Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 24, 34254-34260 [2012-14137]
Download as PDF
34254
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
conference, or computer-based means.
The Arbitration Agreement should also
allow the arbitrator discretion to call for
an in-person hearing should the
arbitrator determine that credibility may
be a factor in the proceeding. The
arbitrator may also conduct, with the
consent of the parties, all or part of a
hearing by telephone, video
conferencing, or computer, so long as
each party has an equal opportunity to
participate.
Issue 19: May an arbitration award be
used as a precedent in any other
proceeding?
Response: No. The arbitration award
may not be used as precedent consistent
with 5 U.S.C. § 580(d). Nonetheless, by
entering into arbitration, the carrier has
admitted, or the Assistant Administrator
has found that the carrier has admitted,
violating the regulation(s) as charged in
the Notice of Claim. These violation(s)
may be considered in future
enforcement actions by FMCSA.
Appendix A
Sample Agreement to Submit to Binding
Arbitration
Section One—Parties and Controversy
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration and llllllll
(‘‘Carrier’’) (collectively the ‘‘Parties’’)
voluntarily agree to submit the following
controversy arising from violations of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, the
Hazardous Materials Regulations, and/or the
Federal Motor Carrier Commercial
Regulations to binding arbitration: (briefly
describe the controversy).
Section Two—Assignment of Arbitrator
We agree upon llllllll as the
Arbitrator.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Section Three—Issues of Arbitration
We agree that the Arbitration shall be
limited to the following issues of fact and
law: (Set forth each issue with specificity
including the question of whether a payment
plan is appropriate).
Section Four—Costs of Arbitration
ll We agree to pay the Arbitrator a fee
of $ ll (‘‘the Fee’’) for services as an
arbitrator. The Fee is based on the issues
specified in Section Three above.
We agree to reimburse the Arbitrator for all
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that the
Arbitrator may incur for the arbitration.
These expenses include, but are not limited
to: Travel, lodging, and meals (consistent
with Federal per diem standards), longdistance charges, printing and copying,
postage and courier fees. There is no cost if
the parties choose a Civilian Board of
Contract Appeals Judge or an
Uncompensated Neutral as the arbitrator.
Section Five—Minimum and Maximum
Award
We agree that the maximum award shall be
(the amount demanded in the Notice of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
Claim). This amount is a total of the penalties
for each of the individual violations as
follows:
We also agree that the minimum award for
violations will be those set forth in the
statute or regulations.
Section Six—Management of the Proceeding
We further agree that the arbitration
proceeding will be conducted in accordance
with procedures established in 49 CFR part
386 for hearings. Additional rules and
procedures for the arbitration may be
negotiated and agreed upon by the Arbitrator
and the Parties at any time during the
arbitration process.
We further agree that we will faithfully
observe this Agreement and the applicable
procedural rules and we will abide by any
award rendered by the Arbitrator.
llllll (‘‘Carrier’’) will pay to the Field
Administrator the award determined by the
Arbitrator.
We agree that the Arbitrator will assume
control of the process and will schedule all
events as expeditiously as possible, to ensure
that an award is issued no later than ll
days from the date of this Agreement. The
penalty, if any, will be due to FMCSA 30
days after service of the Arbitration Award by
the Arbitrator unless the Arbitrator orders a
payment plan.
Consistent with the Rules of Practice for
Motor Carrier, Intermodal Equipment
Provider, Broker, Freight Forwarder, and
Hazardous Materials Proceedings, 49 CFR
part 386, Carriers may be represented by a
representative of their choice, including nonlawyers. Representatives and FMCSA
counsel shall be responsive to the direction
provided by the Arbitrator.
We understand that neither party shall
initiate or participate in ex parte
communication with the Arbitrator relevant
to the merits of the proceeding, unless the
parties agree. If a party or its representative
engages in an unauthorized ex parte
communication, the Arbitrator may resolve
the case against the offending party. Before
taking that action, however, the Arbitrator
must allow the offending party to show cause
why the issue in controversy should not be
resolved against it for improper conduct.
Section Seven—Arbitrator’s Award
We agree that the Arbitrator’s decision will
be issued in writing and will state the legal
and factual bases and amount of the penalty
awarded by the Arbitrator. We further agree
that the arbitration award is final and has the
same force and effect as any final agency
order. We understand that there is no appeal
to the Assistant Administrator of the
Arbitrator’s award. Thus, failure to pay the
determined award triggers the same Agency
remedies as would the failure to pay a civil
penalty award entered by the Assistant
Administrator.
Section Eight—Confidentiality of the
Proceeding
We agree that the arbitration proceeding is
not a public forum and will be restricted to
the Parties, their representatives, and the
Arbitrator. We acknowledge and agree that 5
U.S.C. 574 controls the confidentiality of the
proceeding, and that neither the Arbitration
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Agreement nor the arbitration award may be
considered confidential.
Section Nine—Judicial Review
ll The award shall be reviewable only
under provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 581 and 9
U.S.C. §§ 9–13.
Section Ten—Governing Law
ll This Agreement is entered into
consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 571 et seq., and we
agree that Federal law shall govern this
Arbitration. The Arbitrator shall apply
relevant statutory and regulatory
requirements, legal precedents, and policy
directives.
[FR Doc. 2012–14087 Filed 6–8–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 101202599–2122–02]
RIN 0648–BA52
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery Off the Southern
Atlantic States; Amendment 24
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
NMFS issues this final rule to
implement Amendment 24 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the
Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared by
the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council (Council). This final rule
establishes red grouper commercial and
recreational sector annual catch limits
(ACLs); establishes red grouper sector
accountability measures (AMs); and
removes the combined gag, black
grouper, and red grouper commercial
quota, and commercial and recreational
sector ACLs and AMs. The intent of this
final rule is to specify ACLs and AMs
for red grouper while maintaining catch
levels consistent with achieving
optimum yield (OY) for the red grouper
resource. Additionally, Amendment 24
implements a rebuilding plan for red
grouper in the South Atlantic.
DATES: This rule is effective July 11,
2012.
SUMMARY:
Electronic copies of
Amendment 24, which includes an
environmental assessment, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA),
and a regulatory impact review, may be
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
obtained from the Southeast Regional
Office Web site at https://
sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/
SGAmend24_121411.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick
DeVictor, telephone: 727–824–5305, or
email: rick.devictor@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
snapper-grouper fishery of the South
Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The
FMP was prepared by the Council and
is implemented through regulations at
50 CFR part 622 under the authority of
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On February 27, 2012, NMFS
published a notice of availability for
Amendment 24 and requested public
comment (77 FR 11477). On March 30,
2012, NMFS published a proposed rule
for Amendment 24 and requested public
comment (77 FR 19169). The proposed
rule and Amendment 24 outline the
rationale for the actions contained in
this final rule. A summary of the actions
implemented by this final rule is
provided below.
This final rule removes the gag, black
grouper, and red grouper combined
commercial and recreational ACLs and
AMs, and specifies the ACLs and AMs
for red grouper. This final rule
implements in-season commercial and
recreational sector AMs for red grouper,
as well as post-season overage
adjustments. In addition to the actions
contained in this final rule, specific to
red grouper, Amendment 24
implements a 10-year rebuilding plan,
specifies the maximum sustainable
yield (MSY) and OY values, revises the
definition of minimum stock size
threshold (MSST) to be 75 percent of the
spawning stock biomass when fishing at
the MSY level, specifies commercial
and recreational allocations, and
establishes a recreational sector annual
catch target (ACT). The intent of
Amendment 24 and this final rule is to
specify ACLs and AMs for red grouper
while maintaining catch levels
consistent with achieving OY for the red
grouper resource.
Comments and Responses
A total of nine comments were
received on Amendment 24 and the
proposed rule. One commenter
submitted identical comments on
Amendment 24 and the proposed rule.
One Federal agency stated that they had
no comment on Amendment 24. NMFS
received one comment of general
support and six individual comments
opposing one or more of the actions
contained in Amendment 24 and the
proposed rule. Specific comments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
related to the actions contained in
Amendment 24 and the proposed rule,
as well as NMFS’ respective responses,
are summarized below.
Comment 1: The restrictions on red
grouper harvest in Amendment 24 are
not necessary because a 4-month closure
for shallow-water groupers is currently
in place. In addition, the MagnusonStevens Act requirement that the
Council prepare and implement a plan
amendment to rebuild red grouper
should not apply because the 4-month
closure, implemented through
Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR
30964, June 29, 2009), was not
considered in the Southeast Data,
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR)
SEDAR 19 stock assessment.
Response: The most recent South
Atlantic red grouper stock assessment,
SEDAR 19, was completed in 2010 and
used data available through 2008.
