florida Administrative
Code, in effect as of June 1, 1994, apply
in their entirety to the possession of
spiny lobster traps in the EEZ off
Florida. This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the
Office of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained
from the Florida Division of Marine
Fisheries Management, 620 South
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399;
telephone: 850–488–4676. Copies may
be inspected at the Office of the
Regional Administrator; the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or
the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC. A spiny lobster trap,
buoy, or rope in the EEZ off Florida,
during periods not authorized in this
paragraph will be considered derelict
and may be disposed of in accordance
with Rules 68B–55.002 and 68B–55.004
of the Florida Administrative Code. An
owner of such trap, buoy, or rope
remains subject to appropriate civil
penalties.
(ii) * * * A spiny lobster trap, buoy,
or rope in the EEZ off the Gulf states,
other than Florida, during periods not
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
authorized in this paragraph (b)(3) will
be considered unclaimed or abandoned
property and may be disposed of in any
manner considered appropriate by the
Assistant Administrator or an
authorized officer. An owner of such
trap, buoy, or rope remains subject to
appropriate civil penalties.
*
*
*
*
*
11. In § 640.21, paragraph (a), the
second sentence of paragraph (c), and
paragraph (d) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 640.21
Harvest limitations.
(a) Berried lobsters. A berried (eggbearing) spiny lobster in or from the
EEZ must be returned immediately to
the water unharmed. If found in a trap
in the EEZ, a berried spiny lobster may
not be retained in the trap. A berried
spiny lobster in or from the EEZ may
not be stripped of its eggs or otherwise
molested. The possession of a spiny
lobster, or part thereof, in or from the
EEZ from which eggs, swimmerettes, or
pleopods have been removed or
stripped is prohibited.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Undersized attractants. * * * No
more than fifty undersized spiny
lobsters and one per trap aboard the
vessel, may be retained aboard for use
as attractants. * * *
(d) Tail separation. (1) The possession
aboard a fishing vessel of a separated
spiny lobster tail in or from the EEZ as
defined in § 640.1 (b), is authorized only
when the possession is incidental to
fishing exclusively in the EEZ on a trip
of 48 hours or more and a valid Federal
tail-separation permit, and either a valid
Federal vessel permit for spiny lobster
or a valid Florida Saltwater Products
License with a valid Florida Restricted
Species Endorsement and a valid
Crawfish Endorsement, as specified in
§ 640.4(a)(2), has been issued to and are
on board the vessel.
(2) Spiny lobster must be landed
either all whole or all tailed on a single
fishing trip.
12. In § 640.22, paragraphs (a)(3) and
(b)(3)(i) are revised to read as follows:
§ 640.22
Gear and diving restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) Poisons and explosives may not be
used to take a spiny lobster in the EEZ
as defined in § 640.1 (b). For the
purposes of this paragraph (a)(3),
chlorine, bleach, and similar substances,
which are used to flush a spiny lobster
out of rocks or coral, are poisons. A
vessel in the spiny lobster fishery may
not possess on board in the EEZ any
dynamite or similar explosive
substance.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) For traps in the EEZ off Florida, by
the Division of Law Enforcement,
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, in accordance with the
procedures in Rule 68B–24.006(7),
Florida Administrative Code, in effect as
of July 1, 2008. This incorporation by
reference was approved by the Director
of the Office of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained
from the Florida Division of Marine
Fisheries Management, 620 South
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399;
telephone: 850–488–4676. Copies may
be inspected at the Office of the
Regional Administrator; the Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or
the Office of the Federal Register, 800
North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700,
Washington, DC.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Section 640.25 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 640.25 Adjustment of management
measures.
In accordance with the framework
procedure of the Fishery Management
Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, the
Regional Administrator may establish or
modify the following items: reporting
and monitoring requirements,
permitting requirements, bag and
possession limits, size limits, vessel trip
limits, closed seasons, closed areas,
reopening of sectors that have been
prematurely closed, annual catch limits
(ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs),
quotas, accountability measures (AMs),
maximum sustainable yield (or proxy),
optimum yield, total allowable catch
(TAC), management parameters such as
overfished and overfishing definitions,
gear restrictions, gear markings and
identification, vessel identification
requirements, allowable biological catch
(ABC) and ABC control rule, rebuilding
plans, and restrictions relative to
conditions of harvested fish (such as
tailing lobster, undersized attractants,
and use as bait).
14. Add § 640.28 to subpart B to read
as follows:
§ 640.28 Annual catch limits (ACLs) and
accountability measures (AMs).
For recreational and commercial
spiny lobster landings combined, the
ACL is 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg),
whole weight. The ACT is 6.59 million
lb, (2.99 million kg) whole weight.
