Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish Fishery; 2015-2017 Specifications, 52293-52296 [2014-20963]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that even if each threat individually
does not result in population-level
effects that may warrant protection for
these fishes under the ESA, those
cumulative or synergistic effects may be
significant and meet our 90-day finding
standard.
For A. percula, we find the petition
presents substantial information to
indicate this species may be warranted
for listing. As such, we will conduct a
status review and include a detailed
assessment of the potential for
synergistic effects of the Section 4(a)(1)
factors on this species. We request
information on any potential
interactions through the public
comment process (see below).
For the other six petitioned species,
we have specifically considered
whether two or more of the threats
assessed above (loss of coral reef habitat
due to climate change, harm to essential
functions from ocean acidification and
ocean warming, overharvest for the
aquarium trade, and inadequacy of
regulatory mechanisms) are
cumulatively or synergistically likely to
interact and result in significant impacts
to the species, either now or in the
foreseeable future. We have no
information to suggest that the
identified threats to the species will
work synergistically, thereby enhancing
impacts to the six petitioned species
populations. With regard to cumulative
impacts, we must consider whether the
information provided would suggest
that the additive impacts from the
various threats indicate that the species
may warrant protection under the ESA.
Because of the expansive ranges of the
petitioned species and the non-uniform
nature of the potential future threats we
do not expect the petitioned species to
be exposed to all threats simultaneously
throughout all or a significant portion of
their ranges. Additionally, in places
where they experience multiple threats
simultaneously, e.g., coral bleaching
impacts combined with harvest, impacts
are likely to be localized. The lack of
any evidence of declining populations is
true for all six species.
In summary, we cannot reasonably
infer that studies referenced in the
petition showing localized declines or
generalized threats may describe an
extinction risk of these widelydistributed and abundant species.
Overall, the petitioner presented
insufficient information to suggest the
global population of any of these six
petitioned species is so depressed or
declining due to any of the threats
identified in the petition such that it
may require ESA listing. Based on the
lack of population-level impacts
identified in the petition and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
information in our files, we cannot
reasonably infer that the combined
effects of these threats will occur with
such frequency, intensity, or geographic
scope as to present an extinction risk to
these six petitioned species.
Accordingly, we find that for the
Hawaiian dascyllus (Dascyllus
albisella), blue-eyed damselfish
(Plectroglyphidodon johnstonianus),
black-axil chromis (Chromis
atripectoralis), blue-green damselfish
(Chromis viridis), reticulated damselfish
(Dascyllus reticulatus), and blackbar
devil or Dick’s damselfish
(Plectroglyphidodon dickii), the petition
does not present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
ESA-listing may be warranted under any
of the five section 4(a)(1) factors, alone
or in combination.
Petition Finding
After reviewing the information
contained in the petition, as well as
information readily available in our
files, and based on the above analysis,
we find that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
for the orange clownfish (Amphiprion
percula). We will conduct a status
review for this species to determine if
the petitioned action is warranted. We
find that the petition fails to present
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted for
the remaining six petitioned IndoPacific species: the Hawaiian dascyllus
(Dascyllus albisella), reticulated
damselfish (Dascyllus reticulatus), blueeyed damselfish (Plectroglyphidodon
johnstonianus), black-axil chromis
(Chromis atripectoralis), blue-green
damselfish (Chromis viridis), and
blackbar devil or Dick’s damselfish
(Plectroglyphidodon dickii).
Information Solicited
To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
pertaining to A. percula from any
interested party. Specifically, we are
soliciting information, including
unpublished information, in the
following areas: (1) Historical and
current distribution and abundance of
A. percula throughout its range; (2)
historical and current population trends
for A. percula; (3) life history and
habitat requirements of A. percula; (4)
genetics and population structure
information (including morphology,
ecology, behavior, etc) for populations
of A. percula; (5) past, current, and
future threats to A. percula, including
any current or planned activities that
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52293
may adversely impact the species; (6)
ongoing or planned efforts to protect
and restore A. percula and its habitat;
and (7) management, regulatory, and
enforcement information pertaining to
A. percula. We request that all
information be accompanied by: (1)
Supporting documentation such as
maps, bibliographic references, or
reprints of pertinent publications; and
(2) the submitter’s name, address, and
any association, institution, or business
that the person represents.