Therefore, SEDAR 19 did not consider
impacts of the 4-month prohibition on
the harvest, landing, and possession of
shallow-water groupers (gag, black
grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind,
rock hind, coney, yellowfin grouper,
yellowmouth grouper, and tiger
grouper) implemented in 2009 through
Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR
30964, June 29, 2009). However, SEDAR
19 determined that red grouper was
overfished and undergoing overfishing,
and NMFS notified the Council of the
red grouper stock status on June 9, 2010.
The Council is required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to implement a
rebuilding plan within 2 years after
notification of an overfished stock.
NMFS and the Council must schedule
stock assessments several years in
advance to allow time for the needed
data to be compiled for use by stock
assessment scientists. The effect of the
4-month closure and other recent
measures implemented to improve the
status of red grouper will be evaluated
in the next stock assessment, scheduled
to begin in 2013.
The Council and NMFS are also
required to establish ACLs and AMs
based on the best scientific information
available. Commercial and recreational
aggregate ACLs and AMs for black
grouper, gag, and red grouper were
established through Amendment 17B to
the FMP (75 FR 82280, December 30,
2010). The aggregate ACLs currently in
place were computed using landings
data for black grouper and red grouper
prior to the availability of stock
assessments (SEDAR 19) for these two
species. This final rule will remove the
gag, black grouper, and red grouper
aggregate commercial and recreational
ACLs and AMs, and implement red
grouper ACLs based upon the best
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34255
scientific information available, which
includes SEDAR 19 and the acceptable
biological catch (ABC) recommendation
from the Council’s Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC). NMFS
notes that gag individual ACLs and AMs
were previously established through
Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR
30964, June 29, 2009) and black grouper
ACLs and AMs were implemented
through the Comprehensive ACL
Amendment (77 FR 15916, March 16,
2012) and will remain in effect. The
commercial and recreational ACLs and
AMs implemented through Amendment
24 are expected to ensure red grouper
overfishing does not occur and the stock
rebuilds to target levels within the
10-year rebuilding timeframe.
Comment 2: Red grouper allocations
should be reexamined using landings
through 2010 or 2011. All recreational
landings information used for sector
allocations should be recalculated using
the Marine Recreational Information
Program (MRIP) instead of the Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS). Additionally, NMFS should
allocate red grouper as 50 percent for
the commercial sector and 50 percent
for the recreational sector until the
Southeast Fisheries Science Center
(SEFSC) and SEDAR complete a new
full benchmark assessment utilizing
MRIP.
Response: The Council concluded
that sector-specific ACLs and AMs are
important components of red grouper
management because the scientific and
management uncertainty are different
for each sector. To divide the red
grouper stock ACL into sector ACLs, the
Council had to make allocation
decisions. The Council decided to
establish sector allocations by balancing
long-term catch history with recent
catch history. Accordingly, the Council
determined the allocation using 50
percent of average landings from 1986–
2008 and 50 percent of average landings
from 2006–2008. This resulted in an
allocation of red grouper in the South
Atlantic as 44 percent for the
commercial sector and 56 percent for
the recreational sector. The commercial
sector landed the majority of red
grouper in the early time period
(1987–1992) and the for-hire component
of the recreational sector landed the
majority of fish in more recent years
(2006–2008). The Council concluded
that this approach was a fair and
equitable method to allocate fishery
resources and had the additional benefit
of using a mathematically transparent
formula. The Snapper-Grouper Advisory
Panel and the majority of comments
received during scoping meetings and
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
34256
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
public hearings supported the Council’s
allocation decision.
Landings data from SEDAR 19 were
used to determine allocations. SEDAR
19 was completed in 2010, and the most
recent year of data used in the stock
assessment was 2008. The Council was
notified of the red grouper stock status
on June 9, 2010, and submitted
Amendment 24 to NMFS on December
14, 2011, to meet the 2-year MagnusonStevens Act deadline to implement a
rebuilding plan. The incorporation of
2010 and 2011 landings data would
have delayed the implementation of
Amendment 24 past the 2-year deadline.
When the Council determined the
appropriate sector allocations and
approved Amendment 24 in December
2011, the new MRIP estimates had not
yet been released. The MRIP data were
not available until January of 2012. If
MRIP data indicate that an allocation
adjustment is necessary, the Council
may take action in a future amendment
to revise sector allocations. Further, the
red grouper standard SEDAR assessment
is scheduled to begin in 2013. During
the stock assessment process, SEDAR
participants will review the MRIP data
for its application in the assessment.
Classification
The Regional Administrator,
Southeast Region, NMFS has
determined that this final rule is
necessary for the conservation and
management of the species within
Amendment 24 and is consistent with
the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) was prepared. The FRFA
incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the
significant economic issues raised by
public comments, NMFS’ responses to
those comments, and a summary of the
analyses completed to support the
action. The FRFA follows.
No public comments specific to the
IRFA were received and, therefore, no
public comments are addressed in this
FRFA. No changes to the final rule were
made in response to public comments.
NMFS agrees that the Council’s
choice of preferred alternatives would
best achieve the Council’s objectives
while minimizing, to the extent
practicable, the adverse effects on
fishers, support industries, and
associated communities. The preamble
to the final rule provides a statement
and need for, and the objectives of this
rule, and is not repeated here.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
the statutory basis for this rule. No
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting
Federal rules have been identified. This
rule would not introduce any changes to
current reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements.
NMFS expects the rule to directly
affect commercial fishers and for-hire
operators. The Small Business
Administration established size criteria
for all major industry sectors in the U.S.
including fish harvesters and for-hire
operations. A business involved in fish
harvesting is classified as a small
business if it is independently owned
and operated, is not dominant in its
field of operation (including its
affiliates), and its combined annual
receipts are not in excess of $4.0 million
(NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for
all of its affiliated operations
worldwide. For for-hire vessels, other
qualifiers apply and the annual receipts
threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code
713990, recreational industries).
From 2005–2009, an annual average
of 892 vessels with valid permits to
operate in the commercial snappergrouper fishery landed snapper-grouper,
generating dockside revenues of
approximately $13.817 million (2009
dollars). Each vessel, therefore,
generated an annual average of
approximately $15,500 in gross
revenues from snapper-grouper during
the period of 2005–2009. Gross dockside
revenues by area were distributed as
follows: $4.196 million in North
Carolina, $3.612 million in South
Carolina, $3.219 million in Georgia/East
Florida, and $2.790 million in the west
coast of Florida. Vessels that operate in
the snapper-grouper fishery may also
operate in other fisheries, the revenues
of which cannot be determined with
available data and are not reflected in
these totals.
Based on average revenue
information, all commercial vessels
affected by this final rule can be
considered to be small entities.
The for-hire fleet is comprised of
charterboats, which charge a fee on a
vessel basis, and headboats, which
charge a fee on an individual angler
(head) basis. From 2005–2009, an
annual average of 2,018 vessels had
valid Federal permits to operate in the
snapper-grouper for-hire sector, of
which 82 vessels are estimated to have
operated as headboats. The charterboat
annual average gross revenue is
estimated to range from approximately
$62,000–$84,000 for Florida vessels,
$73,000–$89,000 for North Carolina
vessels, $68,000–$83,000 for Georgia
vessels, and $32,000–$39,000 for South
Carolina vessels. For headboats, the
corresponding annual average gross
revenue estimates are $170,000–
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
$362,000 for Florida vessels, and
$149,000–$317,000 for vessels in the
other states.
Based on these average revenue
figures, all for-hire operations that
would be affected by this final rule can
be considered small entities.
NMFS expects this final rule to
directly affect all federally permitted
commercial vessels and for-hire vessels
that operate in the South Atlantic
snapper-grouper fishery. All directly
affected entities have been determined,
for the purpose of this analysis, to be
small entities. Therefore, NMFS
determines that the final rule would
affect a substantial number of small
entities.
NMFS considers all entities expected
to be affected by the rule as small
entities, so the issue of disproportional
effects on small versus large entities
does not arise in the present case.
Modifying the rebuilding strategy,
ABC, and ACL would result in an
increase in cumulative commercial
vessel profits of $990,000 over the first
7 years of the rebuilding schedule with
an additional $310,000 generated in
years 8 through 10, assuming a discount
rate of 7 percent to determine current
year (2012) dollars. The corresponding
effects on the for-hire vessels would also
be an increase in cumulative profits but
the magnitude cannot be estimated
based on available information. These
increases in commercial vessel and forhire vessel profits are mainly a result of
increases in the ACL over time.
To the extent that the action for
allocating the ACL between the
commercial and recreational sectors
would maintain the baseline landings
distribution of red grouper between the
two sectors, NMFS expects no profit
changes to the commercial or for-hire
vessels to occur as a direct result of this
action.