[FR Doc. 2011–24550 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM
23SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59102-59108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24550]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 622 and 640
[Docket No. 100305126-1558-03]
RIN 0648-AY72
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic;
Amendment 10
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 10 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico and South Atlantic (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils). If
implemented, this rule would revise the lobster species contained
within the fishery management unit, establish an annual catch limit
(ACL) for spiny lobster, revise the Federal spiny lobster tail-
separation permitting requirements, revise the regulations specifying
the condition of spiny lobster landed during a fishing trip, modify the
undersized attractant regulations, modify the framework procedures, and
incorporate the state of Florida's derelict trap removal program into
the Federal regulations that apply to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
off Florida. Additionally, this rule would revise codified text to
reflect updated contact information for the state of Florida and
regulatory references for the Florida Administrative Code. The intent
of this proposed rule is to specify ACLs for spiny lobster while
maintaining catch levels consistent with achieving optimum yield (OY)
for the resource.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2011-0106 by any of the following methods:
Electronic submissions: Submit electronic comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Susan Gerhart, 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.
To submit comments through the Federal e-rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov, click on ``submit a comment,'' then enter ``NOAA-
NMFS-2011-0106'' in the keyword search and click on ``search.'' To view
posted comments during the comment period, enter ``NOAA-NMFS-2011-
0106'' in the keyword search and click on ``search.'' NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required field if you wish to
remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in
Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
[[Page 59103]]
Comments received through means not specified in this rule will not
be considered.
Electronic copies of documents supporting this proposed rule, which
include a draft environmental impact statement and an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), may be obtained from the
Southeast Regional Office Web site at https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-
5305, or e-mail: Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The spiny lobster fishery of the Gulf of
Mexico (Gulf) and the South Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP
was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50
CFR parts 622 and 640 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Background
The 2006 revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act require that in
2011, for FMPs for fisheries determined by the Secretary to not be
subject to overfishing, ACLs must be established at a level that
prevents overfishing and helps to achieve OY within a fishery. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management
councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the
OY from Federally managed stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure
fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the
nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and
recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
This rule would remove four species from the FMP; establish an ACL
and an ACT for spiny lobster; revise the requirements for the Federal
spiny lobster tail-separation permit; revise the regulations specifying
the condition of lobster landed during a fishing trip; modify the
regulations with respect to the use of undersized attractants; modify
the framework procedures; and incorporate the state of Florida's
derelict trap removal program into the Federal regulations that apply
to the EEZ off of Florida. Additionally, this rule would revise
codified text throughout the spiny lobster regulations to update
relevant contact information and regulatory references.
Removal of Species From the Fishery Management Unit
Five species of lobster are currently within the FMP: the Caribbean
spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), the smoothtail spiny lobster
(Panulirus laevicaus), the spotted spiny lobster (Panulirus guttatus),
the Spanish slipper lobster (Scyllarides aequinoctialis), and the
ridged slipper lobster (Scyllarides nodifer). At present, only the
Caribbean spiny lobster and the ridged slipper lobster have associated
regulatory text; the other species are in the fishery management unit
for data collection purposes only. This rule would remove all species
from the FMP except the Caribbean spiny lobster (spiny lobster). The
Councils and NMFS have determined these other lobster species are not
in need of Federal management at this time. Although these species are
targeted in some areas, landings are relatively low. Furthermore,
individual states have the option to extend their regulations into
Federal waters for these other lobster species. Also, most landings of
these other species are off Florida, and Florida regulations concerning
the taking of egg-bearing females, or stripping or removing eggs, are
more conservative than Federal regulations for most of these species.
Therefore, if Florida were to extend its regulations into Federal
waters, these species could receive greater protection than under
current management. If landings or effort changed for the other lobster
species and the Councils determined management at the Federal level was
needed, these species could be added back into the FMP at a later date.
Spiny Lobster ACL and Accountability Measure
In 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was re-authorized and included a
number of changes to improve the conservation of managed fishery
resources. Included in these changes are requirements that fishery
management councils establish both a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a
level such that overfishing does not occur in a fishery and
accountability measures (AMs) to help ensure that ACLs are not exceeded
and to mitigate any ACL overages that may occur. Guidance also requires
fishery management councils to establish a control rule to determine
allowable biological catch (ABC).
The Councils accepted the ABC control rule developed by the Gulf
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), which set the ABC
for spiny lobster at 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg). The Councils
chose not to set sector allocations and set a stock ACL equal to the
ABC. Therefore, the spiny lobster stock ACL is proposed to be set at
7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg). An ACT was set at 90 percent of the
ACL, which is 6.59 million lb (2.99 million kg). If the ACT is exceeded
in any year, the Councils will convene a scientific panel to review the
ACL and ACT, and determine if additional AMs are needed. The ACT is
proposed to serve as the AM for the spiny lobster stock. Landings have
not exceeded the ACT level since the 2000/2001 fishing year. Therefore,
it is unlikely the ACT would be exceeded under the current ACT
preferred alternative based on landings history. However, the updated
framework procedure contained within this amendment would facilitate
timely adjustments of the ACT or ACL if necessary.
