Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Hogfish Management Measures, 84538-84544 [2016-28173]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
84538
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
expertise in the subject area as well as
the requester’s intention to effectively
convey information to the public shall
be considered. It shall be presumed that
a representative of the news media will
satisfy this consideration.
(iv) The significance of the
contribution to public understanding—
whether the disclosure is likely to
contribute significantly to public
understanding of Amtrak operations or
activities. The public’s understanding of
the subject in question, as compared to
the level of public understanding
existing prior to the disclosure, must be
enhanced by the disclosure to a
significant extent.
(4) To determine whether the fee
waiver requirement in paragraph
(k)(2)(ii) of this section is met, Amtrak
will consider the following factors:
(i) The existence and magnitude of a
commercial interest—whether the
requesting party has a commercial
interest that would be furthered by the
requested disclosure. Amtrak shall
consider any commercial interest of the
requesting party (with reference to the
definition of ‘‘commercial use’’ in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section) or any
person on whose behalf the requesting
party may be acting that would be
furthered by the requested disclosure.
Requesters shall be given an
opportunity to provide explanatory
information regarding this
consideration.
(ii) The primary interest in
disclosure—whether the magnitude of
the identified commercial interest of the
requester is sufficiently large in
comparison with the public interest in
disclosure, that disclosure is ‘‘primarily
in the commercial interest of the
requester.’’ A fee waiver or reduction is
justified where the public interest
standard is satisfied and public interest
is greater in magnitude than any
identified commercial interest in
disclosure.
(5) Requests for a fee waiver will be
considered on a case-by-case basis,
based upon the merits of the
information provided. Where it is
difficult to determine whether the
request is commercial in nature, Amtrak
may draw inference from the requester’s
identity and the circumstances of the
request.
(6) Requests for a waiver or reduction
of fees must address the factors listed in
paragraphs (k) (3) and (4) of this section.
In all cases, the burden shall be on the
requesting party to present evidence of
information in support of a request for
a waiver of fees.
(l) Aggregating requests. A requester
may not file multiple requests at the
same time in order to avoid payment of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 22, 2016
Jkt 241001
fees. Where Amtrak reasonably believes
that a requester or a group of requesters
acting in concert is attempting to divide
a request into a series of requests for the
purpose of avoiding fees, Amtrak may
aggregate those requests and charge
accordingly. Amtrak may presume that
multiple requests of this type made
within a thirty-day period have been
made in order to avoid fees. Where
requests are separated by a longer
period, Amtrak may aggregate them only
when there exists a reasonable basis for
determining that aggregation is
warranted in view of all the
circumstances involved. Multiple
requests involving unrelated matters
may not be aggregated.
§ 701.12.
Other rights and services.
Nothing in this part shall be
construed as entitling any person, as of
right, to any service or the disclosure of
any record to which such person is not
entitled under the FOIA.
Dated: November 10, 2016.
Eleanor D. Acheson,
Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer,
General Counsel & Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–27620 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9600–51–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 160630574–6574–01]
RIN 0648–BG18
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Hogfish
Management Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes to implement
management measures described in
Amendment 43 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Reef Fish
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico
(Gulf)(FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of
Mexico Fishery Management Council
(Gulf Council)(Amendment 43). This
proposed rule would revise the
geographic range of the fishery
management unit (FMU) for Gulf
hogfish (the West Florida stock)
consistent with the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s (South
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Atlantic Council) proposed boundary
between the Florida Keys/East Florida
and West Florida stocks, set the annual
catch limit (ACL) for the West Florida
stock, increase the minimum size limit
for the proposed West Florida stock, and
remove the powerhead exception for
harvest of hogfish in the Gulf reef fish
stressed area. This proposed rule would
also correct a reference in the regulatory
definition for charter vessel. The
purpose of this proposed rule is to
manage hogfish using the best scientific
information available.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by December 23, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the proposed rule identified by
‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2016–0126’’ by either
of the following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20160126, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit all written comments
to Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast
Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue
South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Electronic copies of Amendment 43,
which includes an environmental
assessment, a fishery impact statement,
a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
analysis, and a regulatory impact
review, may be obtained from the
Southeast Regional Office Web site at
https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_
fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2016/
am43/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, telephone: 727–824–5305, email:
peter.hood@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and
the Council manage the Gulf reef fish
fishery, which includes hogfish, under
the FMP. The Council prepared the FMP
and NMFS implements the FMP
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
through regulations at 50 CFR part 622
under the authority of the Magnuson
Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens
Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires
NMFS and regional fishery management
councils to prevent overfishing and
achieve, on a continuing basis, the
optimum yield from federally managed
fish stocks. These mandates are
intended to ensure fishery resources are
managed for the greatest overall benefit
to the nation, particularly with respect
to providing food production and
recreational opportunities, and
protecting marine ecosystems.