The preferred alternative of revising
the ACL/OY would provide the largest
ACL/OY for red grouper, which would
increase the profits of the commercial
and for-hire vessels. Eliminating the
aggregate black grouper, red grouper,
and gag quota would tend to ensure that
profit increases from the largest
ACL/OY alternative for red grouper are
realized.
Within Amendment 24, establishing a
recreational ACT would have no
impacts on the profits of for-hire vessels
in the short term, because this measure
would not be used to trigger the
application of AMs. Should this
recreational ACT be used in the future
to trigger AMs, then it may be expected
to reduce the profits of for-hire vessels.
The magnitude of such reduction cannot
be estimated with available information.
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
Implementing in-season and postseason AMs for the commercial sector
are expected to limit the increases in the
short-term profits of commercial vessels
as a result of ACL increases, especially
since the most recent landings
information suggests that the series of
ACLs would likely be exceeded in the
near future. However, in the absence of
these AMs, regulations could become
more restrictive over time, resulting in
adversely affecting the long-term
profitability of the industry.
Implementing in-season and postseason AMs for the recreational sector
may be expected to limit increases in
short-term profits of for-hire vessels as
a result of ACL increases. However, the
2010 recreational harvest of red grouper
was well below the proposed ACL for
the recreational sector, suggesting that
the proposed AM has a low probability
of being triggered in the near future
(more current data was not available at
the time this analysis was conducted).
In effect, the AM for the recreational
sector may be expected to have a low
likelihood of affecting the profits of forhire vessels in the near future. Over the
long-term, however, these AMs could
apply and short-term profits of for-hire
vessels may be adversely affected.
However, the absence of these AMs
could lead to more restrictive
regulations that would reduce the longterm profitability of this sector.
Redefining MSY and MSST and
establishing a rebuilding schedule for
red grouper would not alter the current
harvest or use of the resource, and thus
would not affect the profitability of
small entities.
Defining a rebuilding schedule
maximizing the time to rebuild the stock
to biomass at MSY would add flexibility
in designing management measures that
would have the least short-term effects
on the profitability of small entities.
The Council considered several
alternatives for each action in this final
rule. In summary, the Council
concluded that their preferred
alternatives best meet the purpose and
need of Amendment 24 to implement
measures expected to prevent
overfishing and achieve OY while
minimizing, to the extent practicable,
adverse social and economic effects.
The preferred alternatives also best meet
the objectives of the Snapper-Grouper
FMP, while complying with the
requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and other applicable laws. The
following discusses all alternatives to
the preferred alternatives and their
effects relative to the preferred
alternatives.
Six alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, were considered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
for the rebuilding strategy and ABC. The
first alternative, the no action
alternative, would not establish a
rebuilding strategy for red grouper.
Within a rebuilding strategy, the
specification of targets and limits, such
as ABCs, is a crucial component of any
management program involving natural
resources. Without the designation of
these components, as analyzed in the no
action alternative, the regulations may
not be sufficient to prevent overfishing
and rebuild the stock. More restrictive
regulations could eventually be
imposed, which would substantially
reduce industry profits. The second
alternative would define a rebuilding
strategy that sets ABC equal to the yield
at FREBUILD, which is a fishing mortality
rate that would have a 70 percent
probability of rebuilding success to
biomass at MSY in 10 years. This
alternative has the highest ABC, which
could potentially result in the highest
ACL. Therefore, this alternative would
provide the best profitability scenario
for the commercial and for-hire vessels
over the entire rebuilding timeframe.
However, it would allow a higher
fishing mortality rate than the preferred
alternative and result in greater
uncertainty that the stock could rebuild
within the allowable timeframe. Both
this alternative and the preferred
alternative would maintain catches at a
similar level to what they have been in
recent years, but the preferred
alternative has a greater probability of
rebuilding the stock within the 10-year
timeframe. The third alternative would
define a rebuilding strategy that sets
ABC equal to the yield at 65 percent of
FMSY (fishing mortality at maximum
sustainable yield). This alternative
would provide for a lower ABC, and a
potentially lower ACL, than the
preferred alternative. Thus, this
alternative would potentially result in
lower profits to small entities than the
preferred alternative.
The fourth alternative would define a
rebuilding strategy that sets ABC equal
to the yield at FREBUILD–7, which is a
fishing mortality rate that would have a
70 percent probability of rebuilding
success to biomass at MSY in 7 years.
The fifth alternative would define a
rebuilding strategy that sets ABC equal
to the yield at FREBUILD–8, which is a
fishing mortality rate that would have a
70 percent probability of rebuilding
success to biomass at MSY in 8 years.
Each of these alternatives would likely
result in lower profits to small entities
than the preferred alternative, because
they would require more restrictive
management measures.
Two alternatives were considered for
sector allocation. Under the no action
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34257
alternative, which would not establish
sector allocation, the recreational and
commercial sectors would be managed
under a combined ACL. The
corresponding AMs would also apply to
both sectors regardless of which sector
lands the majority of fish. Under the
second alternative, five sub-alternatives
including the preferred sub-alternative
were considered. The first subalternative would establish a 52 percent
commercial and 48 percent recreational
allocation; the second sub-alternative,
54 percent commercial and 46 percent
recreational allocation; the third subalternative, 49 percent commercial and
51 percent recreational allocation; and,
the fourth sub-alternative, 41 percent
commercial and 59 percent recreational
allocation.
All of these alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, would base the
allocation ratio solely on a sector
distribution of landings. No economic
valuation was considered due to the
absence of sufficient information. In
terms of effects on the profits of small
entities, the general nature of the
various allocation alternatives is to favor
one sector over another. The higher the
allocation to one sector, the higher
would be the profit potential to that
sector and the lower would be the profit
potential to the other sector. Among the
alternatives, the preferred alternative
was found to have neutral effects on
profits on both the commercial and forhire vessels, because the resulting
allocation would be the same as the
historical sector distribution of
landings. This historical distribution is
the one used as a baseline against which
each alternative is compared.
Six alternatives, including the three
preferred alternatives, were considered
for ACL and OY. The three preferred
alternatives are not mutually exclusive
but are rather complementary to one
another. The first alternative, the no
action alternative, would not establish a
specific ACL for red grouper. This
alternative would not allow for specific
management actions to address the
overfished/overfishing status of the red
grouper stock. The second alternative
would specify an ACL for red grouper
equal to OY and OY equal to 90 percent
of ABC. This alternative would result in
lower profit potential to small entities
than the preferred alternative. The third
alternative would specify an ACL for
red grouper equal to OY and OY equal
to 80 percent of ABC. This alternative
would result in lower profit potential to
small entities than the preferred
alternative.
Three alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, were considered
for the commercial sector ACT. The first
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34258
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
and second alternatives would set the
commercial ACT equal to 90 percent
and 80 percent of the commercial ACL,
respectively. If ACTs were used to
trigger AM applications, these two
alternatives would result in lower
profits to small entities than the
preferred alternative. This rule
implements the preferred alternative of
not establishing a commercial ACT (no
action alternative) because the current
method to track commercial harvests is
adequate to determine whether the
commercial ACL is met or projected to
be met.
Four alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, were considered
for the recreational ACT. ACTs would
have economic effects only if they are
used to trigger AMs. Amendment 24
specifies that ACTs would not be used
to trigger AMs. The following
discussion, however, assumes ACTs are
used to trigger AMs so that the different
economic implications of the
alternatives can be described. The first
alternative, the no action alternative,
would not specify a recreational ACT
for red grouper. This alternative would
not allow consideration of management
uncertainty which is deemed high in the
recreational sector. Without
consideration of management
uncertainty, the probability of exceeding
the ACL would be relatively high,
increasing the probability of
implementing more stringent
management measures. The second and
third alternatives would specify a
recreational ACT equal to 85 percent
and 75 percent of the recreational ACL,
respectively. The second alternative
would likely result in a smaller
reduction on the short-term profits of
small entities than the preferred
alternative because it would provide for
higher ACT levels. The third alternative
would likely result in the same
reduction on the short-term profits of
small entities as the preferred
alternative because both would result in
the same ACTs.
Three alternatives, including the two
preferred alternatives, were considered
for the commercial AM. The two
preferred alternatives are not mutually
exclusive but rather complementary to
each other. The only alternative to the
preferred alternatives is the no action
alternative, which would not specify a
commercial AM for red grouper. This
alternative would retain the current
commercial AM specified for the group
of species consisting of red grouper,
black grouper, and gag. This particular
AM could be either more or less
restrictive than the preferred AM
alternatives specified for red grouper,
but it would not allow for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
implementation of management
measures that would specifically
address the overfished and undergoing
overfishing condition of the red grouper
stock. In addition, the current AM for
the aggregate species of red grouper,
black grouper, and gag does not provide
for post-season AMs. The lack of postseason AMs under the no action
alternative would result in higher shortterm profits to small entities than the
preferred alternative. However, it is
expected that the long-term profit
environment would be better under the
preferred alternatives because they
would provide for higher ACLs over
time, and therefore higher profits on a
more sustainable basis. It should also be
noted that a separate commercial sector
ACL/AM for black grouper was
implemented through the
Comprehensive ACL Amendment (final
rule published on March 16, 2012, 77
FR 15916), negating the need for the
aggregate species ACL/AM.