Revisions to Federal Spiny Lobster Tail-Separation Permit Requirements
Spiny Lobster Amendment 1 (July 15, 1987, 52 FR 22659) initially
implemented the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit. The
original intent of the Councils was to confine holders of this permit
to the commercial sector. However, the current requirements for
obtaining the Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit do not
restrict the permit to commercial fishermen, which is contrary to the
Councils' original intent. This rule would require applicants for a
Federal spiny lobster tail-separation permit to possess either (1) A
Federal spiny lobster permit or (2) a valid Florida Restricted Species
Endorsement and a valid Crawfish Endorsement associated with a valid
Florida Saltwater Products License.
Condition of Spiny Lobster Landed During a Fishing Trip
Under certain situations and with possession of a valid Federal
tail-separation permit, Caribbean spiny lobster tails may be separated
from the body onboard a fishing vessel. This tail-separation provision
can create difficulties for law enforcement personnel in determining if
the lobster were originally of legal size. This rule would require
lobster to be landed either all whole or all tailed during a single
fishing trip. Requiring lobsters to be landed all whole or all tailed
would discourage selective tailing of potentially undersized lobsters
and thereby aid the enforcement of the minimum size limit.
Use of Undersized Attractants
Federal regulations allow as many as 50 spiny lobsters less than
the minimum size limit or one per trap, whichever is
[[Page 59104]]
greater, to be retained aboard a vessel to attract other lobsters for
harvest. Currently, Federal regulations are not consistent with Florida
regulations, which allow the retention of as many as 50 spiny lobsters
less than the minimum size limit and one per trap. This rule would
change the Federal regulations specific to the use of undersized
attractants to be consistent with current Florida regulations.
Additionally, although approximately 10 percent mortality is associated
with the use of undersized attractants, traps using non-lobster bait or
no bait at all take up to two to three times longer to harvest the same
amount of lobsters as traps that use undersized attractants. This
increase in effort may increase the bycatch and bycatch mortality of
other species. Therefore, the use of undersized attractants that are
consistent with Florida regulations provides both enforcement and
biological benefits.
Modification of Generic Framework Procedures
To facilitate timely adjustments to harvest parameters and other
management measures, the Councils have added the ability to adjust ACLs
and AMs, and establish and adjust target catch levels, including ACTs,
to the current framework procedures. These adjustments or additions may
be accomplished through a regulatory amendment which is less time
intensive than an FMP amendment. By including ACLs, AMs, and ACTs in
the framework procedure for specifying total allowable catch, the
Councils and NMFS would have the flexibility to more promptly alter
those harvest parameters as new scientific information becomes
available. The proposed addition of other management options into the
framework procedures would also add flexibility and the ability to more
timely respond to certain future Council decisions through the
framework procedures.
Removal of Derelict Spiny Lobster Traps in the EEZ Off Florida
On August 27, 2009, an Endangered Species Act (ESA) biological
opinion evaluating the impacts of the continued authorization of the
spiny lobster fishery on ESA-listed species was completed. The opinion
contained specific terms and conditions required to implement the
prescribed reasonable and prudent measures, including consideration of
alternatives to allow the public to remove trap-related marine debris
in the EEZ off Florida. This proposed rule would authorize the removal
of traps in Federal waters off Florida through Florida's trap cleanup
program, as provided in existing Florida regulations. Florida's trap
cleanup program includes provisions for public participation.
Revisions To Update Contact Information and Regulatory Reference Text
This rule proposes to revise a number of references within the
regulations for spiny lobster. Specifically, this proposed rule would
update the spiny lobster regulations with the contact information for
the state of Florida administrative offices and the relevant references
within the Florida statutes and administrative code that are contained
within the Federal regulations in 50 CFR parts 622 and 640. These
additional revisions are unrelated to the actions contained in
Amendment 10.
Actions in Amendment 10 That Are Not Contained in This Rulemaking
Amendment 10 also contains non-regulatory actions to revise the
definitions of management thresholds. Definitions of maximum
sustainable yield (MSY), optimum yield (OY), overfishing, and
overfished were set for Caribbean spiny lobster in Amendment 6 to the
FMP. Currently, the Councils have different definitions for each
reference point. Amendment 10 would set a single definition for each
biological reference point that would be used by both Councils and
allow for a more consistent management of spiny lobster.