References Cited
A complete list of references is
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 28, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–20955 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 140822715–4715–01]
RIN 0648–BE37
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Tilefish
Fishery; 2015–2017 Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes specifications
for the commercial tilefish fishery for
the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years.
This action would set the acceptable
biological catch, annual catch limit,
total allowable landings, and harvest
allocations for the individual fishing
quota and incidental fishery
components of the commercial tilefish
fishery. The intent of this action is to
establish allowable harvest levels and
other management measures to prevent
overfishing while allowing optimum
yield, consistent with the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
52294
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Management Act and the Tilefish
Fishery Management Plan.
DATES: Comments must be received by
September 18, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2014–0103,
by any of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20140103, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great
Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Mark the outside of the envelope:
‘‘Comments on Tilefish Specifications.’’
Instructions: All comments received
are part of the public record and will
generally be posted to
www.regulations.gov without change.
All Personal Identifying Information (for
example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. Do not
submit confidential business
information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous
comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted via
Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel,
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
Copies of the specifications
document, including the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are available
upon request from the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, 800 North
State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901.
The specifications document is also
accessible via the Internet at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978–281–9341.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations implementing the Tilefish
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) appear
at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and N.
The FMP (section 1.2.1.2) states that,
after a ‘‘benchmark’’ stock assessment,
conducted at the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (NEFSC) sponsored
stock assessment workshop (SAW), and
subsequent review by the stock
assessment review committee (SARC),
from which the biological reference
points for tilefish could change, a
change to the quota may be warranted.
The 58th SAW met in December 2013,
assessed the tilefish stock using updated
information and a new analytical model,
and concluded that the stock is not
overfished and overfishing is not
occurring. Fishing mortality (F) was
estimated to be 74 percent of the F that
allows maximum sustainable yield
(FMSY). Spawning stock biomass (SSB)
was estimated to be 101 percent of
SSBMSY. The stock assessment was
reviewed and accepted by the SARC in
January 2014. Based on the results of
this assessment, NMFS has determined
that the tilefish stock has been rebuilt.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council’s Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) met in
March 2014 to review the assessment
results and other available scientific
information and make recommendations
for an overfishing limit (OFL) and
acceptable biological catch (ABC) for up
to a 3-year period. The SSC accepted the
new stock assessment model, and
identified the tilefish assessment as
Level 3 under the Council’s tiered ABC
control rule structure. The previous
stock assessment had been considered
Level 4. The change in assessment level
led the SSC to apply a different
requirement of the Council’s risk policy
for setting ABC relative to the OFL. This
change resulted in a lower
recommended ABC, and therefore a
lower harvest quota, than has been used
in this fishery since 2001.
The Council’s Tilefish Monitoring
Committee met to consider the SSC’s
recommendations as well as additional
information about the fishery, including
recent average estimated discards of
tilefish, to recommend annual catch
limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT),
and total allowable landings (TAL) for
the same 3-year time period. The
Monitoring Committee recommended
for each of the three years that the ACL
and ACT be set equal to the ABC. In
determining a recommended TAL, the
Monitoring Committee incorporated a
deduction of 5 mt from the ACT to
account for discards of tilefish across all
fisheries. This amount represents the
recent average discards calculated from
observer data.
The Council met on April 9, 2014, to
consider the SSC’s and Monitoring
Committee’s recommendations, receive
public comments, and to formalize
recommendations to NMFS for the
2015–2017 catch limit specifications,
management measures, and research setaside amounts. The Council’s quota
recommendations are listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1—CURRENT TILEFISH HARVEST LIMITS FOR 2014 RELATIVE TO PROPOSED SPECIFICATIONS FOR 2015, 2016, AND
2017
2014
Overfishing Limit (OFL) ........................................................................
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) .....................................................
Annual Catch Limit (ACL) ....................................................................
Total Allowable Landings (TAL) ...........................................................
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Fishery 1 .............................................
Incidental Fishery 1 ...............................................................................
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Kg
2015
2016
NA .....................
913 mt ..............
913 mt ..............
905 mt ..............
1,895,250 lb
(859,671 kg).
99,750 lb
(45,246 kg).
989 mt ..............
801 mt ..............
801 mt ..............
796 mt ..............
1,667,136 lb
(756,200 kg).
87,744 lb
(39,800 kg).
1,063 mt ...........
861 mt ..............
861 mt ..............
856 mt ..............
1,792,799 lb
(813,200 kg).
94,357 lb
(42,800 kg).
