Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Eel Fishery, 57343-57345 [2015-24203]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 2015 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
fructose linked by a glycosidic bond via their
anomeric carbons. The molecular formula for
sucrose is C12H22O11; the International Union
of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
International Chemical Identifier (InChI) for
sucrose is 1S/C12H22O11/c13-1-46(16)8(18)9(19)11(21-4)23-12(315)10(20)7(17)5(2-14)22-12/h4-11,13-20H,13H2/t4-,5-,6-,7-,8+,9-,10+,11-,12+/m1/s1; the
InChI Key for sucrose is
CZMRCDWAGMRECN–UGDNZRGBSA–N;
the U.S. National Institutes of Health
PubChem Compound Identifier (CID) for
sucrose is 5988; and the Chemical Abstracts
Service (CAS) Number of sucrose is 57-50-1.
Sugar described in the previous paragraph
includes products of all polarimeter readings
described in various forms, such as raw
sugar, estandar or standard sugar, high
polarity or semi-refined sugar, special white
sugar, refined sugar, brown sugar, edible
molasses, desugaring molasses, organic raw
sugar, and organic refined sugar. Other sugar
products, such as powdered sugar, colored
sugar, flavored sugar, and liquids and syrups
that contain 95 percent or more sugar by dry
weight are also within the scope of this
investigation.
The scope of the investigation does not
include (1) sugar imported under the Refined
Sugar Re-Export Programs of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; 16 (2) sugar
products produced in Mexico that contain 95
percent or more sugar by dry weight that
originated outside of Mexico; (3) inedible
molasses (other than inedible desugaring
molasses noted above); (4) beverages; (5)
candy; (6) certain specialty sugars; and (7)
processed food products that contain sugar
(e.g., cereals). Specialty sugars excluded from
the scope of this investigation are limited to
the following: caramelized slab sugar candy,
pearl sugar, rock candy, dragees for cooking
and baking, fondant, golden syrup, and sugar
decorations.
Merchandise covered by this investigation
is typically imported under the following
headings of the HTSUS: 1701.12.1000,
1701.12.5000, 1701.13.1000, 1701.13.5000,
1701.14.1000, 1701.14.5000, 1701.91.1000,
1701.91.3000, 1701.99.1010, 1701.99.1025,
1701.99.1050, 1701.99.5010, 1701.99.5025,
1701.99.5050, 1702.90.4000 and
1703.10.3000. The tariff classification is
provided for convenience and customs
purposes; however, the written description of
the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the
Issues and Decision Memorandum
I. Summary
II. Background
III. Scope Comments
IV. Scope of the Investigation
V. Margin Calculations
VI. Discussion of the Issues
1. Imperial and AmCane’s Standing to
Request Continuation of the
Investigation
2. Use of Revised Scope for Final
Determination
16 This exclusion applies to sugar imported under
the Refined Sugar Re-Export Program, the SugarContaining Products Re-Export Program, and the
Polyhydric Alcohol Program administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Sep 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
3. Selection of FEESA as a Mandatory
Respondent
4. Treatment of Certain FEESA Employee
Expenses
5. FEESA’s G&A and Financial Expenses
Denominator
6. FEESA’s Sales and Cost Verification
Minor Corrections
7. FEESA Cost Changes Based on
Verification Information
8. FEESA’s Depreciation Expenses
9. Calculation of the GAM Group’s
Electricity Expenses
10. Offsets for Sugar Mills’ Interest Income
11. Exclusion of Seedling Costs from
ITLC’s Cost of Production
12. The GAM Group’s Final Sugar Cane
Prices
13. Adjustments to Administrative Services
Provided by ESOSA
14. Adjusting the GAM Group’s G&A for
Certain Affiliated Company Costs
Recommendation
[FR Doc. 2015–24189 Filed 9–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XE205
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act Provisions; American
Eel Fishery
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of determination of noncompliance; declaration of a
moratorium.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act (Act), NMFS, upon a
delegation of authority from the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has
determined that the State of Delaware
has failed to carry out its
responsibilities under the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
(Commission) Interstate Fishery
Management Plan for American Eel
(Plan) and that the measures Delaware
has failed to implement and enforce are
necessary for the conservation of the
American eel resource. This
determination is consistent with the
findings of the Commission on August
6, 2015. Pursuant to the Act, a Federal
moratorium on fishing, possession, and
landing of all American eel is hereby
declared and will be effective on March
18, 2016. The moratorium will be
withdrawn by NMFS when Delaware is
found to have come back into
compliance with the Commission’s Plan
for American Eel.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57343
Effective March 18, 2016.