Currently, no allocations are set between the commercial and
recreational sectors for spiny lobster. The Councils considered setting
such allocations, but instead chose to not sector allocations and
therefore allow for a stock ACL, stock ACT, and AM that affects both
sectors.
The Councils considered alternatives to meet requirements from the
2009 biological opinion to establish lobster closed areas and lobster
gear trap line marking requirements to protect threatened and
endangered species; however, they chose to take no action at this time
to allow time for additional stakeholder input. The Councils intend to
develop Amendment 11 to the Spiny Lobster FMP to implement these
measures prior to the beginning of the next spiny lobster commercial
fishing season that begins on August 6, 2012.
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 10 and the FMP subject to this rulemaking,
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 this 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 NMFS (see
ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the
proposed rule.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been
identified.
The rule would affect all fishing in the EEZ that is managed under
the FMP for Spiny Lobster in the Gulf and South Atlantic. Landings of
spiny lobster occur predominantly in the Florida Keys (Monroe County)
and elsewhere in south Florida. Relatively small (mostly confidential)
amounts have been reported for other Gulf and South Atlantic states
since 1977. Fishing for spiny lobster in Florida is managed
cooperatively by the Councils and the state of Florida, which collects
the data used to analyze the activity. Including fishing in Federal and
state waters, the numbers of commercial vessels, commercial trips, and
Florida spiny lobster trap landings, traps with commercial landings of
spiny lobster in Florida have all declined substantially since the
implementation of Florida's Trap Certificate Program in the early
1990's, and productivity (CPUE) has increased.
Businesses directly affected by the proposed rule include those
engaged in commercial shellfish harvesting (NAICS code 114112) and for-
hire fishing (NAICS code 713990), and they meet the respective Small
Business Administration (SBA) criteria for being small businesses.
Commercial and for-hire fishing vessels that fish for spiny lobster in
state and Federal waters off Florida must meet applicable Florida
permitting requirements. An estimated 781 vessels landed spiny lobster
commercially in Florida, on average, in the last 5 years. This includes
274 vessels (1,977 trips) with landings from the EEZ off Florida, where
an estimated 35 vessels (130 trips) landed both tailed and whole
lobsters on the same trips.
[[Page 59105]]
On average, these 35 vessels have fewer, but longer trips, higher trip
landings, haul more traps per trip, and they fish at greater depths.
Another 23 vessels landed slipper lobster in Florida during that time.
While the number of for-hire vessels that fish for spiny lobster in the
EEZ off Florida is not known, it is likely that less than the 1,330
vessels that currently have the necessary Florida permits and licenses
engage in for-hire fishing for spiny lobster in state and Federal
waters. None of these for-hire vessels are believed to have State
commercial fishing permits/licenses. The for-hire vessels target other
species as well, because annual recreational landings of spiny lobster
occur predominantly in late July through the first week of September.
The majority of the actions in this proposed rule are either
administrative in nature or would be expected to accommodate status quo
harvests or fishing behavior. The possible exception to this
determination is the proposed action relative to the possession and
landing of tailed lobsters in or from the EEZ. Available data do not
allow the quantification of the number of vessels that may be affected
by this proposed action. Approximately 35 vessels with commercial
landings from the EEZ landed both tailed and whole lobsters on the same
trips. The effect on these vessels of the requirement to land either
all tailed or all whole lobsters on one trip is not known. The proposed
action may be a problem for for-hire vessels with a limited holding
capacity. It is believed that some for-hire vessels may have been
tailing lobsters during trips. The solution for these vessels may
simply be the purchase of additional ice chests to store harvested
lobster. However, while this proposed action may be limiting for some
for-hire vessels, this would not be expected to be a problem, on
average, for the for-hire fleet because the majority of vessels would
not be expected to engage in the practice of landing tailed lobsters,
or depend on this type of business for a significant portion of their
revenues. As a result, the actions in this rule would not be expected
to significantly reduce profits for a substantial number of small
entities. Public comment, however, is requested on this determination
because of the absence of data related to the potential effects of the
proposed action on the possession and landing of tailed lobsters from
the EEZ.
Alternatives were considered regarding species other than Caribbean
spiny lobster (spiny lobster) in the FMP, and the proposed action would
remove the other four lobster species from the FMP. None of the
alternatives would be expected have an economic impact on small
entities because these species addressed are either not currently
managed or are not significantly harvested. One alternative, the no-
action alternative, would not meet the requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act because three species would have remained in the FMP for
data collection purposes only without the specification of ACLs and AMs
(which is no longer allowed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act). The other
alternatives were not selected as preferred alternatives because the
Councils determined that these species no longer required management at
the Federal level because protection at the state level was adequate.
Among the alternatives considered for the action to set ACLs, the
proposed action specifies a single (stock) ACL, whereby ACL = OY = ABC.