Hogfish occur throughout the Gulf but
are caught primarily off the Florida west
coast. Hogfish are managed with a stock
ACL and no allocation between the
commercial and recreational sectors.
Generally, the fishing season for both
sectors is open year-round, January 1
through December 31. However,
accountability measures (AMs) for
hogfish specify that if commercial and
recreational landings exceed the stock
ACL in a fishing year, then during the
following fishing year, if the stock ACL
is reached or is projected to be reached,
the commercial and recreational sectors
will be closed for the remainder of the
fishing year. The hogfish ACL and AMs
were implemented in 2012 (76 FR
82044, December 29, 2011). The AMs
were triggered when the hogfish ACL
was exceeded in 2012, and the 2013
season was closed on December 2
because NMFS determined that the 2013
hogfish stock ACL had been harvested
(78 FR 72583, December 3, 2013). The
stock ACL was exceeded again in 2013.
However, there was no closure in 2014
and the stock ACL was not exceeded in
the 2014 or 2015 fishing years.
In 2014, the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC)
completed the most recent stock
assessment for hogfish through the
Southeast Data, Assessment, and
Review process (SEDAR 37). SEDAR 37
divided the hogfish stock into three
stocks based upon genetic analysis as
follows: the West Florida stock, the
Florida Keys/East Florida stock, and the
Georgia through North Carolina stock.
The West Florida stock is completely
within the jurisdiction of the Gulf
Council and the Georgia through North
Carolina stock is completely within the
jurisdiction of the South Atlantic
Council. The Florida Keys/East Florida
stock crosses the two Councils’
jurisdictional boundary, with a small
portion of the stock extending into the
Gulf Council’s jurisdiction off the west
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 22, 2016
Jkt 241001
coast of Florida. Based on SEDAR 37
and the Gulf and South Atlantic
Councils’ Scientific and Statistical
Committee (SSC) recommendations,
NMFS determined that the West Florida
stock is not overfished or undergoing
overfishing, the Florida Keys/East
Florida stock is overfished and
experiencing overfishing, and the status
of the Georgia through North Carolina
stock is unknown. NMFS notified the
Gulf and South Atlantic Councils of
these stock status determinations via
letter on February 17, 2015.
Because only a small portion of the
Florida Keys/East Florida stock extends
into the Gulf Council’s jurisdiction off
south Florida, the Gulf Council’s SSC
recommended that the South Atlantic
Council’s SSC take the lead in setting
the overfishing limit (OFL) and
acceptable biological catch (ABC) for the
Florida Keys/East Florida stock. The
Gulf Council’s SSC reviewed and
provided recommendations on the west
Florida shelf (Gulf) portion of the stock
assessment.
Management Measures Contained in
This Proposed Rule
If implemented, this proposed rule
would: Revise the hogfish FMU
managed by the FMP to the West
Florida hogfish stock, which includes
hogfish in the Gulf exclusive economic
zone (EEZ), except south of a line
extending due west from 25°09′ N. lat.
off the west coast of Florida; specify the
ACL for the West Florida hogfish stock;
increase the minimum size limit for the
West Florida stock; and remove the
powerhead exception for harvest of
hogfish in the Gulf reef fish stressed
area.
Fishery Management Unit
The South Atlantic Council
developed and submitted for review by
the Secretary of Commerce a rebuilding
plan for the Florida Keys/East Florida
stock through Amendment 37 to the
FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of
the South Atlantic Region (Amendment
37). A small portion of the Florida Keys/
East Florida stock, as defined by the
SEDAR 37, extends into Gulf waters in
the Gulf Council’s jurisdiction in south
Florida. Therefore, in Amendment 43
and this proposed rule, the Gulf Council
would revise the hogfish FMU in the
Gulf to be the West Florida stock, and
would define the geographic range of
this stock consistent with the South
Atlantic Council’s proposed boundary
between the Florida Keys/East Florida
and West Florida hogfish stocks in
Amendment 37. This boundary would
be a line extending west along 25°09′ N.
lat. to the outer boundary of the EEZ,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
84539
which is just south of Cape Sable,
Florida, on the west coast of Florida.
The Gulf Council would manage hogfish
(the West Florida stock) in the Gulf EEZ
except south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the
west coast of Florida. The South
Atlantic Council would manage hogfish
(the Florida Keys/East Florida stock) in
the Gulf EEZ south of 25°09′ N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida, and in the
South Atlantic EEZ to the state border
of Florida and Georgia. This boundary is
south of the line used in SEDAR 37,
which defined the West Florida stock as
north of the Monroe and Collier County,
Florida, boundary line. Therefore, it is
possible that some fish that are part of
the Florida Keys/East Florida stock will
be harvested under the regulations set
by the Gulf Council. However, the
majority of hogfish landings in Monroe
County occur in the Florida Keys, and
the proposed boundary is far enough
north of the Florida Keys that fishing
trips originating in the Florida Keys
rarely travel north of the boundary, and
far enough south of Naples and Marco
Island, Florida, that fishing trips
originating from these locations rarely
travel south of the boundary. In
addition, the boundary line proposed by
the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils is
currently used by the FWC as a
regulatory boundary for certain statemanaged species. Using a pre-existing
management boundary will increase
enforceability and help fishermen by
simplifying regulations across adjacent
management jurisdictions.