2017
1,091 mt
861 mt
861 mt
856 mt
1,792,799 lb
(813,200 kg)
94,357 lb
(42,800 kg)
are converted from lb, and may not necessarily add exactly due to rounding.
The Council recommended the same
quota for 2017 as proposed for 2016,
because, even though stock assessment
projections indicate that the quota could
be increased slightly, the Tilefish FMP
has used a constant landings
management strategy since it was
implemented in 2001. The tilefish
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
industry has been supportive of this
approach, and stated they benefit from
the predictability that a stable quota
provides. At the urging of the tilefish
industry, and because the lower harvest
in 2017 would likely support further
growth in this stock, the Council
decided that the value of quota stability
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
between 2016 and 2017 outweighed the
potential gain from the small amount of
quota increase that could have been
realized in 2017. As in previous years,
the Council opted not to allocate any
tilefish quota for research set-aside. If
these recommended quotas are
implemented, the Council would have
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
the opportunity to review updated
information on the status of the tilefish
fishery each year, and may choose to
recommend changes to these
specifications before the 2016 or 2017
fishing years.
The regulation at § 648.292(b)(1)
specifies that the TAL for each fishing
year will be 1.995 million lb (905,172
kg), unless modified by the
specifications process. This default
value in the regulations may become
confusing, because this action is
proposing different TALs for 2015,
2016, and 2017 that would not appear
in the regulations. To avoid confusion
this action would revise the regulations
to remove this reference to a specific
TAL value.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has
determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable law, subject to
further consideration after public
comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared a draft EA for
this action that analyzes the impacts of
this proposed rule. A copy of the draft
EA is available from the Federal eRulemaking portal www.regulations.gov.
Type ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2014–0103’’ in
the Enter Keyword or ID field and click
search. A copy of the EA is also
available upon request from the Council
(see ADDRESSES).
The Council prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which
is included in the EA for this action and
supplemented by information contained
in the preamble of this proposed rule.
The IRFA describes the economic
impact that this proposed rule, if
adopted, would have on small entities.
A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for
this action are contained at the
beginning of this section in the
preamble and in the SUMMARY of the
proposed rule. A summary of the
analysis follows. A copy of this analysis
is available from the Council (see
ADDRESSES).
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) defines a small business in the
commercial harvesting sector as a firm
with receipts (gross revenues) of up to
$20.5 million for finfish businesses. A
small business in the recreational
fishery (i.e., party or charter vessel
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
operations) is a firm with receipts of up
to $7.5 million. The proposed measures
regarding the 2015, 2016, and 2017
tilefish quotas could affect any vessel
holding an active Federal permit for
tilefish. Vessel permit data shows that
in 2013 there were 1,827 vessels that
held a valid commercial tilefish permit
and 393 vessels held a valid party/
charter tilefish permit. However, not all
of those vessels are active participants
in the fishery. According to dealerreported landings data, 141 vessels
landed tilefish in fishing year 2013. In
addition, according to vessel trip report
data, 25 party/charter vessels reported
catching tilefish in 2013.
Some of the vessels with tilefish
permits may be considered to be part of
the same firm because they may have
the same owners. Firms are classified as
finfish or for-hire firms based on the
activity from which they derive the
most revenue. All of the party/charter
firms fall within the definition of a
small business according to the 2010–
2012 average revenues; however some of
these firms also landed tilefish
commercially. If the contribution of
tilefish commercial receipts is more
than 50 percent of the total, the party/
charter firm is considered a commercial
operation. Using the $20.5 million
cutoff for commercial finfish firms,
there are 190 firms that are small and 4
that are large assuming average revenues
for the 2010–2012 period. The majority
of the permitted vessels readily fall
within the definition of small business.
There are no new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements contained
in any of the alternatives considered for
this action. In addition, NMFS is not
aware of any relevant Federal rule that
may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
this proposed rule.
In general terms, the active tilefish
fishery participants derive a small share
of gross receipts from the tilefish
fishery. However, for small entities
generating on average $10,000 or more
of their total revenues from tilefish
revenues, a large number of the active
participants generate a large share of
gross receipts from the tilefish fishery.
The category of small entities likely to
be affected by the proposed actions is
that of IFQ shareholders and fishermen
in the commercial fishery. The overall
commercial tilefish quota is allocated to
IFQ shareholders, which are allocated
95 percent of the overall quota and
incidental fishery vessels which are
allocated 5 percent of the overall quota.