The no-action alternative would not meet Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements. The remaining alternatives to the proposed action would
specify higher or lower ACLs, with each alternative specifying either a
single ACL for the entire fishery or sector specific ACLs, one ACL for
the commercial sector, and another ACL for the recreational sector.
Alternatives that would have resulted in sector ACLs were not selected
because the adoption of sector ACLs would have been inconsistent with
the decision to not adopt allocation ratios for the sectors. Among the
alternatives that would establish stock ACLs, the proposed action would
be expected to result in the greatest economic benefits because it
would allow the greatest total harvest and support more recreational
trips and commercial revenues without compromising the health of the
resource or jeopardizing future economic benefits.
Several alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were
considered for the action to set ACTs. The proposed action specifies an
ACT which is less than the ACL. Although an ACT is not a required
component of an FMP and the absence of an ACT would allow a harvest up
to the level of the ACL, the no-action alternative was not selected
because the Councils decided that an ACT was appropriate for this stock
due to the uncertainty associated with harvest monitoring, particularly
recreational landings. Similar to the action to specify the ACL, the
remaining five alternatives to the proposed action would specify
different ACTs, with each alternative specifying either a single ACT
for the entire fishery or sector specific ACTs, one ACT for the
commercial sector, and another ACT for the recreational sector. The
alternatives that would have resulted in sector ACTs were not adopted
because the adoption of sector ACTs would have been inconsistent with
the decision to not select allocation ratios or ACLs for the sectors.
Among the alternatives that would not establish sector ACTs, other than
the no-action alternative, the proposed action would be expected to
result in the greatest economic benefits because it would allow the
greatest total harvest and support more recreational trips and
commercial revenues.
Several alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were
considered for the action to establish AMs. The no-action alternative
would not meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to establish AMs.
The proposed action would establish the ACT as the AM for the spiny
lobster stock. With the exception of the no-action alternative and an
option to establish combined sector AMs, the alternatives to the
proposed action would be inconsistent with the adoption of other
actions in this proposed rule. Absent sector allocations, ACLs, and
ACTs, the adoption of sector AMs would be inappropriate. Further,
adjustment of sector seasons is not practical in the absence of sector
ACLs or ACTs. The option that would establish combined sector AMs was
not adopted because the Councils felt the proposed action would provide
an adequate buffer between the target level of harvest and the annual
limit on harvest.
Among the alternatives, including the no-action alternative,
considered to establish the framework procedure, the proposed action
incorporates two of the alternatives, updating the current protocol for
cooperative management and revising the current regulatory amendment
procedures by adopting the base framework procedure. The no-action
alternative was not selected because the current protocol is out of
date with respect to terminology and relevant agency names and
authorities, and the framework procedures are not consistent with
current assessment and management methods. The proposed action would
facilitate implementation of changes in management measures required
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, such as changes in ACLs, ACTs, and AMs.
Two of the remaining alternatives to the proposed action were not
selected because they could result in a delay in the implementation of
necessary changes to the FMP. Such delays would be expected to impede
the effective and efficient management of the stock. The final
alternative to the proposed action was not adopted because it would
have given the Councils and NMFS too much
[[Page 59106]]
discretion to change management outside of the plan amendment process.
Five alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were
considered for the action to revise the regulations regarding
undersized spiny lobsters. The proposed action would allow undersized
spiny lobster not exceeding 50 per vessel and 1 per trap aboard each
vessel if used in the EEZ exclusively for luring, decoying, or
otherwise attracting non-captive spiny lobsters into the trap. The
proposed action would be expected to result in an unquantifiable
increase in economic benefits to spiny lobster fishermen relative to
the status quo. The other alternatives, including the no-action
alternative, were not selected because they would not be consistent
with Florida regulations and would result in greater restrictions on
the possession of undersized spiny lobsters used as attractants. As a
result, each of these alternatives would be expected to result in lower
economic benefits than the proposed action.
Four alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were
considered for the action to modify tailing requirements. Two of the
alternatives are included in the proposed action, which would require
that all lobsters from the EEZ be landed either all whole or all tailed
on a single trip, and require that vessels applying for a Federal
tailing permit must have either the requisite Florida permits/licenses
for commercial fishing for lobster or a Federal spiny lobster permit.
The no-action alternative was not selected because the Federal tailing
permit was originally intended to allow tailing by commercial fishermen
on long trips but, instead, current regulatory language has allowed
recreational fishermen to obtain the permit, contrary to the Councils'
original intent. The remaining alternative to the proposed action would
prohibit any Federal lobster tail-separation permits and was not
selected because it would be expected to result in greater economic
losses than the proposed action.