In accordance with section 304(f) of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Gulf
Council requested that the Secretary of
Commerce designate the South Atlantic
Council as the responsible Council for
management of the Florida Keys/East
Florida hogfish stock in Gulf Federal
waters south of 25°09′ N. lat. near Cape
Sable on the west coast of Florida. If the
Gulf Council’s request is approved, the
Gulf Council would continue to manage
hogfish in Federal waters in the Gulf,
except in Federal waters south of this
boundary. Therefore, the South Atlantic
Council, and not the Gulf Council,
would establish the management
measures for the entire range of the
Florida Keys/East Florida hogfish stock,
including in Federal waters south of
25°09′ N. lat. near Cape Sable in the
Gulf. Commercial and recreational forhire vessels fishing for hogfish in Gulf
Federal waters, i.e., north and west of
the jurisdictional boundary between the
Gulf and South Atlantic Councils
(approximately at the Florida Keys), as
defined at 50 CFR 600.105(c), would
still be required to have the appropriate
Federal Gulf reef fish permits, and
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
84540
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
vessels fishing for hogfish in South
Atlantic Federal waters, i.e., south and
east of the jurisdictional boundary,
would still be required to have the
appropriate Federal South Atlantic
snapper-grouper permits. Those permit
holders would still be required to follow
the sale and reporting requirements
associated with the respective permits.
NMFS specifically seeks public
comment regarding the revised stock
boundaries and the manner in which
the Councils would have jurisdiction
over these stocks if both Amendment 37
for the South Atlantic Council and
Amendment 43 for the Gulf Council are
approved and implemented. NMFS
published notices of availability,
seeking comments on Amendment 37
and Amendment 43, on October 7, 2016,
and November 4, 2016, respectively (81
FR 69774 and 81 FR 76908).
Annual Catch Limit
The current stock ACL and annual
catch target (ACT) for Gulf hogfish were
established based on 1999–2008
landings. The ACL and ACT were set
using the Gulf Council’s ABC control
rule for stocks that have not been
assessed, but are stable over time, or are
unlikely to undergo overfishing at
current average levels. The SEDAR 37
projections produced annual yields for
OFL and ABC for the West Florida
hogfish stock for the 2016 through 2026
fishing years are based on an overfishing
threshold of the fishing morality rate (F)
at 30 percent spawning potential ratio
(F30%SPR). However, because of
increasing uncertainty with long-range
projections, the Gulf Council’s SSC only
provided OFL and ABC
recommendations for the West Florida
hogfish stock for the first 3 years, 2016
through 2018. The 2016–2018 OFLs
were 257,100 lb (116,619 kg), 229,400 lb
(104,054 kg), and 211,000 lb (95,708 kg),
round weight, respectively, and the
2016–2018 ABCs were 240,400 lb
(109,044 kg), 216,800 lb (98,339 kg), and
200,800 lb (91,081 kg), round weight,
respectively. The Gulf Council’s SSC
also made constant catch OFL and ABC
recommendations based on the averages
of the 2016–2018 OFLs and ABCs of
232,000 lb (105,233 kg), and 219,000 lb
(99,337 kg), round weight, respectively.
For 2019, and subsequent years, the SSC
recommended an OFL and ABC set at
the equilibrium yield of 161,900 lb
(73,028 kg), and 159,300 lb (72,257 kg),
round weight, respectively.
The proposed rule would set the ACL
for the West Florida hogfish stock at
219,000 lb (99,337 kg), round weight, for
the 2017 and 2018 fishing years and is
based on the Gulf Council’s SSC ABC
recommendations that averaged the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 22, 2016
Jkt 241001
2016 through 2018 ABC yield streams.
In 2019, and subsequent fishing years,
the stock ACL would be set at the
equilibrium ABC of 159,300 lb (72,257
kg), round weight. The Council decided
to discontinue the designation of an
ACT, because it is not used in the
current AMs or for other management
purposes.
Minimum Size Limit
Although the West Florida hogfish
stock is not overfished or undergoing
overfishing, the stock could be subject
to seasonal closures if landings exceed
the stock ACL and AMs are triggered.
The Gulf Council’s Reef Fish Advisory
Panel recommended increasing the
minimum size limit in Federal waters
from 12 inches (30.5 cm), fork length
(FL), to 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL, to
reduce the directed harvest rate and
reduce the probability of exceeding the
ACL. This minimum size limit increase
was also supported in public testimony
by fishermen. The minimum size limit
increase is projected to reduce the
recreational harvest rate by 10 to 35
percent and reduce the commercial
harvest rate by 6 to 28 percent,
depending upon time of year and type
of fishing. This action has an additional
benefit of allowing hogfish to grow
larger and have an additional spawning
opportunity before being susceptible to
harvest.