IFQ vessels directly target tilefish using
bottom longline gear, and incidental
vessels land tilefish incidentally when
targeting other species. Most of the
incidental landings occur with bottom
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52295
trawl gear. However, for the incidental
fishery, changes in quotas are not
expected to affect the effort of vessels
that land tilefish incidentally (e.g., otter
trawl vessels) as the catch and/or
landings of tilefish incidentally occur as
these vessels target other species and
their fishing behavior is not expected to
be driven by the level of the incidental
tilefish quota.
The IRFA addressed three alternatives
(including a no action/status quo
alternative) for the 2015, 2016, and 2017
tilefish fishing years. All quota
alternatives considered in this analysis
are based on various commercial harvest
levels for tilefish. Procedurally, the
economic effects of the quota
alternatives were estimated using four
steps. First, the dealer-reported landings
data were queried to identify all vessels
that landed at least one pound of tilefish
in fishing year 2013 (November 1,
2012—October 31, 2013). The second
step was to estimate total revenues from
all species landed by each vessel during
fishing year 2013. This estimate
provides the basis from which
subsequent quota changes and their
associated effects on vessel revenues
were compared.
The third step was to deduct or add,
as appropriate, the expected change in
vessel revenues depending upon which
of the quota scenarios were evaluated.
This was accomplished by estimating
proportional reductions or increases in
the quota scenarios for 2015 versus the
base quota year 2013. For 2016 and
2017, proportional reductions between
the 2016–2017 measures and the status
quo (no action) alternative for 2016–
2017 were used to assess revenue
changes. For the purpose of estimating
the 2015, 2016, and 2017 quotas and
revenue changes, the following
assumptions were made: (a) The
industry will fully harvest, and not
exceed, the 2014 quota; and (b) the
entire tilefish quota allocations will be
taken in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The
fourth step was to compare the
estimated 2015, 2016, and 2017 base
revenues for every vessel to assess
potential changes.
The proposed action (Alternative 1)
would set commercial tilefish quotas for
2015, 2016, and 2017 at 1.755 million lb
(796 mt), 1.887 million lb (856 mt), and
1.887 million lb (856 mt), respectively.
Under Alternative 1 for 2015–2017, it is
expected that the number of vessels
impacted by revenue losses on the order
of 5 percent or less (relative to the status
quo) would range from 134 (in year
2015) to 138 (in each year 2016 and
2017). In addition, it is expected that
that the number of vessels impacted by
revenue losses on the order of 5 percent
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
52296
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 170 / Wednesday, September 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
or more would range from 7 (in year
2015) to 3 (in each year 2016 and 2017).
All vessels with revenue reduction of 5
percent or greater are from New Jersey
and/or New York, with the largest
number of impacted vessels homeported
in Suffolk County, NY.
Overall, it is expected that Alternative
1 for 2015–2017 would result in a
combined decrease in revenue of
$1,567,979 relative to the status quo
quota for 2015–2017. Because the
overall dependence on tilefish for most
of the vessels projected to incur revenue
losses is small (83 to 97 percent of the
vessels), it is expected that the potential
decrease in revenue stated above would
more greatly affect the 11 vessels that
are more dependent on tilefish (i.e., IFQ
vessels) than the vessels that
incidentally catch tilefish. On average,
each IFQ vessel that landed tilefish
during fishing year 2013 (11 vessels)
would incur a total reduction in
revenues of $135,416 under Alternative
1 over the 3-year period, when
compared to the status quo alternative
for 2015–2017; and each incidental
vessel (130 vessels) would incur a $603
reduction in revenues over the same 3year period.
Alternative 2 is the status quo
alternative, and contains commercial
quotas of 1.995 million lb (905 mt) for
tilefish for each 2015, 2016, and 2017.
Under this alternative, the tilefish
specifications would result in no change
in commercial landings when compared
to current conditions. Therefore,
commercial landings for tilefish would
be expected to be the same relative to
2014 quota. As such, it is not expected
that revenue changes would occur
under this alternative when compared
to existing conditions.