Alan Risenhoover, Director,
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362,
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Derek Orner, Fishery Management
Specialist, NMFS Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, (301) 427–8567.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
Non-Compliance Statutory Background
The Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C.
5101 et seq., sets forth a non-compliance
review and determination process that
is triggered when the Commission finds
that a State has not implemented
measures specified in an Interstate
Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) and
refers that determination to the
Secretary for review and potential
concurrence.
The Atlantic Coastal Act’s noncompliance process involves two stages
of decision-making. In the first stage, the
Secretary (delegated to the AA) must
make two findings: (1) Whether the
State in question has failed to carry out
its responsibility under the
Commission’s ISFMP; and if so (2)
whether the measures that the State
failed to implement and enforce are
necessary for the conservation of the
fishery in question. These initial
findings must be made within 30 days
after receipt of the Commission’s noncompliance referral and consequently,
this first stage of decision-making is
referred to as the 30-Day Determination.
A positive 30-Day Determination
triggers the second stage of Atlantic
Coastal Act non-compliance decisionmaking, which occurs contemporaneous
with the first decision. That is, if the AA
determines non-compliance in the first
stage, the Act mandates that a
moratorium on fishing in State waters in
the fishery in question occur. The
timing of the moratorium, however, is at
the discretion of the AA, so long as it
is implemented within six (6) months of
the 30-Day Determination. In other
words, although the implementation of
the moratorium is non-discretionary, the
AA has the discretion to decide when
the moratorium will be implemented
subject to the Act’s six (6) month
deadline.
Commission Referral of NonCompliance
On August 6, 2015, the Commission
found that the State of Delaware is out
of compliance with the Commission
Plan. Specifically, the Commission
found that Delaware has not
implemented regulations that are
necessary to rebuild the depleted
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
57344
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 2015 / Notices
American eel stock, and to ensure
sustainable commercial and recreational
harvest while preventing over-harvest of
any eel life stage. The required measures
that Delaware failed to implement are as
follows:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Commercial Measures
The following measures apply to all
current yellow eel commercial fisheries.
The development of any future yellow
eel fisheries would be subject to the
following measures:
Minimum size and mesh
requirements—It is generally accepted
that American eel in the northern
portion of the species’ range are larger
than eel in the southern end of the
range. However, there is not enough
information at this time to develop
regional or state specific maximum sizes
for the coast. Nonetheless, there is
growing concern about the development
of fisheries on small yellow eels and an
increase in the minimum size is a means
to prevent this fishery from developing
further. The benefit of effective gear
restrictions is smaller eels are not
landed, thus eliminating the need for
harvesters to handle these fish or
enforcement having to measure fish. No
gear requirements are sought to exclude
larger eels from pots at this time because
only a low number of silver eels are
caught in pot fisheries. Gear restrictions
that are instituted should be monitored
for effectiveness. States and
jurisdictions are required to adopt a
nine (9) inch minimum size limit for all
yellow eel fisheries. Harvesters are
required to sort their catch and discard
eels smaller than the size limit.