Four alternatives were considered for
the recreational AM. The first
alternative is the no action alternative,
which would not set a specific
recreational AM for red grouper. This
alternative would retain the current
recreational AM specified for the group
of species consisting of red grouper,
black grouper, and gag. This particular
AM could be either more or less
restrictive than the preferred AM
alternatives specified for red grouper,
but it would not allow for the
implementation of management
measures that would specifically
address the overfished/overfishing
condition of the red grouper stock. It
should also be noted that a separate
recreational sector ACL/AM for black
grouper was implemented through the
Comprehensive ACL Amendment,
negating the need for the aggregate
species ACL/AM.
The second alternative would specify
a recreational sector AM trigger and
includes five sub-alternatives, including
the preferred sub-alternative. The first
sub-alternative would not specify a
recreational sector AM trigger. This subalternative would likely result in higher
profits to small entities than the
preferred sub-alternative. However, it
would not address the overfished/
overfishing condition of red grouper.
The second sub-alternative specifies
that AM would be triggered if the mean
recreational landings for the past 3 years
exceed the recreational ACL. The profit
environment for small entities under
this sub-alternative may be lower or
higher than that of the preferred subalternative, depending on whether the
trend in landings is upward or
downward.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The third sub-alternative specifies
that the AM would be triggered if the
modified mean (highest and lowest
landings dropped) landings for the past
5 years exceed the recreational sector
ACL. This sub-alternative would have
the same effects on profitability as the
second sub-alternative, although the
magnitude may be lower. The fourth
sub-alternative specifies that the AM
would be triggered if the lower bound
of the 90 percent confidence interval
estimate of the MRFSS landings’
population mean plus headboat
landings is greater than the recreational
ACL. This sub-alternative is likely to
produce the same effects on profitability
as the first sub-alternative, but the
magnitude could be lower or higher.
The third alternative for a recreational
sector AM would specify a recreational
sector in-season AM and includes two
sub-alternatives, of which one is the
preferred sub-alternative. The only subalternative to the preferred alternative is
the no action alternative which would
not specify a recreational in-season AM.
This alternative would result in higher
short-term profits to small entities, but
it would not constrain recreational
fishing pressure and thus would not aid
in addressing the overfished/overfishing
condition for red grouper. In the
presence of a post-season AM, this
alternative would tend to reduce future
profits of small entities because of ACL
reductions.
The fourth alternative for a
recreational sector AM would specify a
recreational sector post-season AM if
the current fishing year’s recreational
sector ACL is exceeded, and includes
seven sub-alternatives, of which one is
the preferred sub-alternative. The first
sub-alternative would not specify a
recreational sector post-season AM. This
sub-alternative would result in higher
short-term profits to small entities than
the preferred alternative, although the
expectation is for long-term profitability
to be better under the preferred subalternative. The second sub-alternative
would compare the recreational sector
ACL with the 2011 landings only for the
purpose of triggering any 2011 postseason AMs and with the mean of the
2011 and 2012 landings for the purpose
of triggering any 2012 post-season AMs.
For 2013 and beyond, the most recent
three-year running would be used for
the purpose of triggering post-season
AMs. This sub-alternative may or may
not have the same sort of effects on
profitability as the preferred alternative,
depending on the specific AM measure
that would be implemented.
The third sub-alternative specifies
monitoring the following year’s landings
for persistence in increased landings,
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
with the Regional Administrator (RA)
taking management actions as
necessary. This sub-alternative would
likely result in the lower adverse effects
on short-term profits than the preferred
alternative, although the actual effects
would depend on the type of
restrictions that would be imposed by
the RA. The fourth sub-alternative
specifies monitoring the following
year’s landings for persistence in
increased landings, with the RA
publishing a notice in the Federal
Register to reduce the recreational
fishing season as necessary. This subalternative would likely result in less
adverse effects on short term profits
than the preferred sub-alternative to the
extent that the post-season AM may not
be imposed depending on how
persistent the upward trend in landings
would be. If a post-season AM were
necessary, this sub-alternative could
still result in higher profits than the
preferred alternative because it would
set a specific red grouper recreational
season closure date, allowing for-hire
vessels to make the necessary changes
in their operations.
The fifth sub-alternative specifies
monitoring the following year’s landings
for persistence in increased landings,
with the RA publishing a notice in the
Federal Register to reduce the
recreational bag limit as necessary to
prevent harvest from exceeding the
recreational ACL. This sub-alternative
would likely result in less adverse
effects on short term profits than the
preferred sub-alternative to the extent
that post-season AMs may not be
imposed depending on how persistent
the upward trend in landings would be.
If a post-season AM were necessary, this
sub-alternative could still result in
higher profits than the preferred
alternative since it would allow for-hire
vessels to operate year round, although
at lower bag limits. The sixth subalternative specifies that the RA publish
a notice in the Federal Register to
reduce the following year’s recreational
fishing season to ensure landings do not
exceed the following fishing season’s
recreational ACL. There is a good
possibility that this sub-alternative
would result in the same fishing season
length as the preferred alternative,
assuming no significant changes in
effort would occur in the following
fishing year. It is possible that other
measures, like a bag limit reduction,
may be employed under the preferred
alternative to effect a longer season that
would provide more fishing
opportunities. Whichever of these two
sub-alternatives can provide more
fishing opportunities may be considered
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
better than the other from the
standpoint of profits to small entities.
Two alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, were considered
for redefining MSY. The first
alternative, the no action alternative,
would retain the definition of MSY
which would not reflect the conclusions
of the latest stock assessment. This
alternative, like the preferred
alternative, would not directly affect the
profitability of small entities.
Five alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, were considered
for redefining MSST. The first
alternative, the no action alternative,
would retain the definition of MSST as
equal to natural mortality times the
biomass at MSY. The second alternative
would set MSST equal to 50 percent of
biomass at MSY. The third alternative
would set MSST equal to 85 percent of
biomass at MSY. The fourth alternative
would set MSST as the minimum stock
size at which rebuilding to MSY would
be expected to occur within 10 years at
the maximum fishing mortality
threshold level. All these alternatives,
like the preferred alternative, would not
directly affect the profitability of small
entities.
Five alternatives, including the
preferred alternative, were considered
for the rebuilding schedule. The first
alternative, the no action alternative,
would not implement a rebuilding
schedule. This alternative would not
comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirement to rebuild an overfished red
grouper stock. The second, third, and
fourth alternatives would establish a
rebuilding period of 3 years (shortest), 7
years, and 8 years, respectively. These
other alternatives would provide for a
shorter rebuilding timeframe than the
preferred alternative, and thus may be
expected to restrict the flexibility in
designing management measures that
would minimize the economic effects
on the profits of small entities.
Section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 states that, for each rule or group
of related rules for which an agency is
required to prepare a FRFA, the agency
shall publish one or more guides to
assist small entities in complying with
the rule, and shall designate such
publications as small entity compliance
guides. As part of the rulemaking
process, NMFS prepared a fishery
bulletin, which also serves as a small
entity compliance guide. The fishery
bulletin will be sent to all vessel permit
holders in the South Atlantic snappergrouper fishery.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34259
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: June 5, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator For
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is 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.
§ 622.42
[Amended]
2. In § 622.42, paragraph (e)(8) is
removed.
■ 3. In § 622.43, paragraph (a)(5)(iii) is
revised to read as follows:
■
§ 622.43
Closures.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) For gag, when the appropriate
commercial quota is reached, the
provisions of paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii)
of this section apply to gag and all other
SASWG.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 622.49, paragraph (b)(4) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 622.49 Annual catch limits (ACLs) and
accountability measures (AMs).
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Red grouper—(i) Commercial
sector. (A) If commercial landings for
red grouper, as estimated by the SRD,
reach or are projected to reach the
applicable ACL in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(C)
of this section, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the
Federal Register to close the commercial
sector for the remainder of the fishing
year. On and after the effective date of
such a notification, all sale or purchase
of red grouper is prohibited and harvest
or possession of this species in or from
the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the
bag and possession limit. This bag and
possession limit applies in the South
Atlantic on board a vessel for which a
valid Federal charter vessel/headboat
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, without regard
to where such species were harvested,
i.e. in state or Federal waters.