Powerhead Exemption
Currently, as described at 50 CFR
622.35(a), a regulatory exemption allows
for the harvest of hogfish using
powerheads in the reef fish stressed
area. The powerhead exemption is a
regulatory holdover from when hogfish
were listed in the regulations as a
‘‘species in the fishery but not in the
reef fish fishery management unit.’’
Amendment 15 to the FMP (62 FR
67714, December 30, 1997) removed 25
reef fish species and left 4 species
(hogfish, queen triggerfish, sand perch,
and dwarf sand perch) in the category
of ‘‘species in the fishery but not the
management unit.’’ Amendment 15 to
the FMP also included a provision that
reinstated the allowance of powerheads
in the reef fish stressed area to harvest
these four reef fish species. In 1999,
Amendment 16B to the FMP (64 FR
57403, October 10, 1999) removed the
distinction between reef fish species in
the management unit and those in the
fishery but not in the management unit
and also removed queen triggerfish from
the FMU. Even though the ‘‘species in
the fishery but not the management
unit’’ category no longer existed, the
other three species from this category
continued to be listed as exempt from
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
powerhead prohibition. Sand perch and
dwarf sand perch were removed from
the FMP in 2011, through the Gulf
Council’s Generic ACL/AM Amendment
(76 FR 82043, December 29, 2011),
leaving only hogfish subject to the
powerhead exemption.
This proposed rule would remove the
provision that exempts hogfish from the
prohibition on the use of powerheads to
take Gulf reef fish in the Gulf reef fish
stressed area. By removing the
powerhead exemption for hogfish,
hogfish would be subject to the same
regulations for Gulf reef fish in the
stressed area as other species in the reef
fish FMU. The stressed area begins at
the shoreward boundary of Federal
waters and generally follows the 10fathom contour from the Dry Tortugas to
Sanibel Island, Florida; the 20-fathom
contour to Tarpon Springs, Florida; the
10-fathom contour to Cape San Blas,
Florida; the 25-fathom contour to south
of Mobile Bay, Alabama; the 13-fathom
contour to Ship Island, Mississippi; the
10-fathom contour off Louisiana; and
the 30-fathom contour off Texas. The
original FMP established the stressed
area for purposes of preventing the
localized depletion of reef fish stocks in
nearshore waters, and to reduce the
potential for gear conflicts (49 FR 39548,
October 9, 1984). The coordinates for
the reef fish stressed area are provided
in 50 CFR part 622, Table 2 in Appendix
B.
Management Measures Contained in
Amendment 43 But Not Codified
Through This Proposed Rule
Amendment 43 would also specify
hogfish status determination criteria
(SDC) for the hogfish West Florida
stock. The minimum stock size
threshold (MSST) and maximum fishing
mortality threshold (MFMT) are used to
determine if a stock is overfished or
undergoing overfishing, respectively. If
the stock biomass falls below the MSST,
then the stock is considered overfished
and the Gulf Council would then need
to develop a rebuilding plan capable of
returning the stock to a level that allows
the stock to produce maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) on a continuing
basis. If fishing mortality exceeds the
MFMT, a stock is considered to be
undergoing overfishing because this
level of fishing mortality, if continued,
would reduce the stock biomass to an
overfished condition.
Currently, the only SDC implemented
for Gulf hogfish is the overfishing
threshold, or MFMT. This threshold was
approved by NMFS through the Gulf
Council’s Sustainable Fisheries Act
Generic Amendment on November 17,
1999. The overfished threshold, or
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
MSST, and MSY in the Sustainable
Fisheries Act Generic Amendment were
disapproved because these values were
not biomass based.
In setting SDC in Amendment 43, the
Council selected the spawning potential
ratio (SPR) as the basis for an MSY
proxy. The SPR is calculated as the
average number of eggs per fish over its
lifetime when the stock is fished
compared to the average number of eggs
per fish over its lifetime when the stock
is not fished. The SPR assumes that a
certain amount of fish must survive and
spawn in order to replenish the stock.
Analyses of stocks with various life
histories suggest that, in general, SPR
levels of 30 to 40 percent are most
commonly associated with MSY.
Amendment 43 proposes to use the
equilibrium yield from fishing at
FF30%SPR as a proxy for MSY. This proxy
is consistent to that used in SEDAR 37
and is consistent with the MSY proxy
commonly used for reef fish species.