Six alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were
considered for the action to designate authority to remove derelict
spiny lobster traps in the EEZ off Florida. The no-action alternative
was not selected because it would not allow the removal of derelict
traps, and would not, therefore, be consistent with the Council's
objective to limit the amount of derelict spiny lobster gear in the EEZ
off Florida. This proposed rule would authorize the removal of traps in
Federal waters off Florida through Florida's trap cleanup program, as
provided in existing Florida regulations, and would be expected to have
the least economic impact on small entities, based on public comment
provided by commercial fishermen. The other alternatives to the
proposed action would allow the public to remove derelict traps, or
portions thereof, during different portions of the closed season.
Assuming such authority only resulted in the removal of derelict traps,
and not licensed and appropriate lobster traps, none of the
alternatives to the proposed action, other than the no-action
alternative, would be expected to adversely affect ongoing activity in
the commercial sector during the commercial open season because, by
definition, the removed traps would no longer be part of an active
business operation. The no-action alternative would also not be
expected to affect ongoing commercial activity because derelict trap
removal by the public would not be allowed. The proposed action was
selected by the Councils to allow the traps to be removed through an
existing, coordinated, and well-managed Florida program.
Additional actions and alternatives were considered in the
amendment but are not included in this proposed rule because they would
either establish management reference points or the preferred action
would not result in any regulatory change. These actions and
alternatives are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Alternative definitions for maximum sustainable yield, the
overfishing threshold, and the overfished threshold and other
biological parameters for spiny lobster were considered. The respective
alternatives proposed by the Councils are intended to bring the FMP
into compliance with requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and are
based on SSC recommendations. Defining these biological parameters for
a species does not alter the current harvest or use of the resource.
Therefore, no economic impact on small entities would be expected to
result from the specification of these management parameters.
Among the alternatives considered by the Councils to establish
sector allocations, the no-action alternative was adopted as the
proposed action. The other alternatives would specify allocations that
would have varying effects determined by the combination of
alternatives used to specify allocations, ABC, ACL, OY, and ACT. The
result is that some single (stock) or paired-set (sector) ACLs were
greater than or less than the respective status-quo landings. Any
scenario where allowable landings would be reduced would be expected to
result in a reduction in economic benefits to the respective affected
sector. The Councils concluded that it was best to manage the spiny
lobster fishery without allocations between the recreational and
commercial sectors because no mechanism currently exists to track
recreational landings and the commercial trip ticket data are not
compiled with sufficient speed to support in-season quota monitoring.
Among the alternatives to specify an ABC control rule, the proposed
action specifies the Gulf Council's SSC recommended ABC Control Rule.
The no-action alternative and two other alternatives (for which the ABC
exceeded that recommended by the SSC) would not meet Magnuson-Stevens
Act guidance that an ABC control rule be used to set the ABC and that
the SSC recommend the ABC to the Council. Each of the other
alternatives to the proposed action would specify a lower ABC. Because
specifying an ABC control rule is an administrative action, no direct
economic effects on any small entities would be expected to result from
any of these alternatives. The proposed action was adopted because it
would be consistent with decisions made for other species managed by
the Councils and would provide a statistically based method of setting
ABC, even if a new stock assessment changed the status of the stock.
Further, the remaining alternatives, other than the no action
alternative, were not adopted because they would not allow for changes
to the ABC based on subsequent stock assessments.
Including the no-action alternative, four alternatives were
considered for the action to limit spiny lobster fishing to certain
areas in the EEZ off Florida to protect threatened staghorn and elkhorn
corals. Each of the alternatives to the proposed action would increase
the restrictions on where spiny lobster fishing could occur relative to
the status quo. As a result, each of these alternatives would be
expected to result in adverse economic effects to spiny lobster
fishermen relative to the status quo. The no action alternative was
adopted as the proposed action in order to allow more public input
before taking additional action and this action will be re-addressed in
a subsequent amendment to the FMP.
Three alternatives, including the no-action alternative, were
considered for the action to require gear markings on all lobster trap
lines used in the EEZ off Florida. Each of the alternatives to the
proposed action would impose new gear marking requirements and, as a
result, each of these alternatives would be expected to result in
adverse economic effects to spiny lobster fishermen
[[Page 59107]]
relative to the status quo. The no action alternative was adopted as
the proposed action in order to allow for more public input before
taking additional action and this action will be re-addressed in a
subsequent amendment to the FMP.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
50 CFR Part 640
Fisheries, Fishing, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: September 20, 2011.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 640
are 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 for ``Caribbean spiny lobster''
is removed and the definition for ``Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny
lobster'' is added in alphabetical order to read as follows.
Sec. 622.2 Definitions and acronyms.