Alternative 3 would set commercial
tilefish quotas for 2015, 2016, and 2017
at 1.755 million lb (796 mt), 1.887
million lb (856 mt), and 1.938 million
lb (879 mt), respectively. Under
Alternative 3 for 2015–2017, it is
expected that the number of vessels
impacted by revenue losses on the order
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Sep 02, 2014
Jkt 232001
of 5 percent or less (relative to the status
quo) would range from 138 (in year
2016) to 141 (in 2017). In addition, it is
expected that that the number of vessels
impacted by revenue losses on the order
of 5 percent or more would range from
7 (in year 2015) to 3 (in year 2016; no
vessels were projected to incur revenue
losses of 5 percent or more in 2017). All
vessels with revenue reduction of 5
percent or greater are from New Jersey
and/or New York, with the largest
number of impacted vessels homeported
in Suffolk County, NY.
Overall, it is expected that Alternative
3 for 2015–2017 would result in a
combined decrease in revenue of
$1,393,547 relative to the status quo
quota for 2015–2017. Because the
overall dependence on tilefish for most
of the vessels projected to incur revenue
losses is small, it is expected that the
potential decrease in revenue stated
above would more greatly affect the 11
vessels that are more dependent on
tilefish (i.e., IFQ vessels) than the
vessels that incidentally catch tilefish.
On average, each IFQ vessel that landed
tilefish during fishing year 2013 (11
vessels) would incur a total reduction in
revenues of $120,352 under Alternative
3 over the 3-year period, when
compared to the status quo alternative
for 2015–2017; and each incidental
vessel (130 vessels) would incur a $536
reduction in revenues over the same 3year period.
For both Alternative 1 and Alternative
3 projected changes in ex-vessel gross
revenues associated with the quotas in
2015–2017 relative to the status quo are
based on assumed static prices for
tilefish. However, it is possible that
given the potential decrease in landings
for tilefish, the price for this species
may increase, holding all other factors
constant. If this occurs, an increase in
the price for tilefish may mitigate some
of the revenue losses associated with
lower quantity of tilefish quota
availability.
The Council recommended
Alternative 1 for 2015, 2016, and 2017,
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
over Alternatives 2 and 3 because it is
projected to prevent overfishing in 2015
and 2016, while allowing quota stability
between 2016 and 2017, which the
tilefish industry considers important in
order to promote stability in price and
supply in the marketplace. Alternative 2
was not recommended by the Council
because it would exceed the catch level
recommendations of the Council’s SSC,
and would therefore be inconsistent
with the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act. Alternative 3 was not
selected because it would not support
the consistency of quota/landings from
year to year that the tilefish industry
considers important to maintaining
price and supply stability in this
fishery.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 27, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 648.292, revise paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
■
§ 648.292
Tilefish specifications.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) TAL. (1) The TAL for each fishing
year will be specified pursuant to
paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The sum of the TAL and the
estimated discards shall be less than or
equal to the ACT.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2014–20963 Filed 9–2–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\03SEP1.SGM
03SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52293-52296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20963]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 140822715-4715-01]
RIN 0648-BE37
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Tilefish
Fishery; 2015-2017 Specifications
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications for the commercial tilefish
fishery for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 fishing years. This action would
set the acceptable biological catch, annual catch limit, total
allowable landings, and harvest allocations for the individual fishing
quota and incidental fishery components of the commercial tilefish
fishery. The intent of this action is to establish allowable harvest
levels and other management measures to prevent overfishing while
allowing optimum yield, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and
[[Page 52294]]
Management Act and the Tilefish Fishery Management Plan.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 18, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0103,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0103, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS,
Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive,
Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: ``Comments on
Tilefish Specifications.''
Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record
and will generally be posted to www.regulations.gov without change. All
Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.)
voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do
not submit confidential business information or otherwise sensitive or
protected information.
NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted via Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel,
WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
Copies of the specifications document, including the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) are
available upon request from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The
specifications document is also accessible via the Internet at:
www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst,
978-281-9341.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations implementing the Tilefish
Fishery Management Plan (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part 648, subparts A and
N. The FMP (section 1.2.1.2) states that, after a ``benchmark'' stock
assessment, conducted at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC)
sponsored stock assessment workshop (SAW), and subsequent review by the
stock assessment review committee (SARC), from which the biological
reference points for tilefish could change, a change to the quota may
be warranted. The 58th SAW met in December 2013, assessed the tilefish
stock using updated information and a new analytical model, and
concluded that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not
occurring. Fishing mortality (F) was estimated to be 74 percent of the
F that allows maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). Spawning
stock biomass (SSB) was estimated to be 101 percent of
SSBMSY. The stock assessment was reviewed and accepted by
the SARC in January 2014. Based on the results of this assessment, NMFS
has determined that the tilefish stock has been rebuilt.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Scientific and
Statistical Committee (SSC) met in March 2014 to review the assessment
results and other available scientific information and make
recommendations for an overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable
biological catch (ABC) for up to a 3-year period. The SSC accepted the
new stock assessment model, and identified the tilefish assessment as
Level 3 under the Council's tiered ABC control rule structure. The
previous stock assessment had been considered Level 4. The change in
assessment level led the SSC to apply a different requirement of the
Council's risk policy for setting ABC relative to the OFL. This change
resulted in a lower recommended ABC, and therefore a lower harvest
quota, than has been used in this fishery since 2001.