States and jurisdictions are required
to implement a 1⁄2’’ by 1⁄2’’ minimum on
the mesh size used in commercial
yellow eel pots. States may allow, for up
to three years starting January 1, 2014,
the use of a 4 by 4 inch escape panel
constructed of a mesh size of at least 1⁄2’’
by 1⁄2’’ inch mesh in order to reduce the
financial burden of gear changes on the
fishery.
Recreational Measures
The following measures apply to all
current yellow eel recreational fisheries.
In order to minimize the chance of
excessive recreational harvest, as well as
circumvention of commercial eel
regulations, the ASMFC member states/
jurisdictions shall establish uniform
possession limits for recreational
fisheries. States and jurisdictions are
required to adopt a nine (9) inch
minimum size limit for all recreational
fisheries.
Recreational Bag Limit—Given the
interest to have all fishery sectors
contribute to conservation measures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Sep 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
under Addendum III all states and
jurisdictions are required to implement
a daily recreational bag limit of 25 fish
per day per angler.
Party/charter (for hire) exemption—
Crew and captain involved in party/
charter (for-hire) employment on party/
charter (for-hire) activities are exempt
from recreational bag limit reduction.
Crew members involved in for-hire
employment are allowed to maintain the
current 50 fish per day bag limit for bait
purposes during fishing, as specified
under the American Eel ISFMP.
The Commission’s Plan required all
member States to implement the plan’s
eel regulations by January 1, 2014. As of
August 6, 2015, Delaware still had not
implemented the required actions.
During both the Commission’s August 5,
2015, American Eel Management Board
meeting and its August 6, 2015, Policy
and Business Board meetings, Delaware
agreed with the Boards’ determinations
that they were not in compliance with
the Plan.
Agency Action in Response to
Commission Non-Compliance Referral
The Commission forwarded its
findings of their August 6th vote in a
formal non-compliance referral letter
that the Secretary received on August
19, 2015. In response to receipt of this
letter, NMFS began the Atlantic Coastal
Act’s 30-day determination clock. On
August 21, 2015, NMFS sent letters to
the State of Delaware, the Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and to
the Commission, advising them of the
Atlantic Coastal Act’s non-compliance
process, inviting them to provide
commentary on the issue, and in the
case of Delaware, inviting the State to
meet with NMFS to present its position
in person or provide written comments
on the Commission findings. NMFS also
advised the public of the referral, and
invited comments in a Federal Register
notice dated August 27, 2015 (80 FR
166).
On September 2, 2015, Delaware
representatives met with NMFS staff via
conference call. During this meeting,
Delaware agreed that it was out of
compliance and that it did not contest
the conservation necessity of the
Commission’s American eel measures.
Delaware described its legal and
regulatory framework for eel, its eel
fishery, and confirmed its intent to
finalize legislation to comply with
measures identified in Addendum III in
January 2016 irrespective of any Federal
action. Delaware followed up that
meeting with a letter on September 11,
2015, that provided additional
information on Delaware’s past efforts
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and current plans to comply with the
Plan, previous and current eel
conservation measures and eel fisheries.
NMFS received one public comment in
response to the referral of noncompliance. That comment supported a
full moratorium, albeit without
articulating any background or factual
support. The USFWS also provided a
letter with comments concurring with
the Commission finding that the State of
Delaware is currently out of compliance
with the ISFMP for American Eel. In
addition, the USFWS has been
undertaking an extensive status review
for the American eel to determine if
adding the species to the Federal list of
endangered and threatened wildlife list
is warranted. A petition to list American
eel was submitted by the Council for
Endangered Species Act Reliability. A
12-month finding as to whether the
listing is warranted is expected by
September 30, 2015.
Agency’s Findings
NMFS’ findings in this matter support
a positive 30-Day Determination of noncompliance. The best available science
suggests that American eel are depleted
and that management measures are
necessary to conserve the species.