* * * * *
Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny lobster means the species
Panulirus argus, or a part thereof.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 622.6, a sentence is added to the end of paragraph
(b)(1)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 622.6 Vessel and gear identification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) * * * In the EEZ off Florida, during times other than the
authorized fishing season, a Caribbean spiny lobster trap, buoy, or any
connecting lines will be considered derelict and may be disposed of in
accordance with Rules 68B-55.002 and 68B-55.004 of the Florida
Administrative Code.
* * * * *
PART 640--SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH
ATLANTIC
4. The authority for part 640 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
5. In Sec. 640.1, the first sentence of paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 640.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
(b) This part governs the conservation and management of Caribbean
spiny lobster (spiny lobster) in the EEZ in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf
of Mexico off the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states from the Virginia/
North Carolina border south and through the Gulf of Mexico. * * *
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 640.2, the definitions for ``slipper (Spanish)
lobster'' and ``spiny lobster'' are removed and the definition for
``Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny lobster'' is added in alphabetical
order to read as follows:
Sec. 640.2 Definitions and acronyms.
* * * * *
Caribbean spiny lobster or spiny lobster means the species
Panulirus argus, or a part thereof.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 640.4, paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(2) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 640.4 Permits and fees.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) EEZ off Florida and spiny lobster landed in Florida. For a
person to sell, trade, or barter, or attempt to sell, trade, or barter,
a spiny lobster harvested or possessed in the EEZ off Florida, or
harvested in the EEZ other than off Florida and landed from a fishing
vessel in Florida, or for a person to be exempt from the daily bag and
possession limit specified in Sec. 640.23(b)(1) for such spiny
lobster, such person must have the licenses and certificates specified
to be a ``commercial harvester,'' as defined in Rule 68B-24.002,
Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008. This
incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Office
of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51. Copies may be obtained from the Florida Division of Marine
Fisheries Management, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399;
telephone: 850-488-4676. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the
Regional Administrator; the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
* * * * *
(2) Tail-separation permits. For a person to possess aboard a
fishing vessel a separated spiny lobster tail in or from the EEZ as
defined in Sec. 640.1 (b), a valid Federal tail-separation permit must
be issued to the vessel and must be on board. Permitting prerequisites
for the tail-separation permit are either a valid Federal vessel permit
for spiny lobster or a valid Florida Saltwater Products License with a
valid Florida Restricted Species Endorsement and a valid Crawfish
Endorsement.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 640.6, paragraphs (a) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 640.6 Vessel and gear identification.
(a) EEZ off Florida. (1) An owner or operator of a vessel that is
used to harvest spiny lobster by traps in the EEZ off Florida must
comply with the vessel and gear identification requirements specified
in sections 379.367(2)(a)1. and 379.367(3), Florida Statutes, in effect
as of July 1, 2009, and in Rule 68B-24.006(3), (4), and (5), Florida
Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008.
(2) An owner or operator of a vessel that is used to harvest spiny
lobsters by diving in the EEZ off Florida must comply with the vessel
identification requirements applicable to the harvesting of spiny
lobsters by diving in Florida's waters in Rule 68B-24.006(6), Florida
Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008.
(3) The incorporation by reference in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2)
of this section of sections 379.367(2)(a)1. and 379.367(3), Florida
Statutes, Rule 68B-24.006(3), (4), and (5), and (6) Florida
Administrative Code, was approved by the Director of the Office of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
Copies may be obtained from the Florida Division of Marine Fisheries
Management, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399;
telephone: 850-488-4676. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the
Regional Administrator; the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
* * * * *
(c) Unmarked traps and buoys. An unmarked spiny lobster trap or
buoy in the EEZ is illegal gear.
(1) EEZ off Florida. Such trap or buoy, and any connecting lines,
during times other than the authorized fishing season, will be
considered derelict and may be disposed of in accordance with Rules
68B-55.002 and 68B-55.004 of the Florida Administrative Code. An owner
of such trap or buoy remains subject to appropriate civil penalties.
[[Page 59108]]
(2) EEZ other than off Florida. Such trap or buoy, and any
connecting lines, will be considered unclaimed or abandoned property
and may be disposed of in any manner considered appropriate by the
Assistant Administrator or an authorized officer. An owner of such trap
or buoy remains subject to appropriate civil penalties.
9. In Sec. 640.7, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 640.7 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(g) Fail to return immediately to the water a berried spiny
lobster; strip eggs from or otherwise molest a berried spiny lobster;
or possess a spiny lobster, or part thereof, from which eggs,
swimmerettes, or pleopods have been removed or stripped; as specified
in Sec. 640.21(a).