The Council's Tilefish Monitoring Committee met to consider the
SSC's recommendations as well as additional information about the
fishery, including recent average estimated discards of tilefish, to
recommend annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), and
total allowable landings (TAL) for the same 3-year time period. The
Monitoring Committee recommended for each of the three years that the
ACL and ACT be set equal to the ABC. In determining a recommended TAL,
the Monitoring Committee incorporated a deduction of 5 mt from the ACT
to account for discards of tilefish across all fisheries. This amount
represents the recent average discards calculated from observer data.
The Council met on April 9, 2014, to consider the SSC's and
Monitoring Committee's recommendations, receive public comments, and to
formalize recommendations to NMFS for the 2015-2017 catch limit
specifications, management measures, and research set-aside amounts.
The Council's quota recommendations are listed in Table 1.
Table 1--Current Tilefish Harvest Limits for 2014 Relative to Proposed Specifications for 2015, 2016, and 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 2015 2016 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overfishing Limit (OFL)............. NA......................... 989 mt..................... 1,063 mt................... 1,091 mt
Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC)... 913 mt..................... 801 mt..................... 861 mt..................... 861 mt
Annual Catch Limit (ACL)............ 913 mt..................... 801 mt..................... 861 mt..................... 861 mt
Total Allowable Landings (TAL)...... 905 mt..................... 796 mt..................... 856 mt..................... 856 mt
Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 1,895,250 lb (859,671 kg).. 1,667,136 lb (756,200 kg).. 1,792,799 lb (813,200 kg).. 1,792,799 lb (813,200 kg)
Fishery \1\.
Incidental Fishery \1\.............. 99,750 lb (45,246 kg)...... 87,744 lb (39,800 kg)...... 94,357 lb (42,800 kg)...... 94,357 lb (42,800 kg)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kg are converted from lb, and may not necessarily add exactly due to rounding.
The Council recommended the same quota for 2017 as proposed for
2016, because, even though stock assessment projections indicate that
the quota could be increased slightly, the Tilefish FMP has used a
constant landings management strategy since it was implemented in 2001.
The tilefish industry has been supportive of this approach, and stated
they benefit from the predictability that a stable quota provides. At
the urging of the tilefish industry, and because the lower harvest in
2017 would likely support further growth in this stock, the Council
decided that the value of quota stability between 2016 and 2017
outweighed the potential gain from the small amount of quota increase
that could have been realized in 2017. As in previous years, the
Council opted not to allocate any tilefish quota for research set-
aside. If these recommended quotas are implemented, the Council would
have
[[Page 52295]]
the opportunity to review updated information on the status of the
tilefish fishery each year, and may choose to recommend changes to
these specifications before the 2016 or 2017 fishing years.
The regulation at Sec. 648.292(b)(1) specifies that the TAL for
each fishing year will be 1.995 million lb (905,172 kg), unless
modified by the specifications process. This default value in the
regulations may become confusing, because this action is proposing
different TALs for 2015, 2016, and 2017 that would not appear in the
regulations. To avoid confusion this action would revise the
regulations to remove this reference to a specific TAL value.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with the Tilefish FMP, other provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared a draft EA for this action that analyzes the
impacts of this proposed rule. A copy of the draft EA is available from
the Federal e-Rulemaking portal www.regulations.gov. Type ``NOAA-NMFS-
2014-0103'' in the Enter Keyword or ID field and click search. A copy
of the EA is also available upon request from the Council (see
ADDRESSES).
The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA), as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), which is included in the EA for this action and supplemented by
information contained in the preamble of this proposed rule. The IRFA
describes the economic impact that this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is
being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at
the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY of the
proposed rule. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this
analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES).