Specifically, the 2012 Benchmark
American Eel Stock Assessment
indicated that the American eel stock
has declined in recent decades and the
prevalence of significant downward
trends in multiple surveys across the
coast is cause for concern. The measures
that Delaware failed to adopt were
recommended by the Commission in
Addendum III to respond to the stock
assessment’s findings. Delaware voted
to approve those measures in 2013
during the Addendum III process and
the state agrees even now that the
measures are necessary for conservation.
NMFS also agrees.
NMFS recommends that the required
moratorium begin on March 18, 2016.
This moratorium would prohibit, in
Delaware waters, the possession of
American eel (all life stages). We chose
the March implementation date after
consulting with the relevant staff from
Delaware, and reviewing the facts of this
situation, including the Commission
deliberations from this past August.
Based upon our analysis, we found that
a March implementation date is
appropriate for two principle reasons.
First, a March 18th closure date will
give Delaware the time necessary for its
legislature to bring these regulations
back into compliance. Second, although
the involved measures are necessary for
conservation, the immediacy of that
need is less critical given that
Delaware’s fall eel fishery appears to not
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 184 / Wednesday, September 23, 2015 / Notices
target eels that are the subject of
Addendum III’s protection.
Delaware indicated to us that they
expect to have appropriate regulations
protecting American eel in place by
early next year. If the State of Delaware
does enact such measures, and the
Commission determines that the
measures are compliant with the Plan,
under the Act, the Commission would
immediately notify the Secretary that
the state of Delaware is in compliance
with the Plan. If NMFS concurs, the
moratorium in the state waters of
Delaware will be rescinded. If Delaware
is unable to put in place appropriate
regulations prior to March 18, 2016,
then a Federal moratorium on eel
fishing in Delaware waters would be
immediately implemented and continue
until the Secretary concurs with a
determination from the Commission
that the state of Delaware has come into
compliance with the Plan.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Moratorium Prohibitions
The positive 30-day finding triggers
the moratorium prohibitions set forth in
the Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C.
5106(e). Accordingly, on March 18,
2016, NMFS will implement an
American eel moratorium for in
Delaware state waters. At that time, it
will be unlawful to do the following:
(1) Engage in fishing for American eel
within the waters of the Delaware (Note:
Under the Atlantic Coastal Act, the
definition of ‘‘fishing’’ includes landing
and/or possessing);
(2) Land, attempt to land, or possess
American eel that are caught, taken, or
harvested in violation of the
moratorium;
(3) Fail to return to the water
immediately, with a minimum of injury,
any American eel in Delaware waters
that are taken incidental to fishing for
species other than those to which the
moratorium applies;
(4) Refuse to permit any officer
authorized to enforce the provisions of
this moratorium to board a fishing
vessel subject to such person’s control
for purposes of conducting any search
or inspection in connection with the
enforcement of this chapter;
(5) Forcibly assault, resist, oppose,
impede, intimidate, or interfere with
any such authorized officer in the
conduct of any search or inspection
under this moratorium;
(6) Resist a lawful arrest for any act
prohibited by this moratorium;
(7) Ship, transport, offer for sale, sell,
purchase, import, or have custody,
control, or possession of, any fish taken
or retained in violation of this
moratorium; or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Sep 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
(8) Interfere with, delay, or prevent,
by any means, the apprehension or
arrest of another person, knowing that
such other person has committed any
act prohibited by this moratorium.
Classification
This declaration of a moratorium is
consistent with the Atlantic Coastal Act
at 16 U.S.C. 5106 insofar as Delaware
has been found to have failed to carry
out its responsibilities under the
Commission’s American Eel Plan and
the measures that Delaware has failed to
implement and enforce are necessary for
the conservation of the American eel
fishery. Further, the moratorium
prohibits fishing, possessing and/or
landing American eel within Delaware
state waters and is being implemented
within six months of the agency
findings.