* * * * *
10. In Sec. 640.20, paragraph (b)(3)(iii) is removed, and
paragraph (b)(3)(i) is revised and two sentences are added at the end
of paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 640.20 Seasons.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) In the EEZ off Florida, the rules and regulations applicable to
the possession of spiny lobster traps in Florida's waters in Rule 68B-
24.005(3), (4), and (5), Florida Administrative Code, in effect as of
June 1, 1994, apply in their entirety to the possession of spiny
lobster traps in the EEZ off Florida. This incorporation by reference
was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal Register in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be
obtained from the Florida Division of Marine Fisheries Management, 620
South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399; telephone: 850-488-4676.
Copies may be inspected at the Office of the Regional Administrator;
the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North
Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC. A spiny lobster trap,
buoy, or rope in the EEZ off Florida, during periods not authorized in
this paragraph will be considered derelict and may be disposed of in
accordance with Rules 68B-55.002 and 68B-55.004 of the Florida
Administrative Code. An owner of such trap, buoy, or rope remains
subject to appropriate civil penalties.
(ii) * * * A spiny lobster trap, buoy, or rope in the EEZ off the
Gulf states, other than Florida, during periods not authorized in this
paragraph (b)(3) will be considered unclaimed or abandoned property and
may be disposed of in any manner considered appropriate by the
Assistant Administrator or an authorized officer. An owner of such
trap, buoy, or rope remains subject to appropriate civil penalties.
* * * * *
11. In Sec. 640.21, paragraph (a), the second sentence of
paragraph (c), and paragraph (d) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 640.21 Harvest limitations.
(a) Berried lobsters. A berried (egg-bearing) spiny lobster in or
from the EEZ must be returned immediately to the water unharmed. If
found in a trap in the EEZ, a berried spiny lobster may not be retained
in the trap. A berried spiny lobster in or from the EEZ may not be
stripped of its eggs or otherwise molested. The possession of a spiny
lobster, or part thereof, in or from the EEZ from which eggs,
swimmerettes, or pleopods have been removed or stripped is prohibited.
* * * * *
(c) Undersized attractants. * * * No more than fifty undersized
spiny lobsters and one per trap aboard the vessel, may be retained
aboard for use as attractants. * * *
(d) Tail separation. (1) The possession aboard a fishing vessel of
a separated spiny lobster tail in or from the EEZ as defined in Sec.
640.1 (b), is authorized only when the possession is incidental to
fishing exclusively in the EEZ on a trip of 48 hours or more and a
valid Federal tail-separation permit, and either a valid Federal vessel
permit for spiny lobster or a valid Florida Saltwater Products License
with a valid Florida Restricted Species Endorsement and a valid
Crawfish Endorsement, as specified in Sec. 640.4(a)(2), has been
issued to and are on board the vessel.
(2) Spiny lobster must be landed either all whole or all tailed on
a single fishing trip.
12. In Sec. 640.22, paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3)(i) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 640.22 Gear and diving restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) Poisons and explosives may not be used to take a spiny lobster
in the EEZ as defined in Sec. 640.1 (b). For the purposes of this
paragraph (a)(3), chlorine, bleach, and similar substances, which are
used to flush a spiny lobster out of rocks or coral, are poisons. A
vessel in the spiny lobster fishery may not possess on board in the EEZ
any dynamite or similar explosive substance.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) For traps in the EEZ off Florida, by the Division of Law
Enforcement, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, in
accordance with the procedures in Rule 68B-24.006(7), Florida
Administrative Code, in effect as of July 1, 2008. This incorporation
by reference was approved by the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies
may be obtained from the Florida Division of Marine Fisheries
Management, 620 South Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399;
telephone: 850-488-4676. Copies may be inspected at the Office of the
Regional Administrator; the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, 1315
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD; or the Office of the Federal
Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC.
* * * * *
13. Section 640.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 640.25 Adjustment of management measures.
In accordance with the framework procedure of the Fishery
Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic, the Regional Administrator may establish or modify the
following items: reporting and monitoring requirements, permitting
requirements, bag and possession limits, size limits, vessel trip
limits, closed seasons, closed areas, reopening of sectors that have
been prematurely closed, annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch
targets (ACTs), quotas, accountability measures (AMs), maximum
sustainable yield (or proxy), optimum yield, total allowable catch
(TAC), management parameters such as overfished and overfishing
definitions, gear restrictions, gear markings and identification,
vessel identification requirements, allowable biological catch (ABC)
and ABC control rule, rebuilding plans, and restrictions relative to
conditions of harvested fish (such as tailing lobster, undersized
attractants, and use as bait).
14. Add Sec. 640.28 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 640.28 Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures
(AMs).
For recreational and commercial spiny lobster landings combined,
the ACL is 7.32 million lb (3.32 million kg), whole weight. The ACT is
6.59 million lb, (2.99 million kg) whole weight.
[FR Doc. 2011-24550 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P