(B) If commercial landings exceed the
ACL, the AA will file a notification with
the Office of the Federal Register, at or
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES
34260
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
near the beginning of the following
fishing year to reduce the ACL for that
following year by the amount of the
overage in the prior fishing year.
(C) The applicable commercial ACLs,
in round weight, are 284,680 lb (129,129
kg) for 2012, 315,920 lb (143,299 kg) for
2013, and 343,200 lb (155,673 kg) for
2014 and subsequent fishing years.
(ii) Recreational sector. (A) If
recreational landings for red grouper, as
estimated by the SRD, are projected to
reach the applicable ACL in paragraph
(b)(4)(ii)(C) of this section, the AA will
file a notification with the Office of the
Federal Register to close the recreational
sector for the remainder of the fishing
year. On and after the effective date of
such a notification, the bag and
possession limit is zero. This bag and
possession limit applies in the South
Atlantic on board a vessel for which a
valid Federal charter vessel/headboat
permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, without regard
to where such species were harvested,
i.e. in state or Federal waters.
(B) If recreational landings for red
grouper, as estimated by the SRD,
exceed the applicable ACL, the AA will
file a notification with the Office of the
Federal Register, to reduce the
recreational ACL the following fishing
year by the amount of the overage in the
prior fishing year.
(C) The applicable recreational ACLs,
in round weight, are 362,320 lb (164,346
kg) for 2012, 402,080 lb (182,380 kg) for
2013, and 436,800 lb (198,129 kg) for
2014 and subsequent fishing years.
(iii) Without regard to overfished
status, if the combined commercial and
recreational sector ACL (total ACL), as
estimated by the SRD, is exceeded in a
fishing year, then during the following
fishing year, an automatic increase will
not be applied to the commercial and
recreational sector ACLs. The SRD will
evaluate the landings data to determine
whether or not an increase in the
respective sector ACLs will be applied.
The applicable combined commercial
and recreational sector ACLs, in round
weight are 647,000 lb (293,474 kg) for
2012, 718,000 lb (325,679 kg) for 2013,
and 780,000 lb (353,802 kg) for 2014
and subsequent fishing years.
(A) Following an overage of the total
ACL, if there is no overage the following
fishing year, the SRD will evaluate the
landings data to determine whether or
not an increase in the respective sector
ACLs will be applied.
(B) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–14137 Filed 6–8–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Jun 08, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 665
[Docket No. 110909578–2120–02]
RIN 0648–BB45
Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries;
Modification of American Samoa Large
Vessel Prohibited Area
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule modifies
certain boundaries of the large fishing
vessel prohibited area around Tutuila,
the Manua Islands, and Rose Atoll in
American Samoa to align with the
boundaries of the Rose Atoll Marine
National Monument. This rule
simplifies enforcement and
administration of the management areas.
DATES: This rule is effective July 11,
2012.
ADDRESSES: The Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council)
prepared a regulatory amendment that
provides background information on
this final rule. The regulatory
amendment, identified as NOAA–
NMFS–2011–0226, includes an
environmental assessment and
regulatory impact review, and is
available from www.regulations.gov or
the Council, 1164 Bishop St., Suite
1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, tel 808–522–
8220, fax 808–522–8226,
www.wpcouncil.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Bailey, Sustainable Fisheries,
NMFS PIR, 808–944–2248.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A mix of
small troll and longline vessels and
larger longline and purse seine vessels
target tunas and related fish in the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around
American Samoa. In 2002, concerns
about potential catch competition and
gear conflicts between small and large
vessels led to the implementation of two
large vessel prohibited areas (LVPA),
one around Swain’s Island and one
around Tutuila, the Manua Islands, and
Rose Atoll (67 FR 4369, January 30,
2002).
In 2009, Presidential Proclamation
8337 created the Rose Atoll Marine
National Monument (74 FR 1577,
January 12, 2009). The monument
includes Rose Atoll and surrounding
waters to a distance approximately 50
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
nm around the atoll. The Proclamation
prohibits commercial fishing in
monument waters.
The monument and the LVPA around
Tutuila, the Manua Islands, and Rose
Atoll overlap, but the boundaries do not
align. This rule aligns some of the
boundaries to simplify administration
and enforcement of the two areas. This
rule modifies the LVPA boundaries, as
follows:
(a) Move the existing northernmost
LVPA boundary southward to align with
the northern boundary of the
monument;
(b) Move the eastern LVPA boundary
eastward to align with the eastern
boundary of the monument; and
(c) Move a portion of the southern
LVPA boundary southward to align with
the southern boundary of the
monument.
The western and most of the southern
boundaries of the existing LVPA remain
unchanged. Fig. 1 shows the revised
boundaries of the LVPA.
Comments and Responses
On April 20, 2012, NMFS published
a proposed rule and request for public
comment (77 FR 23654). The comment
period for the proposed rule ended on
May 11, 2012. NMFS received no public
comments.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
There are no changes in this final
rule.
Classification
The Administrator, Pacific Islands
Region, NMFS, determined that this
action is necessary for the conservation
and management of the large vessel
pelagic fisheries around American
Samoa, and that it is consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act and
other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to
be not significant for purposes of
Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Council for Regulation of
the Department of Commerce certified
to the Chief Council for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration during
the proposed rule stage that this action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The factual basis for the
certification was published in the
proposed rule and is not repeated here.
NMFS received no comments regarding
this certification; as a result, a
regulatory flexibility analysis was not
required and none was prepared.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34254-34260]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14137]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 101202599-2122-02]
RIN 0648-BA52
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 24
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 24 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South
Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council). This final rule establishes red grouper
commercial and recreational sector annual catch limits (ACLs);
establishes red grouper sector accountability measures (AMs); and
removes the combined gag, black grouper, and red grouper commercial
quota, and commercial and recreational sector ACLs and AMs. The intent
of this final rule is to specify ACLs and AMs for red grouper while
maintaining catch levels consistent with achieving optimum yield (OY)
for the red grouper resource. Additionally, Amendment 24 implements a
rebuilding plan for red grouper in the South Atlantic.
DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of Amendment 24, which includes an
environmental assessment, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA), and a regulatory impact review, may be
[[Page 34255]]
obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/SGAmend24_121411.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick DeVictor, telephone: 727-824-
5305, or email: rick.devictor@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper-grouper fishery of the South
Atlantic is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council
and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On February 27, 2012, NMFS published a notice of availability for
Amendment 24 and requested public comment (77 FR 11477). On March 30,
2012, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 24 and requested
public comment (77 FR 19169). The proposed rule and Amendment 24
outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A
summary of the actions implemented by this final rule is provided
below.
This final rule removes the gag, black grouper, and red grouper
combined commercial and recreational ACLs and AMs, and specifies the
ACLs and AMs for red grouper. This final rule implements in-season
commercial and recreational sector AMs for red grouper, as well as
post-season overage adjustments. In addition to the actions contained
in this final rule, specific to red grouper, Amendment 24 implements a
10-year rebuilding plan, specifies the maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
and OY values, revises the definition of minimum stock size threshold
(MSST) to be 75 percent of the spawning stock biomass when fishing at
the MSY level, specifies commercial and recreational allocations, and
establishes a recreational sector annual catch target (ACT). The intent
of Amendment 24 and this final rule is to specify ACLs and AMs for red
grouper while maintaining catch levels consistent with achieving OY for
the red grouper resource.
Comments and Responses
A total of nine comments were received on Amendment 24 and the
proposed rule. One commenter submitted identical comments on Amendment
24 and the proposed rule. One Federal agency stated that they had no
comment on Amendment 24. NMFS received one comment of general support
and six individual comments opposing one or more of the actions
contained in Amendment 24 and the proposed rule. Specific comments
related to the actions contained in Amendment 24 and the proposed rule,
as well as NMFS' respective responses, are summarized below.
Comment 1: The restrictions on red grouper harvest in Amendment 24
are not necessary because a 4-month closure for shallow-water groupers
is currently in place. In addition, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirement that the Council prepare and implement a plan amendment to
rebuild red grouper should not apply because the 4-month closure,
implemented through Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR 30964, June 29,
2009), was not considered in the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review
(SEDAR) SEDAR 19 stock assessment.
Response: The most recent South Atlantic red grouper stock
assessment, SEDAR 19, was completed in 2010 and used data available
through 2008. Therefore, SEDAR 19 did not consider impacts of the 4-
month prohibition on the harvest, landing, and possession of shallow-
water groupers (gag, black grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, rock
hind, coney, yellowfin grouper, yellowmouth grouper, and tiger grouper)
implemented in 2009 through Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR 30964, June
29, 2009). However, SEDAR 19 determined that red grouper was overfished
and undergoing overfishing, and NMFS notified the Council of the red
grouper stock status on June 9, 2010. The Council is required by the
Magnuson-Stevens Act to implement a rebuilding plan within 2 years
after notification of an overfished stock.