The declaration of a moratorium is
consistent with the Administrative
Procedures Act at 5 U.S.C. 555 insofar
as Delaware was given prompt notice of
the Commission’s non-compliance
referral and was given an opportunity to
meet with the agency and provide
comments on this matter. Further, the
agency has immediately notified
Delaware of the agency’s determination
in this matter. Additionally, NMFS
provided notice to the public of this
compliance action in a notice in the
Federal Register dated (80 FR 166,
August 27, 2015). NMFS received one
comment in response to that notice
suggesting that Delaware be found out of
compliance and that a moratorium be
implemented. The comment did not
provide any further detail. NMFS’
present action is consistent with the
commenter’s suggested outcome.
NMFS finds that public comment is
impracticable and contrary to the public
interest, not only because the rigid
statutory time lines makes such
impracticable and would impermissibly
delay mandatory agency action, but also
because the issue has been considerably
vetted in public forums, such as before
the Delaware General Assembly and the
Commission in the months prior to the
referral. Nevertheless, NMFS did notify
the public of this action in its Federal
Register Notice (80 FR 166; August 27,
2015). NMFS received one comment,
which supported a moratorium and is
described above.
The declaration of moratorium does
not trigger the analytical requirements
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. because the action
was not the result of notice and
comment rulemaking under Section 553
of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The declaration of a moratorium does
not fall under review under Executive
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
57345
Order 12866 insofar as the moratorium
is not a regulatory action of the agency
but is an action mandated by Congress
upon the findings of certain conditions
precedent set forth in the Atlantic
Coastal Act, which also prescribes the
nature and extent of the moratorium.
Nevertheless, the agency has
determined that this action is not
significant for the purpose of E.O.
12866. The fishery is small and a
moratorium is not expected to
materially adversely affect the economy
or have an impact of over $100 million.
The matter creates no serious
inconsistency with actions by other
agencies and is not expected to have
material budgetary impacts.
The moratorium is not the result of a
policy formulated or implemented by
the agency, but instead is the result of
the application of found facts to the
Congressional standards set forth in the
Atlantic Coastal Act and as such, the
declaration does not implicate
federalism in the manner contemplated
by Executive Order 13132. The agency,
however, has nevertheless consulted, to
the extent practicable, with appropriate
state and local administrative and law
enforcement officials to address the
principles, criteria, and requirements of
E.O. 13132.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
Dated: September 18, 2015.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–24203 Filed 9–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Economic
Expenditure Survey of Golden Crab
Fishermen in the U.S. South Atlantic
Region
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 184 (Wednesday, September 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57343-57345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24203]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XE205
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions;
American Eel Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of determination of non-compliance; declaration of a
moratorium.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative
Management Act (Act), NMFS, upon a delegation of authority from the
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), has determined that the State of
Delaware has failed to carry out its responsibilities under the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (Commission) Interstate
Fishery Management Plan for American Eel (Plan) and that the measures
Delaware has failed to implement and enforce are necessary for the
conservation of the American eel resource. This determination is
consistent with the findings of the Commission on August 6, 2015.
Pursuant to the Act, a Federal moratorium on fishing, possession, and
landing of all American eel is hereby declared and will be effective on
March 18, 2016. The moratorium will be withdrawn by NMFS when Delaware
is found to have come back into compliance with the Commission's Plan
for American Eel.
DATES: Effective March 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13362, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Derek Orner, Fishery Management
Specialist, NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 427-8567.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Non-Compliance Statutory Background
The Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., sets forth a non-
compliance review and determination process that is triggered when the
Commission finds that a State has not implemented measures specified in
an Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) and refers that
determination to the Secretary for review and potential concurrence.
The Atlantic Coastal Act's non-compliance process involves two
stages of decision-making. In the first stage, the Secretary (delegated
to the AA) must make two findings: (1) Whether the State in question
has failed to carry out its responsibility under the Commission's
ISFMP; and if so (2) whether the measures that the State failed to
implement and enforce are necessary for the conservation of the fishery
in question. These initial findings must be made within 30 days after
receipt of the Commission's non-compliance referral and consequently,
this first stage of decision-making is referred to as the 30-Day
Determination.