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business in
the commercial harvesting sector as a firm with receipts (gross
revenues) of up to $20.5 million for finfish businesses. A small
business in the recreational fishery (i.e., party or charter vessel
operations) is a firm with receipts of up to $7.5 million. The proposed
measures regarding the 2015, 2016, and 2017 tilefish quotas could
affect any vessel holding an active Federal permit for tilefish. Vessel
permit data shows that in 2013 there were 1,827 vessels that held a
valid commercial tilefish permit and 393 vessels held a valid party/
charter tilefish permit. However, not all of those vessels are active
participants in the fishery. According to dealer-reported landings
data, 141 vessels landed tilefish in fishing year 2013. In addition,
according to vessel trip report data, 25 party/charter vessels reported
catching tilefish in 2013.
Some of the vessels with tilefish permits may be considered to be
part of the same firm because they may have the same owners. Firms are
classified as finfish or for-hire firms based on the activity from
which they derive the most revenue. All of the party/charter firms fall
within the definition of a small business according to the 2010-2012
average revenues; however some of these firms also landed tilefish
commercially. If the contribution of tilefish commercial receipts is
more than 50 percent of the total, the party/charter firm is considered
a commercial operation. Using the $20.5 million cutoff for commercial
finfish firms, there are 190 firms that are small and 4 that are large
assuming average revenues for the 2010-2012 period. The majority of the
permitted vessels readily fall within the definition of small business.
There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained
in any of the alternatives considered for this action. In addition,
NMFS is not aware of any relevant Federal rule that may duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
In general terms, the active tilefish fishery participants derive a
small share of gross receipts from the tilefish fishery. However, for
small entities generating on average $10,000 or more of their total
revenues from tilefish revenues, a large number of the active
participants generate a large share of gross receipts from the tilefish
fishery. The category of small entities likely to be affected by the
proposed actions is that of IFQ shareholders and fishermen in the
commercial fishery. The overall commercial tilefish quota is allocated
to IFQ shareholders, which are allocated 95 percent of the overall
quota and incidental fishery vessels which are allocated 5 percent of
the overall quota. IFQ vessels directly target tilefish using bottom
longline gear, and incidental vessels land tilefish incidentally when
targeting other species. Most of the incidental landings occur with
bottom trawl gear. However, for the incidental fishery, changes in
quotas are not expected to affect the effort of vessels that land
tilefish incidentally (e.g., otter trawl vessels) as the catch and/or
landings of tilefish incidentally occur as these vessels target other
species and their fishing behavior is not expected to be driven by the
level of the incidental tilefish quota.
The IRFA addressed three alternatives (including a no action/status
quo alternative) for the 2015, 2016, and 2017 tilefish fishing years.
All quota alternatives considered in this analysis are based on various
commercial harvest levels for tilefish. Procedurally, the economic
effects of the quota alternatives were estimated using four steps.
First, the dealer-reported landings data were queried to identify all
vessels that landed at least one pound of tilefish in fishing year 2013
(November 1, 2012--October 31, 2013). The second step was to estimate
total revenues from all species landed by each vessel during fishing
year 2013. This estimate provides the basis from which subsequent quota
changes and their associated effects on vessel revenues were compared.
The third step was to deduct or add, as appropriate, the expected
change in vessel revenues depending upon which of the quota scenarios
were evaluated. This was accomplished by estimating proportional
reductions or increases in the quota scenarios for 2015 versus the base
quota year 2013. For 2016 and 2017, proportional reductions between the
2016-2017 measures and the status quo (no action) alternative for 2016-
2017 were used to assess revenue changes. For the purpose of estimating
the 2015, 2016, and 2017 quotas and revenue changes, the following
assumptions were made: (a) The industry will fully harvest, and not
exceed, the 2014 quota; and (b) the entire tilefish quota allocations
will be taken in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The fourth step was to compare
the estimated 2015, 2016, and 2017 base revenues for every vessel to
assess potential changes.
The proposed action (Alternative 1) would set commercial tilefish
quotas for 2015, 2016, and 2017 at 1.755 million lb (796 mt), 1.887
million lb (856 mt), and 1.887 million lb (856 mt), respectively. Under
Alternative 1 for 2015-2017, it is expected that the number of vessels
impacted by revenue losses on the order of 5 percent or less (relative
to the status quo) would range from 134 (in year 2015) to 138 (in each
year 2016 and 2017). In addition, it is expected that that the number
of vessels impacted by revenue losses on the order of 5 percent
[[Page 52296]]
or more would range from 7 (in year 2015) to 3 (in each year 2016 and
2017). All vessels with revenue reduction of 5 percent or greater are
from New Jersey and/or New York, with the largest number of impacted
vessels homeported in Suffolk County, NY.