NMFS and the Council must schedule stock assessments several years
in advance to allow time for the needed data to be compiled for use by
stock assessment scientists. The effect of the 4-month closure and
other recent measures implemented to improve the status of red grouper
will be evaluated in the next stock assessment, scheduled to begin in
2013.
The Council and NMFS are also required to establish ACLs and AMs
based on the best scientific information available. Commercial and
recreational aggregate ACLs and AMs for black grouper, gag, and red
grouper were established through Amendment 17B to the FMP (75 FR 82280,
December 30, 2010). The aggregate ACLs currently in place were computed
using landings data for black grouper and red grouper prior to the
availability of stock assessments (SEDAR 19) for these two species.
This final rule will remove the gag, black grouper, and red grouper
aggregate commercial and recreational ACLs and AMs, and implement red
grouper ACLs based upon the best scientific information available,
which includes SEDAR 19 and the acceptable biological catch (ABC)
recommendation from the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC). NMFS notes that gag individual ACLs and AMs were previously
established through Amendment 16 to the FMP (74 FR 30964, June 29,
2009) and black grouper ACLs and AMs were implemented through the
Comprehensive ACL Amendment (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012) and will
remain in effect. The commercial and recreational ACLs and AMs
implemented through Amendment 24 are expected to ensure red grouper
overfishing does not occur and the stock rebuilds to target levels
within the 10-year rebuilding timeframe.
Comment 2: Red grouper allocations should be reexamined using
landings through 2010 or 2011. All recreational landings information
used for sector allocations should be recalculated using the Marine
Recreational Information Program (MRIP) instead of the Marine
Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Additionally, NMFS
should allocate red grouper as 50 percent for the commercial sector and
50 percent for the recreational sector until the Southeast Fisheries
Science Center (SEFSC) and SEDAR complete a new full benchmark
assessment utilizing MRIP.
Response: The Council concluded that sector-specific ACLs and AMs
are important components of red grouper management because the
scientific and management uncertainty are different for each sector. To
divide the red grouper stock ACL into sector ACLs, the Council had to
make allocation decisions. The Council decided to establish sector
allocations by balancing long-term catch history with recent catch
history. Accordingly, the Council determined the allocation using 50
percent of average landings from 1986-2008 and 50 percent of average
landings from 2006-2008. This resulted in an allocation of red grouper
in the South Atlantic as 44 percent for the commercial sector and 56
percent for the recreational sector. The commercial sector landed the
majority of red grouper in the early time period (1987-1992) and the
for-hire component of the recreational sector landed the majority of
fish in more recent years (2006-2008). The Council concluded that this
approach was a fair and equitable method to allocate fishery resources
and had the additional benefit of using a mathematically transparent
formula. The Snapper-Grouper Advisory Panel and the majority of
comments received during scoping meetings and
[[Page 34256]]
public hearings supported the Council's allocation decision.
Landings data from SEDAR 19 were used to determine allocations.
SEDAR 19 was completed in 2010, and the most recent year of data used
in the stock assessment was 2008. The Council was notified of the red
grouper stock status on June 9, 2010, and submitted Amendment 24 to
NMFS on December 14, 2011, to meet the 2-year Magnuson-Stevens Act
deadline to implement a rebuilding plan. The incorporation of 2010 and
2011 landings data would have delayed the implementation of Amendment
24 past the 2-year deadline.
When the Council determined the appropriate sector allocations and
approved Amendment 24 in December 2011, the new MRIP estimates had not
yet been released. The MRIP data were not available until January of
2012. If MRIP data indicate that an allocation adjustment is necessary,
the Council may take action in a future amendment to revise sector
allocations. Further, the red grouper standard SEDAR assessment is
scheduled to begin in 2013. During the stock assessment process, SEDAR
participants will review the MRIP data for its application in the
assessment.
Classification
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined
that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management
of the species within Amendment 24 and is consistent with the FMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) was prepared. The
FRFA incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant economic
issues raised by public comments, NMFS' responses to those comments,
and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. The FRFA
follows.
No public comments specific to the IRFA were received and,
therefore, no public comments are addressed in this FRFA. No changes to
the final rule were made in response to public comments.
NMFS agrees that the Council's choice of preferred alternatives
would best achieve the Council's objectives while minimizing, to the
extent practicable, the adverse effects on fishers, support industries,
and associated communities. The preamble to the final rule provides a
statement and need for, and the objectives of this rule, and is not
repeated here.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this
rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have
been identified. This rule would not introduce any changes to current
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements.
NMFS expects the rule to directly affect commercial fishers and
for-hire operators. The Small Business Administration established size
criteria for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including fish
harvesters and for-hire operations. A business involved in fish
harvesting is classified as a small business if it is independently
owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation
(including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts are not in
excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code 114111, finfish fishing) for all of
its affiliated operations worldwide. For for-hire vessels, other
qualifiers apply and the annual receipts threshold is $7.0 million
(NAICS code 713990, recreational industries).
From 2005-2009, an annual average of 892 vessels with valid permits
to operate in the commercial snapper-grouper fishery landed snapper-
grouper, generating dockside revenues of approximately $13.817 million
(2009 dollars). Each vessel, therefore, generated an annual average of
approximately $15,500 in gross revenues from snapper-grouper during the
period of 2005-2009. Gross dockside revenues by area were distributed
as follows: $4.196 million in North Carolina, $3.612 million in South
Carolina, $3.219 million in Georgia/East Florida, and $2.790 million in
the west coast of Florida. Vessels that operate in the snapper-grouper
fishery may also operate in other fisheries, the revenues of which
cannot be determined with available data and are not reflected in these
totals.
Based on average revenue information, all commercial vessels
affected by this final rule can be considered to be small entities.
The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee
on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual
angler (head) basis. From 2005-2009, an annual average of 2,018 vessels
had valid Federal permits to operate in the snapper-grouper for-hire
sector, of which 82 vessels are estimated to have operated as
headboats. The charterboat annual average gross revenue is estimated to
range from approximately $62,000-$84,000 for Florida vessels, $73,000-
$89,000 for North Carolina vessels, $68,000-$83,000 for Georgia
vessels, and $32,000-$39,000 for South Carolina vessels. For headboats,
the corresponding annual average gross revenue estimates are $170,000-
$362,000 for Florida vessels, and $149,000-$317,000 for vessels in the
other states.
Based on these average revenue figures, all for-hire operations
that would be affected by this final rule can be considered small
entities.
NMFS expects this final rule to directly affect all federally
permitted commercial vessels and for-hire vessels that operate in the
South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. All directly affected entities
have been determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be small
entities. Therefore, NMFS determines that the final rule would affect a
substantial number of small entities.
NMFS considers all entities expected to be affected by the rule as
small entities, so the issue of disproportional effects on small versus
large entities does not arise in the present case.
Modifying the rebuilding strategy, ABC, and ACL would result in an
increase in cumulative commercial vessel profits of $990,000 over the
first 7 years of the rebuilding schedule with an additional $310,000
generated in years 8 through 10, assuming a discount rate of 7 percent
to determine current year (2012) dollars. The corresponding effects on
the for-hire vessels would also be an increase in cumulative profits
but the magnitude cannot be estimated based on available information.
These increases in commercial vessel and for-hire vessel profits are
mainly a result of increases in the ACL over time.
To the extent that the action for allocating the ACL between the
commercial and recreational sectors would maintain the baseline
landings distribution of red grouper between the two sectors, NMFS
expects no profit changes to the commercial or for-hire vessels to
occur as a direct result of this action.
The preferred alternative of revising the ACL/OY would provide the
largest ACL/OY for red grouper, which would increase the profits of the
commercial and for-hire vessels. Eliminating the aggregate black
grouper, red grouper, and gag quota would tend to ensure that profit
increases from the largest ACL/OY alternative for red grouper are
realized.
Within Amendment 24, establishing a recreational ACT would have no
impacts on the profits of for-hire vessels in the short term, because
this measure would not be used to trigger the application of AMs.
Should this recreational ACT be used in the future to trigger AMs, then
it may be expected to reduce the profits of for-hire vessels. The
magnitude of such reduction cannot be estimated with available
information.
[[Page 34257]]
Implementing in-season and post-season AMs for the commercial
sector are expected to limit the increases in the short-term profits of
commercial vessels as a result of ACL increases, especially since the
most recent landings information suggests that the series of ACLs would
likely be exceeded in the near future. However, in the absence of these
AMs, regulations could become more restrictive over time, resulting in
adversely affecting the long-term profitability of the industry.