A positive 30-Day Determination triggers the second stage of
Atlantic Coastal Act non-compliance decision-making, which occurs
contemporaneous with the first decision. That is, if the AA determines
non-compliance in the first stage, the Act mandates that a moratorium
on fishing in State waters in the fishery in question occur. The timing
of the moratorium, however, is at the discretion of the AA, so long as
it is implemented within six (6) months of the 30-Day Determination. In
other words, although the implementation of the moratorium is non-
discretionary, the AA has the discretion to decide when the moratorium
will be implemented subject to the Act's six (6) month deadline.
Commission Referral of Non-Compliance
On August 6, 2015, the Commission found that the State of Delaware
is out of compliance with the Commission Plan. Specifically, the
Commission found that Delaware has not implemented regulations that are
necessary to rebuild the depleted
[[Page 57344]]
American eel stock, and to ensure sustainable commercial and
recreational harvest while preventing over-harvest of any eel life
stage. The required measures that Delaware failed to implement are as
follows:
Commercial Measures
The following measures apply to all current yellow eel commercial
fisheries. The development of any future yellow eel fisheries would be
subject to the following measures:
Minimum size and mesh requirements--It is generally accepted that
American eel in the northern portion of the species' range are larger
than eel in the southern end of the range. However, there is not enough
information at this time to develop regional or state specific maximum
sizes for the coast. Nonetheless, there is growing concern about the
development of fisheries on small yellow eels and an increase in the
minimum size is a means to prevent this fishery from developing
further. The benefit of effective gear restrictions is smaller eels are
not landed, thus eliminating the need for harvesters to handle these
fish or enforcement having to measure fish. No gear requirements are
sought to exclude larger eels from pots at this time because only a low
number of silver eels are caught in pot fisheries. Gear restrictions
that are instituted should be monitored for effectiveness. States and
jurisdictions are required to adopt a nine (9) inch minimum size limit
for all yellow eel fisheries. Harvesters are required to sort their
catch and discard eels smaller than the size limit.
States and jurisdictions are required to implement a \1/2\'' by \1/
2\'' minimum on the mesh size used in commercial yellow eel pots.
States may allow, for up to three years starting January 1, 2014, the
use of a 4 by 4 inch escape panel constructed of a mesh size of at
least \1/2\'' by \1/2\'' inch mesh in order to reduce the financial
burden of gear changes on the fishery.
Recreational Measures
The following measures apply to all current yellow eel recreational
fisheries. In order to minimize the chance of excessive recreational
harvest, as well as circumvention of commercial eel regulations, the
ASMFC member states/jurisdictions shall establish uniform possession
limits for recreational fisheries. States and jurisdictions are
required to adopt a nine (9) inch minimum size limit for all
recreational fisheries.
Recreational Bag Limit--Given the interest to have all fishery
sectors contribute to conservation measures under Addendum III all
states and jurisdictions are required to implement a daily recreational
bag limit of 25 fish per day per angler.
Party/charter (for hire) exemption--Crew and captain involved in
party/charter (for-hire) employment on party/charter (for-hire)
activities are exempt from recreational bag limit reduction. Crew
members involved in for-hire employment are allowed to maintain the
current 50 fish per day bag limit for bait purposes during fishing, as
specified under the American Eel ISFMP.
The Commission's Plan required all member States to implement the
plan's eel regulations by January 1, 2014. As of August 6, 2015,
Delaware still had not implemented the required actions. During both
the Commission's August 5, 2015, American Eel Management Board meeting
and its August 6, 2015, Policy and Business Board meetings, Delaware
agreed with the Boards' determinations that they were not in compliance
with the Plan.