Both the proposed hogfish MFMT and
MSST are based on this MSY proxy. The
current MFMT value of FF30%SPR for
hogfish is already consistent with the
MSY proxy and is not being changed in
Amendment 43. To be consistent with
the MSY proxy, the MSST needs to be
equal to or reduced from the spawning
stock biomass (SSB) capable of
producing an equilibrium yield when
fished at FF30%SPR (SSBF30%SPR). The
closer the MSST value is to SSBF30%SPR,
the more likely a stock could be
mistakenly declared overfished due to
year-to-year fluctuations in SSB
resulting in an unneeded rebuilding
plan. However, if MSST is set too low,
then rebuilding the stock equilibrium
levels could take longer because the
difference between SSBF30%SPR and
MSST is larger. Therefore, in
Amendment 43, the Gulf Council
determined that setting the MSST at 75
percent of SSBF30%SPR balanced the
likelihood of declaring the stock as
overfished as a result of natural
variations in stock size with being able
to allow the stock to recover quickly
from an overfished state.
Additional Proposed Changes to
Codified Text Not in Amendment 43
In 2013, NMFS reorganized the
regulations in 50 CFR part 622 to
improve the organization of the
regulations and make them easier to use
(78 FR 57534, September 19, 2013).
However, during that reorganization, a
regulatory reference in the definition of
‘‘charter vessel’’ in § 622.2, was
inadvertently not updated as needed.
The current charter vessel definition
includes a reference to § 622.4(a)(2) as
the provision that specifies the required
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 22, 2016
Jkt 241001
commercial permits under the various
fishery management plans. Although
§ 622.4(a)(2) addressed all of the
required commercial permits before the
2013 reorganization, that provision now
refers to operator permits. The
reorganization of the regulations
removed the various commercial permit
provisions from § 622.4 and placed
them in the appropriate subparts
throughout part 622. This proposed rule
would update the regulatory reference
in the definition of charter vessel in
§ 622.2 to refer to commercial permits
‘‘as required under this part’’. This
update in language would make the
regulatory reference in the definition of
charter vessel consistent with the
current regulatory definition for
headboat in § 622.2.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS
Assistant Administrator has determined
that this proposed rule is consistent
with Amendment 43, other provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other
applicable laws, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this
proposed rule, as required by section
603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA
describes the economic impact this
proposed rule, if adopted, would have
on small entities. A description of the
action, why it is being considered, the
objectives of, and legal basis for this
action are contained at the beginning of
this section in the preamble and in the
SUMMARY section of the preamble. A
copy of the full analysis is available
from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A
summary of the IRFA follows.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides
the statutory basis for this proposed
rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or
conflicting Federal rules have been
identified. In addition, no new reporting
or record-keeping requirements are
introduced by this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would directly
affect all vessels with a Gulf Federal
commercial reef fish permit that harvest
hogfish. A Federal commercial reef fish
permit is required for commercial
vessels to harvest reef fish species,
including hogfish, in the Gulf EEZ. Over
the period 2010 through 2014, the
number of vessels with recorded
commercial harvests of hogfish in the
Gulf EEZ ranged from 55 in 2010 to 75
in 2014, or an average of 61 vessels per
year, based on mandatory Federal
logbook data. The average annual
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
84541
revenue per vessel from the harvest of
all finfish species during this period by
these vessels was approximately
$35,600 (this estimate and all
subsequent monetary estimates in this
analysis are in 2014 dollars), of which
approximately $2,200 was derived from
the harvest of hogfish.
NMFS has not identified any other
small entities that might be directly
affected by this proposed rule. Although
recreational anglers would be directly
affected by the actions in this proposed
rule, recreational anglers are not small
entities under the RFA. The actions in
this proposed rule would not directly
apply to or change the operation of the
charter vessel and headboat (for-hire)
component of the recreational sector or
the service this component provides,
which is providing a platform to fish for
and retain those fish which are caught
and within legal allowances. Although
angler demand for for-hire services
could be affected by the management
changes in this proposed rule, the
resultant effects on for-hire businesses
would be indirect consequences of this
proposed rule.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has
established a small business size
standard for businesses, including their
affiliates, whose primary industry is
commercial fishing. A business
primarily engaged in commercial fishing
(NAICS code 11411) is classified as a
small business if it is independently
owned and operated, is not dominant in
its field of operation (including its
affiliates), and has combined annual
receipts not in excess of $11 million for
all its affiliated operations worldwide.
All commercial fishing vessels expected
to be directly affected by this proposed
rule are believed to be small business
entities.
This proposed rule contains four
actions pertaining to the management of
the West Florida hogfish stock in the
Gulf: Defining the hogfish FMU,
establishing the stock ACL, setting the
minimum size limit, and prohibiting the
harvest of hogfish with powerheads in
the reef fish stressed area. Two of these
actions, defining the FMU and
prohibiting the use of powerheads,
would not be expected to have any
direct economic effects on any small
entities.
Defining the FMU is an administrative
action that forms the platform from
which subsequent harvest regulations,
such as the ACL and minimum size
limit, are based. Although direct
economic effects may accrue due to the
imposition and change of these harvest
regulations, these effects would be
indirect consequences of defining the
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
84542
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
FMU. Indirect effects are outside the
scope of the RFA.