Implementing in-season and post-season AMs for the recreational
sector may be expected to limit increases in short-term profits of for-
hire vessels as a result of ACL increases. However, the 2010
recreational harvest of red grouper was well below the proposed ACL for
the recreational sector, suggesting that the proposed AM has a low
probability of being triggered in the near future (more current data
was not available at the time this analysis was conducted). In effect,
the AM for the recreational sector may be expected to have a low
likelihood of affecting the profits of for-hire vessels in the near
future. Over the long-term, however, these AMs could apply and short-
term profits of for-hire vessels may be adversely affected. However,
the absence of these AMs could lead to more restrictive regulations
that would reduce the long-term profitability of this sector.
Redefining MSY and MSST and establishing a rebuilding schedule for
red grouper would not alter the current harvest or use of the resource,
and thus would not affect the profitability of small entities.
Defining a rebuilding schedule maximizing the time to rebuild the
stock to biomass at MSY would add flexibility in designing management
measures that would have the least short-term effects on the
profitability of small entities.
The Council considered several alternatives for each action in this
final rule. In summary, the Council concluded that their preferred
alternatives best meet the purpose and need of Amendment 24 to
implement measures expected to prevent overfishing and achieve OY while
minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse social and economic
effects. The preferred alternatives also best meet the objectives of
the Snapper-Grouper FMP, while complying with the requirements of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. The following discusses
all alternatives to the preferred alternatives and their effects
relative to the preferred alternatives.
Six alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the rebuilding strategy and ABC. The first alternative,
the no action alternative, would not establish a rebuilding strategy
for red grouper. Within a rebuilding strategy, the specification of
targets and limits, such as ABCs, is a crucial component of any
management program involving natural resources. Without the designation
of these components, as analyzed in the no action alternative, the
regulations may not be sufficient to prevent overfishing and rebuild
the stock. More restrictive regulations could eventually be imposed,
which would substantially reduce industry profits. The second
alternative would define a rebuilding strategy that sets ABC equal to
the yield at FREBUILD, which is a fishing mortality rate
that would have a 70 percent probability of rebuilding success to
biomass at MSY in 10 years. This alternative has the highest ABC, which
could potentially result in the highest ACL. Therefore, this
alternative would provide the best profitability scenario for the
commercial and for-hire vessels over the entire rebuilding timeframe.
However, it would allow a higher fishing mortality rate than the
preferred alternative and result in greater uncertainty that the stock
could rebuild within the allowable timeframe. Both this alternative and
the preferred alternative would maintain catches at a similar level to
what they have been in recent years, but the preferred alternative has
a greater probability of rebuilding the stock within the 10-year
timeframe. The third alternative would define a rebuilding strategy
that sets ABC equal to the yield at 65 percent of FMSY
(fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield). This alternative
would provide for a lower ABC, and a potentially lower ACL, than the
preferred alternative. Thus, this alternative would potentially result
in lower profits to small entities than the preferred alternative.
The fourth alternative would define a rebuilding strategy that sets
ABC equal to the yield at FREBUILD-7, which is a fishing
mortality rate that would have a 70 percent probability of rebuilding
success to biomass at MSY in 7 years. The fifth alternative would
define a rebuilding strategy that sets ABC equal to the yield at
FREBUILD-8, which is a fishing mortality rate that would
have a 70 percent probability of rebuilding success to biomass at MSY
in 8 years. Each of these alternatives would likely result in lower
profits to small entities than the preferred alternative, because they
would require more restrictive management measures.
Two alternatives were considered for sector allocation. Under the
no action alternative, which would not establish sector allocation, the
recreational and commercial sectors would be managed under a combined
ACL. The corresponding AMs would also apply to both sectors regardless
of which sector lands the majority of fish. Under the second
alternative, five sub-alternatives including the preferred sub-
alternative were considered. The first sub-alternative would establish
a 52 percent commercial and 48 percent recreational allocation; the
second sub-alternative, 54 percent commercial and 46 percent
recreational allocation; the third sub-alternative, 49 percent
commercial and 51 percent recreational allocation; and, the fourth sub-
alternative, 41 percent commercial and 59 percent recreational
allocation.
All of these alternatives, including the preferred alternative,
would base the allocation ratio solely on a sector distribution of
landings. No economic valuation was considered due to the absence of
sufficient information. In terms of effects on the profits of small
entities, the general nature of the various allocation alternatives is
to favor one sector over another. The higher the allocation to one
sector, the higher would be the profit potential to that sector and the
lower would be the profit potential to the other sector. Among the
alternatives, the preferred alternative was found to have neutral
effects on profits on both the commercial and for-hire vessels, because
the resulting allocation would be the same as the historical sector
distribution of landings. This historical distribution is the one used
as a baseline against which each alternative is compared.
Six alternatives, including the three preferred alternatives, were
considered for ACL and OY. The three preferred alternatives are not
mutually exclusive but are rather complementary to one another. The
first alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish a
specific ACL for red grouper. This alternative would not allow for
specific management actions to address the overfished/overfishing
status of the red grouper stock. The second alternative would specify
an ACL for red grouper equal to OY and OY equal to 90 percent of ABC.
This alternative would result in lower profit potential to small
entities than the preferred alternative. The third alternative would
specify an ACL for red grouper equal to OY and OY equal to 80 percent
of ABC. This alternative would result in lower profit potential to
small entities than the preferred alternative.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the commercial sector ACT. The first
[[Page 34258]]
and second alternatives would set the commercial ACT equal to 90
percent and 80 percent of the commercial ACL, respectively. If ACTs
were used to trigger AM applications, these two alternatives would
result in lower profits to small entities than the preferred
alternative. This rule implements the preferred alternative of not
establishing a commercial ACT (no action alternative) because the
current method to track commercial harvests is adequate to determine
whether the commercial ACL is met or projected to be met.
Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the recreational ACT. ACTs would have economic effects
only if they are used to trigger AMs. Amendment 24 specifies that ACTs
would not be used to trigger AMs. The following discussion, however,
assumes ACTs are used to trigger AMs so that the different economic
implications of the alternatives can be described. The first
alternative, the no action alternative, would not specify a
recreational ACT for red grouper. This alternative would not allow
consideration of management uncertainty which is deemed high in the
recreational sector. Without consideration of management uncertainty,
the probability of exceeding the ACL would be relatively high,
increasing the probability of implementing more stringent management
measures. The second and third alternatives would specify a
recreational ACT equal to 85 percent and 75 percent of the recreational
ACL, respectively. The second alternative would likely result in a
smaller reduction on the short-term profits of small entities than the
preferred alternative because it would provide for higher ACT levels.
The third alternative would likely result in the same reduction on the
short-term profits of small entities as the preferred alternative
because both would result in the same ACTs.
Three alternatives, including the two preferred alternatives, were
considered for the commercial AM. The two preferred alternatives are
not mutually exclusive but rather complementary to each other. The only
alternative to the preferred alternatives is the no action alternative,
which would not specify a commercial AM for red grouper. This
alternative would retain the current commercial AM specified for the
group of species consisting of red grouper, black grouper, and gag.
This particular AM could be either more or less restrictive than the
preferred AM alternatives specified for red grouper, but it would not
allow for the implementation of management measures that would
specifically address the overfished and undergoing overfishing
condition of the red grouper stock. In addition, the current AM for the
aggregate species of red grouper, black grouper, and gag does not
provide for post-season AMs. The lack of post-season AMs under the no
action alternative would result in higher short-term profits to small
entities than the preferred alternative. However, it is expected that
the long-term profit environment would be better under the preferred
alternatives because they would provide for higher ACLs over time, and
therefore higher profits on a more sustainable basis. It should also be
noted that a separate commercial sector ACL/AM for black grouper was
implemented through the Comprehensive ACL Amendment (final rule
published on March 16, 2012, 77 FR 15916), negating the need for the
aggregate species ACL/AM.
Four alternatives were considered for the recreational AM. The
first alternative is the no action alternative, which would not set a
specific recreational AM for red grouper. This alternative would retain
the current recreational AM specified for the group of species
consisting of red grouper, black grouper, and gag. This particular AM
could be either more or less restrictive than the preferred AM
alternatives specified for red grouper, but it would not allow for the
implementation of management measures that would specifically address
the overfished/overfishing condition of the red grouper stock. It
should also be noted that a separate recreational sector ACL/AM for
black grouper was implemented through the Comprehensive ACL Amendment,
negating the need for the aggregate species ACL/AM.