Agency Action in Response to Commission Non-Compliance Referral
The Commission forwarded its findings of their August 6th vote in a
formal non-compliance referral letter that the Secretary received on
August 19, 2015. In response to receipt of this letter, NMFS began the
Atlantic Coastal Act's 30-day determination clock. On August 21, 2015,
NMFS sent letters to the State of Delaware, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), and to
the Commission, advising them of the Atlantic Coastal Act's non-
compliance process, inviting them to provide commentary on the issue,
and in the case of Delaware, inviting the State to meet with NMFS to
present its position in person or provide written comments on the
Commission findings. NMFS also advised the public of the referral, and
invited comments in a Federal Register notice dated August 27, 2015 (80
FR 166).
On September 2, 2015, Delaware representatives met with NMFS staff
via conference call. During this meeting, Delaware agreed that it was
out of compliance and that it did not contest the conservation
necessity of the Commission's American eel measures. Delaware described
its legal and regulatory framework for eel, its eel fishery, and
confirmed its intent to finalize legislation to comply with measures
identified in Addendum III in January 2016 irrespective of any Federal
action. Delaware followed up that meeting with a letter on September
11, 2015, that provided additional information on Delaware's past
efforts and current plans to comply with the Plan, previous and current
eel conservation measures and eel fisheries. NMFS received one public
comment in response to the referral of non-compliance. That comment
supported a full moratorium, albeit without articulating any background
or factual support. The USFWS also provided a letter with comments
concurring with the Commission finding that the State of Delaware is
currently out of compliance with the ISFMP for American Eel. In
addition, the USFWS has been undertaking an extensive status review for
the American eel to determine if adding the species to the Federal list
of endangered and threatened wildlife list is warranted. A petition to
list American eel was submitted by the Council for Endangered Species
Act Reliability. A 12-month finding as to whether the listing is
warranted is expected by September 30, 2015.
Agency's Findings
NMFS' findings in this matter support a positive 30-Day
Determination of non-compliance. The best available science suggests
that American eel are depleted and that management measures are
necessary to conserve the species. Specifically, the 2012 Benchmark
American Eel Stock Assessment indicated that the American eel stock has
declined in recent decades and the prevalence of significant downward
trends in multiple surveys across the coast is cause for concern. The
measures that Delaware failed to adopt were recommended by the
Commission in Addendum III to respond to the stock assessment's
findings. Delaware voted to approve those measures in 2013 during the
Addendum III process and the state agrees even now that the measures
are necessary for conservation. NMFS also agrees.
NMFS recommends that the required moratorium begin on March 18,
2016. This moratorium would prohibit, in Delaware waters, the
possession of American eel (all life stages). We chose the March
implementation date after consulting with the relevant staff from
Delaware, and reviewing the facts of this situation, including the
Commission deliberations from this past August. Based upon our
analysis, we found that a March implementation date is appropriate for
two principle reasons. First, a March 18th closure date will give
Delaware the time necessary for its legislature to bring these
regulations back into compliance. Second, although the involved
measures are necessary for conservation, the immediacy of that need is
less critical given that Delaware's fall eel fishery appears to not
[[Page 57345]]
target eels that are the subject of Addendum III's protection.
Delaware indicated to us that they expect to have appropriate
regulations protecting American eel in place by early next year. If the
State of Delaware does enact such measures, and the Commission
determines that the measures are compliant with the Plan, under the
Act, the Commission would immediately notify the Secretary that the
state of Delaware is in compliance with the Plan. If NMFS concurs, the
moratorium in the state waters of Delaware will be rescinded. If
Delaware is unable to put in place appropriate regulations prior to
March 18, 2016, then a Federal moratorium on eel fishing in Delaware
waters would be immediately implemented and continue until the
Secretary concurs with a determination from the Commission that the
state of Delaware has come into compliance with the Plan.