Prohibiting the use of powerheads
would not be expected to directly affect
any small entities because powerheads
are not expected to be a gear used to
harvest hogfish. The use of powerheads
for the harvest of other reef fish species
in these areas is currently prohibited
and, because of the small size of
hogfish, powerheads would be expected
to result in excessive damage to the fish
and adversely affect its market quality.
Thus, it is not expected that any hogfish
in the reef fish stressed area are
commercially harvested using
powerheads, and the proposed
prohibition would not be expected to
reduce revenue to any commercial
fishermen.
The proposed changes in the West
Florida hogfish stock ACL and
minimum size limit have independent
and interactive effects. The proposed
West Florida hogfish stock ACL would
be expected to result in an increase in
total (all vessels) commercial fishing
revenue for 2016 through 2018 fishing
years by approximately $8,900 per year,
followed by a decrease in revenue of
approximately $39,300 in 2019, and
thereafter until the stock ACL (or other
management aspect) is changed. The
proposed minimum size limit would be
expected to reduce commercial harvest
by 17 percent, resulting in a decrease in
commercial revenue each year if vessels
are unable to compensate for the
increased minimum size limit.
Independent of the proposed West
Florida hogfish stock ACL, the proposed
minimum size limit would be expected
to result in a decrease in total (all
vessels) commercial revenue of
approximately $28,500 per year.
In combination, the proposed
revisions to the West Florida hogfish
stock ACL and minimum size limit
would be expected to result in a
decrease in total (all vessels)
commercial revenue of approximately
$21,100 per year for 2016 through 2018
and approximately $61,100 in 2019 and
each year thereafter until the stock ACL
(or other management aspect) is
changed. As previously stated, these
projected reductions assume an inability
of fishermen to benefit from the full
proposed increase in the ACL due to the
proposed increase in the minimum size
limit, as well as compensate for the
effects of the larger minimum size limit
on their normal harvests (i.e., pre-ACL
increase). Averaged across the number
of small business entities expected to be
directly affected by this proposed action
(55–75 entities, or an average of 61
entities per year), the expected
reduction in revenue each year for 2016
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 22, 2016
Jkt 241001
through 2018 would range from $282
(75 entities) to $384 (55 entities) per
year, or an average of $347 (61 entities).
For 2019, and thereafter, the expected
average reduction would range from
$814 (75 entities) to $1,111 (55 entities)
per year, or an average of $1,001 (61
entities).
Compared to the average annual
revenue per vessel from all commercial
fishing (approximately $35,600), the
expected reduction in revenue per year
as a result of the proposed West Florida
hogfish stock ACL and minimum size
limit would average approximately one
percent of average annual total revenue
for 2016 through 2018. For 2019, and
thereafter, the average expected
reduction in annual revenue would be
approximately three percent of average
annual total revenue.
In conjunction with the proposed
ACL for the West Florida stock, this
proposed rule would eliminate the ACT
(i.e., an ACT would not be defined).
Although this would eliminate the
current West Florida hogfish ACT, the
hogfish ACT is not currently used as a
fishing restraint and does not affect the
harvest of hogfish, or associated
revenue, in the Gulf. As a result, not
defining an ACT would not be expected
to have any economic effects on any
small entities.
In addition to the four actions that
pertain to the management of hogfish in
the Gulf, this proposed rule would make
a minor revision to the definition of a
charter vessel. A regulatory reference
within the definition of charter vessel
was inadvertently not updated when the
regulations at 50 CFR part 622 were
reorganized in 2013 (78 FR 57534,
September 19, 2013). This revision
would be editorial in nature and would
not be expected to have any direct effect
on any small entities.
Because the proposed actions to
define the Gulf hogfish FMU, specify
the SDC for the West Florida hogfish
stock, prohibit the use of powerheads to
harvest hogfish in the reef fish stressed
area, and revise the definition of charter
vessel would not be expected to have
any direct adverse economic effects on
any small entities, the issue of
significant alternatives is not relevant.
Four alternatives, including no action,
were considered for the action to set the
West Florida hogfish stock ACL. Each of
these alternatives included options to
set the West Florida hogfish ACT, and
the option selected by the Gulf Council
was to not define an ACT. As previously
discussed, the current ACT does not
restrict harvest. Thus, not defining an
ACT would not be expected to have any
direct economic effects, and the issue of
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
significant alternatives (or options) is
not relevant.
The first alternative (no action) to the
proposed ACL for the West Florida
hogfish stock would have resulted in
less revenue to commercial fishermen in
2016 through 2018, and more revenue in
2019, and thereafter than the proposed
change. Cumulatively (2016 through
2019 and thereafter), this alternative
would have resulted in more
commercial fishing revenue than the
proposed ACL. However, this
alternative was not selected by the Gulf
Council because it would not enable the
increase in stock ACL for the West
Florida hogfish stock resulting from
SEDAR 37. Under the proposed rule, the
ACL in 2019 will be substantially
reduced from the 2017 and 2018 ACL if
a new hogfish assessment is not
completed. This may suggest the ‘‘no
action’’ ACL would be preferable to the
proposed ACL. However, retaining the
‘‘no action’’ ACL in 2019 and beyond
would have been inconsistent with the
ABC recommendations provided by the
Council’s SSC. In addition, the Council
expects a new assessment to be
completed in sufficient time to avoid
the scheduled reduction to the ACL
beginning in the 2019 fishing year.