The second alternative would specify a recreational sector AM
trigger and includes five sub-alternatives, including the preferred
sub-alternative. The first sub-alternative would not specify a
recreational sector AM trigger. This sub-alternative would likely
result in higher profits to small entities than the preferred sub-
alternative. However, it would not address the overfished/overfishing
condition of red grouper. The second sub-alternative specifies that AM
would be triggered if the mean recreational landings for the past 3
years exceed the recreational ACL. The profit environment for small
entities under this sub-alternative may be lower or higher than that of
the preferred sub-alternative, depending on whether the trend in
landings is upward or downward.
The third sub-alternative specifies that the AM would be triggered
if the modified mean (highest and lowest landings dropped) landings for
the past 5 years exceed the recreational sector ACL. This sub-
alternative would have the same effects on profitability as the second
sub-alternative, although the magnitude may be lower. The fourth sub-
alternative specifies that the AM would be triggered if the lower bound
of the 90 percent confidence interval estimate of the MRFSS landings'
population mean plus headboat landings is greater than the recreational
ACL. This sub-alternative is likely to produce the same effects on
profitability as the first sub-alternative, but the magnitude could be
lower or higher.
The third alternative for a recreational sector AM would specify a
recreational sector in-season AM and includes two sub-alternatives, of
which one is the preferred sub-alternative. The only sub-alternative to
the preferred alternative is the no action alternative which would not
specify a recreational in-season AM. This alternative would result in
higher short-term profits to small entities, but it would not constrain
recreational fishing pressure and thus would not aid in addressing the
overfished/overfishing condition for red grouper. In the presence of a
post-season AM, this alternative would tend to reduce future profits of
small entities because of ACL reductions.
The fourth alternative for a recreational sector AM would specify a
recreational sector post-season AM if the current fishing year's
recreational sector ACL is exceeded, and includes seven sub-
alternatives, of which one is the preferred sub-alternative. The first
sub-alternative would not specify a recreational sector post-season AM.
This sub-alternative would result in higher short-term profits to small
entities than the preferred alternative, although the expectation is
for long-term profitability to be better under the preferred sub-
alternative. The second sub-alternative would compare the recreational
sector ACL with the 2011 landings only for the purpose of triggering
any 2011 post-season AMs and with the mean of the 2011 and 2012
landings for the purpose of triggering any 2012 post-season AMs. For
2013 and beyond, the most recent three-year running would be used for
the purpose of triggering post-season AMs. This sub-alternative may or
may not have the same sort of effects on profitability as the preferred
alternative, depending on the specific AM measure that would be
implemented.
The third sub-alternative specifies monitoring the following year's
landings for persistence in increased landings,
[[Page 34259]]
with the Regional Administrator (RA) taking management actions as
necessary. This sub-alternative would likely result in the lower
adverse effects on short-term profits than the preferred alternative,
although the actual effects would depend on the type of restrictions
that would be imposed by the RA. The fourth sub-alternative specifies
monitoring the following year's landings for persistence in increased
landings, with the RA publishing a notice in the Federal Register to
reduce the recreational fishing season as necessary. This sub-
alternative would likely result in less adverse effects on short term
profits than the preferred sub-alternative to the extent that the post-
season AM may not be imposed depending on how persistent the upward
trend in landings would be. If a post-season AM were necessary, this
sub-alternative could still result in higher profits than the preferred
alternative because it would set a specific red grouper recreational
season closure date, allowing for-hire vessels to make the necessary
changes in their operations.
The fifth sub-alternative specifies monitoring the following year's
landings for persistence in increased landings, with the RA publishing
a notice in the Federal Register to reduce the recreational bag limit
as necessary to prevent harvest from exceeding the recreational ACL.
This sub-alternative would likely result in less adverse effects on
short term profits than the preferred sub-alternative to the extent
that post-season AMs may not be imposed depending on how persistent the
upward trend in landings would be. If a post-season AM were necessary,
this sub-alternative could still result in higher profits than the
preferred alternative since it would allow for-hire vessels to operate
year round, although at lower bag limits. The sixth sub-alternative
specifies that the RA publish a notice in the Federal Register to
reduce the following year's recreational fishing season to ensure
landings do not exceed the following fishing season's recreational ACL.
There is a good possibility that this sub-alternative would result in
the same fishing season length as the preferred alternative, assuming
no significant changes in effort would occur in the following fishing
year. It is possible that other measures, like a bag limit reduction,
may be employed under the preferred alternative to effect a longer
season that would provide more fishing opportunities. Whichever of
these two sub-alternatives can provide more fishing opportunities may
be considered better than the other from the standpoint of profits to
small entities.
Two alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for redefining MSY. The first alternative, the no action
alternative, would retain the definition of MSY which would not reflect
the conclusions of the latest stock assessment. This alternative, like
the preferred alternative, would not directly affect the profitability
of small entities.
Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for redefining MSST. The first alternative, the no action
alternative, would retain the definition of MSST as equal to natural
mortality times the biomass at MSY. The second alternative would set
MSST equal to 50 percent of biomass at MSY. The third alternative would
set MSST equal to 85 percent of biomass at MSY. The fourth alternative
would set MSST as the minimum stock size at which rebuilding to MSY
would be expected to occur within 10 years at the maximum fishing
mortality threshold level. All these alternatives, like the preferred
alternative, would not directly affect the profitability of small
entities.
Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the rebuilding schedule. The first alternative, the no
action alternative, would not implement a rebuilding schedule. This
alternative would not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement
to rebuild an overfished red grouper stock. The second, third, and
fourth alternatives would establish a rebuilding period of 3 years
(shortest), 7 years, and 8 years, respectively. These other
alternatives would provide for a shorter rebuilding timeframe than the
preferred alternative, and thus may be expected to restrict the
flexibility in designing management measures that would minimize the
economic effects on the profits of small entities.
Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for
which an agency is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency shall publish
one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule,
and shall designate such publications as small entity compliance
guides. As part of the rulemaking process, NMFS prepared a fishery
bulletin, which also serves as a small entity compliance guide. The
fishery bulletin will be sent to all vessel permit holders in the South
Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: June 5, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended
as follows:
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Sec. 622.42 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 622.42, paragraph (e)(8) is removed.
0
3. In Sec. 622.43, paragraph (a)(5)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 622.43 Closures.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) For gag, when the appropriate commercial quota is reached,
the provisions of paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section apply
to gag and all other SASWG.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 622.49, paragraph (b)(4) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.49 Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures
(AMs).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Red grouper--(i) Commercial sector. (A) If commercial landings
for red grouper, as estimated by the SRD, reach or are projected to
reach the applicable ACL in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(C) of this section, the
AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to
close the commercial sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On
and after the effective date of such a notification, all sale or
purchase of red grouper is prohibited and harvest or possession of this
species in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is limited to the bag and
possession limit. This bag and possession limit applies in the South
Atlantic on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/
headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued,
without regard to where such species were harvested, i.e. in state or
Federal waters.
(B) If commercial landings exceed the ACL, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or
[[Page 34260]]
near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the ACL for
that following year by the amount of the overage in the prior fishing
year.
(C) The applicable commercial ACLs, in round weight, are 284,680 lb
(129,129 kg) for 2012, 315,920 lb (143,299 kg) for 2013, and 343,200 lb
(155,673 kg) for 2014 and subsequent fishing years.
(ii) Recreational sector. (A) If recreational landings for red
grouper, as estimated by the SRD, are projected to reach the applicable
ACL in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(C) of this section, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the
recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after
the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limit
is zero. This bag and possession limit applies in the South Atlantic on
board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit
for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, without regard to
where such species were harvested, i.e. in state or Federal waters.
(B) If recreational landings for red grouper, as estimated by the
SRD, exceed the applicable ACL, the AA will file a notification with
the Office of the Federal Register, to reduce the recreational ACL the
following fishing year by the amount of the overage in the prior
fishing year.
(C) The applicable recreational ACLs, in round weight, are 362,320
lb (164,346 kg) for 2012, 402,080 lb (182,380 kg) for 2013, and 436,800
lb (198,129 kg) for 2014 and subsequent fishing years.
(iii) Without regard to overfished status, if the combined
commercial and recreational sector ACL (total ACL), as estimated by the
SRD, is exceeded in a fishing year, then during the following fishing
year, an automatic increase will not be applied to the commercial and
recreational sector ACLs. The SRD will evaluate the landings data to
determine whether or not an increase in the respective sector ACLs will
be applied. The applicable combined commercial and recreational sector
ACLs, in round weight are 647,000 lb (293,474 kg) for 2012, 718,000 lb
(325,679 kg) for 2013, and 780,000 lb (353,802 kg) for 2014 and
subsequent fishing years.
(A) Following an overage of the total ACL, if there is no overage
the following fishing year, the SRD will evaluate the landings data to
determine whether or not an increase in the respective sector ACLs will
be applied.
(B) [Reserved]
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-14137 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P