Moratorium Prohibitions
The positive 30-day finding triggers the moratorium prohibitions
set forth in the Atlantic Coastal Act, 16 U.S.C. 5106(e). Accordingly,
on March 18, 2016, NMFS will implement an American eel moratorium for
in Delaware state waters. At that time, it will be unlawful to do the
following:
(1) Engage in fishing for American eel within the waters of the
Delaware (Note: Under the Atlantic Coastal Act, the definition of
``fishing'' includes landing and/or possessing);
(2) Land, attempt to land, or possess American eel that are caught,
taken, or harvested in violation of the moratorium;
(3) Fail to return to the water immediately, with a minimum of
injury, any American eel in Delaware waters that are taken incidental
to fishing for species other than those to which the moratorium
applies;
(4) Refuse to permit any officer authorized to enforce the
provisions of this moratorium to board a fishing vessel subject to such
person's control for purposes of conducting any search or inspection in
connection with the enforcement of this chapter;
(5) Forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or
interfere with any such authorized officer in the conduct of any search
or inspection under this moratorium;
(6) Resist a lawful arrest for any act prohibited by this
moratorium;
(7) Ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, import, or
have custody, control, or possession of, any fish taken or retained in
violation of this moratorium; or
(8) Interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the
apprehension or arrest of another person, knowing that such other
person has committed any act prohibited by this moratorium.
Classification
This declaration of a moratorium is consistent with the Atlantic
Coastal Act at 16 U.S.C. 5106 insofar as Delaware has been found to
have failed to carry out its responsibilities under the Commission's
American Eel Plan and the measures that Delaware has failed to
implement and enforce are necessary for the conservation of the
American eel fishery. Further, the moratorium prohibits fishing,
possessing and/or landing American eel within Delaware state waters and
is being implemented within six months of the agency findings.
The declaration of a moratorium is consistent with the
Administrative Procedures Act at 5 U.S.C. 555 insofar as Delaware was
given prompt notice of the Commission's non-compliance referral and was
given an opportunity to meet with the agency and provide comments on
this matter. Further, the agency has immediately notified Delaware of
the agency's determination in this matter. Additionally, NMFS provided
notice to the public of this compliance action in a notice in the
Federal Register dated (80 FR 166, August 27, 2015). NMFS received one
comment in response to that notice suggesting that Delaware be found
out of compliance and that a moratorium be implemented. The comment did
not provide any further detail. NMFS' present action is consistent with
the commenter's suggested outcome.
NMFS finds that public comment is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest, not only because the rigid statutory time lines makes
such impracticable and would impermissibly delay mandatory agency
action, but also because the issue has been considerably vetted in
public forums, such as before the Delaware General Assembly and the
Commission in the months prior to the referral. Nevertheless, NMFS did
notify the public of this action in its Federal Register Notice (80 FR
166; August 27, 2015). NMFS received one comment, which supported a
moratorium and is described above.
The declaration of moratorium does not trigger the analytical
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
because the action was not the result of notice and comment rulemaking
under Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The declaration of a moratorium does not fall under review under
Executive Order 12866 insofar as the moratorium is not a regulatory
action of the agency but is an action mandated by Congress upon the
findings of certain conditions precedent set forth in the Atlantic
Coastal Act, which also prescribes the nature and extent of the
moratorium. Nevertheless, the agency has determined that this action is
not significant for the purpose of E.O. 12866. The fishery is small and
a moratorium is not expected to materially adversely affect the economy
or have an impact of over $100 million. The matter creates no serious
inconsistency with actions by other agencies and is not expected to
have material budgetary impacts.
The moratorium is not the result of a policy formulated or
implemented by the agency, but instead is the result of the application
of found facts to the Congressional standards set forth in the Atlantic
Coastal Act and as such, the declaration does not implicate federalism
in the manner contemplated by Executive Order 13132. The agency,
however, has nevertheless consulted, to the extent practicable, with
appropriate state and local administrative and law enforcement
officials to address the principles, criteria, and requirements of E.O.
13132.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
Dated: September 18, 2015.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24203 Filed 9-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P