The second alternative to the
proposed ACL for the West Florida
hogfish stock would set the ACL higher
in 2016 and reduce it thereafter, until it
reached the lowest level in 2019. This
alternative would be expected to result
in increased commercial fishing revenue
in 2016, decreased revenue in 2017 and
2018, and the same revenue in 2019,
and thereafter compared to the proposed
ACL. This alternative was not adopted
by the Gulf Council because it would
require successive reductions in the
ACL in 2017 and 2018 (after the initial
increase in 2016), in addition to the
reduction in 2019, common to both this
alternative and the proposed ACL. The
Gulf Council determined that employing
a constant ACL for the 2016 through
2018 fishing years would result in
greater economic stability for affected
fishermen and associated businesses.
Finally, the fourth alternative to the
proposed ACL for the West Florida
hogfish stock would set the ACL at the
lowest level, resulting in less revenue in
2016 through 2018, and the same
revenue in 2019, and thereafter
compared to the proposed ACL. This
alternative was not selected because it
would unnecessarily limit hogfish
harvest and cause greater economic
losses than the proposed ACL.
Four alternatives, including no action,
were considered for the action to change
the hogfish minimum size limit. The
Gulf Council determined that slowing
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
84543
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
the hogfish directed harvest rate was
prudent to reduce the likelihood that
the ACL is exceeded, thus triggering
AMs. Exceeding the ACL may require an
AM closure in the following year, and
the Gulf Council determined that a
closure is more economically harmful
than reducing the harvest rate to help
ensure a longer open season. Therefore,
to reduce the harvest rate, the Gulf
Council is proposing to increase the
hogfish minimum size limit.
The first alternative (no action) to the
proposed minimum size limit would not
change the minimum size limit, would
not reduce the harvest rate, and would
not achieve the Gulf Council’s objective.
Two other minimum size limits were
considered in Amendment 43, each of
which are higher than the current and
proposed size limits. Because these
alternatives would result in a higher
minimum size limit than the Council’s
preferred alternative, each would be
expected to result in greater reductions
in hogfish harvest and associated
revenue. These alternatives were not
adopted because the Gulf Council
concluded that the resultant reductions
in the hogfish harvest rate would be
greater than necessary, and would result
in excessive adverse economic effects
on fishermen and associated businesses.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf
of Mexico, Hogfish, Recreational, South
Atlantic.
Dated: November 16, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE
CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND
SOUTH ATLANTIC
1. The authority citation for part 622
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 622.1, revise the Table 1 entry
for ‘‘FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of
the Gulf of Mexico’’, and add footnote
7 to Table 1 to read as follows:
■
§ 622.1
*
Purpose and scope.
*
*
*
*
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
TABLE 1 TO § 622.1—FMPS IMPLEMENTED UNDER PART 622
Responsible fishery management
council(s)
FMP title
*
*
*
*
*
FMP for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico ....................... GMFMC .........................................
*
*
*
*
Geographic area
*
Gulf.1 3 4 7
*
*
*
*
1 Regulated
area includes adjoining state waters for purposes of data collection and quota monitoring.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3 Regulated area includes adjoining state waters for Gulf red snapper harvested or possessed by a person aboard a vessel for which a Gulf
red snapper IFQ vessel account has been established or possessed by a dealer with a Gulf IFQ dealer endorsement.
4 Regulated area includes adjoining state waters for Gulf groupers and tilefishes harvested or possessed by a person aboard a vessel for
which an IFQ vessel account for Gulf groupers and tilefishes has been established or possessed by a dealer with a Gulf IFQ dealer endorsement.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7 Hogfish are managed by the FMP in the Gulf EEZ except south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast of Florida. Hogfish in the remainder of the
Gulf EEZ south of 25°09’ N. lat. off the west coast of Florida are managed under the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic
Region.
3. In § 622.2, revise the first two
sentences in the definition of Charter
vessel to read as follows:
4. In § 622.34, add paragraph (g) to
read as follows:
■
§ 622.2
§ 622.34 Seasonal and area closures
designed to protect Gulf reef fish.
Definitions and acronyms.