Overall, it is expected that Alternative 1 for 2015-2017 would
result in a combined decrease in revenue of $1,567,979 relative to the
status quo quota for 2015-2017. Because the overall dependence on
tilefish for most of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses is
small (83 to 97 percent of the vessels), it is expected that the
potential decrease in revenue stated above would more greatly affect
the 11 vessels that are more dependent on tilefish (i.e., IFQ vessels)
than the vessels that incidentally catch tilefish. On average, each IFQ
vessel that landed tilefish during fishing year 2013 (11 vessels) would
incur a total reduction in revenues of $135,416 under Alternative 1
over the 3-year period, when compared to the status quo alternative for
2015-2017; and each incidental vessel (130 vessels) would incur a $603
reduction in revenues over the same 3-year period.
Alternative 2 is the status quo alternative, and contains
commercial quotas of 1.995 million lb (905 mt) for tilefish for each
2015, 2016, and 2017. Under this alternative, the tilefish
specifications would result in no change in commercial landings when
compared to current conditions. Therefore, commercial landings for
tilefish would be expected to be the same relative to 2014 quota. As
such, it is not expected that revenue changes would occur under this
alternative when compared to existing conditions.
Alternative 3 would set commercial tilefish quotas for 2015, 2016,
and 2017 at 1.755 million lb (796 mt), 1.887 million lb (856 mt), and
1.938 million lb (879 mt), respectively. Under Alternative 3 for 2015-
2017, it is expected that the number of vessels impacted by revenue
losses on the order of 5 percent or less (relative to the status quo)
would range from 138 (in year 2016) to 141 (in 2017). In addition, it
is expected that that the number of vessels impacted by revenue losses
on the order of 5 percent or more would range from 7 (in year 2015) to
3 (in year 2016; no vessels were projected to incur revenue losses of 5
percent or more in 2017). All vessels with revenue reduction of 5
percent or greater are from New Jersey and/or New York, with the
largest number of impacted vessels homeported in Suffolk County, NY.
Overall, it is expected that Alternative 3 for 2015-2017 would
result in a combined decrease in revenue of $1,393,547 relative to the
status quo quota for 2015-2017. Because the overall dependence on
tilefish for most of the vessels projected to incur revenue losses is
small, it is expected that the potential decrease in revenue stated
above would more greatly affect the 11 vessels that are more dependent
on tilefish (i.e., IFQ vessels) than the vessels that incidentally
catch tilefish. On average, each IFQ vessel that landed tilefish during
fishing year 2013 (11 vessels) would incur a total reduction in
revenues of $120,352 under Alternative 3 over the 3-year period, when
compared to the status quo alternative for 2015-2017; and each
incidental vessel (130 vessels) would incur a $536 reduction in
revenues over the same 3-year period.
For both Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 projected changes in ex-
vessel gross revenues associated with the quotas in 2015-2017 relative
to the status quo are based on assumed static prices for tilefish.
However, it is possible that given the potential decrease in landings
for tilefish, the price for this species may increase, holding all
other factors constant. If this occurs, an increase in the price for
tilefish may mitigate some of the revenue losses associated with lower
quantity of tilefish quota availability.
The Council recommended Alternative 1 for 2015, 2016, and 2017,
over Alternatives 2 and 3 because it is projected to prevent
overfishing in 2015 and 2016, while allowing quota stability between
2016 and 2017, which the tilefish industry considers important in order
to promote stability in price and supply in the marketplace.
Alternative 2 was not recommended by the Council because it would
exceed the catch level recommendations of the Council's SSC, and would
therefore be inconsistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Alternative 3 was not selected because it would not support the
consistency of quota/landings from year to year that the tilefish
industry considers important to maintaining price and supply stability
in this fishery.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 27, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 648.292, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 648.292 Tilefish specifications.
* * * * *
(b) TAL. (1) The TAL for each fishing year will be specified
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) The sum of the TAL and the estimated discards shall be less
than or equal to the ACT.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-20963 Filed 9-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