*
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
■
*
*
*
*
Charter vessel means a vessel less
than 100 gross tons (90.8 mt) that is
subject to the requirements of the USCG
to carry six or fewer passengers for hire
and that engages in charter fishing at
any time during the calendar year. A
charter vessel with a commercial
permit, as required under this part, is
considered to be operating as a charter
vessel when it carries a passenger who
pays a fee or when there are more than
three persons aboard, including operator
and crew, except for a charter vessel
with a commercial vessel permit for
Gulf reef fish or South Atlantic snappergrouper. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 22, 2016
Jkt 241001
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Recreational sector for hogfish in
the Gulf EEZ south of 25°09′ N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida. See
§ 622.183(b)(4) for the applicable
seasonal closures.
■ 5. In § 622.35, revise paragraph (a)(1)
to read as follows:
§ 622.35
Gear restricted areas.
(a) * * *
(1) A powerhead may not be used in
the stressed area to take Gulf reef fish.
Possession of a powerhead and a
mutilated Gulf reef fish in the stressed
area or after having fished in the
stressed area constitutes prima facie
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
evidence that such reef fish was taken
with a powerhead in the stressed area.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 622.37, revise paragraph (c)(2)
to read as follows:
§ 622.37
Size limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except
south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast
of Florida—14 inches (40.6 cm), fork
length. See § 622.185(c)(3)(ii) for the
hogfish size limit in the Gulf EEZ south
of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast of
Florida.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 622.38, revise paragraph (b)(7)
to read as follows:
§ 622.38
*
Bag and possession limits.
*
*
(b) * * *
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
*
*
84544
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2016 / Proposed Rules
(7) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except
south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast
of Florida—5. See § 622.187(b)(3)(ii) for
the hogfish bag and possession limits in
the Gulf EEZ south of 25°09′ N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. In § 622.41, revise paragraph (p) to
read as follows:
§ 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs),
annual catch targets (ACTs), and
accountability measures (AMs).
*
*
*
*
*
(p) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except
south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast
of Florida. If the sum of the commercial
and recreational landings, as estimated
by the SRD, exceeds the stock ACL, then
during the following fishing year, if the
sum of commercial and recreational
landings reaches or is projected to reach
the stock ACL, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the
Federal Register to close the commercial
and recreational sectors for the
remainder of that fishing year. For the
2016 through 2018 fishing years, the
stock ACL for hogfish in the Gulf EEZ
except south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the
west coast of Florida is 219,000 lb
(99,337 kg), round weight. For the 2019
and subsequent fishing years, the stock
ACL for hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except
south of 25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast
of Florida is 159,300 lb (72,257 kg),
round weight. See § 622.193(u)(2) for
the ACLs, ACT, and AMs for hogfish in
the Gulf EEZ south of 25°09′ N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. In § 622.43, add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
§ 622.43
Commercial trip limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ south of
25°09′ N. lat. off the west coast of
Florida—see § 622.191(a)(12) for the
applicable commercial trip limit.
[FR Doc. 2016–28173 Filed 11–22–16; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Nov 22, 2016
Jkt 241001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 160816746–6746–01]
RIN 0648–XE819
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean
Quahog Fishery; Proposed 2017–2018
Fishing Quotas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes status quo
commercial quotas for the Atlantic
surfclam and ocean quahog fisheries for
2017 and projected status quo quotas for
2018. This action is necessary to
establish allowable harvest levels of
Atlantic surfclams and ocean quahogs
that will prevent overfishing and allow
harvesting of optimum yield. This
action would also continue to suspend
the minimum shell size for Atlantic
surfclams for the 2017 fishing year. It is
expected that the industry and dealers
will benefit from the proposed status
quo quotas, as they will be able to
maintain a consistent market.
DATES: Comments must be received by
December 8, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2016–0122,
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-20160122, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
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 the 2017–2018
Surfclam/Ocean Quahog
Specifications.’’
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the commenter
may be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
Copies of the Environmental
Assessment (EA), Supplemental
Information Report (SIR), and other
supporting documents for these
proposed specifications are available
from the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, 800 North State
Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The
EA and SIR are 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: The
Atlantic Surfclam and Ocean Quahog
Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
requires that NMFS, in consultation
with the Mid-Atlantic Council, specify
quotas for surfclam and ocean quahog
for up to a 3-year period, with an annual
review. It is the policy of the Council
that the catch limits selected allow
sustainable fishing to continue at that
level for at least 10 years for surfclams,
and 30 years for ocean quahogs. In
addition to this, the Council policy also
considers the economic impacts of the
quotas. Regulations implementing
Amendment 10 to the FMP (63 FR
27481; May 19, 1998) added Maine
ocean quahogs (locally known as Maine
mahogany quahogs) to the management
unit, and provided for a small artisanal
fishery for ocean quahogs in the waters
north of 43°50′ N. lat., with an annual
quota within a range of 17,000 to
100,000 Maine bu (0.6 to 3.524 million
L). As specified in Amendment 10, the
Maine ocean quahog quota is allocated
separately from the quota specified for
the ocean quahog fishery. Regulations
implementing Amendment 13 to the
FMP (68 FR 69970; December 16, 2003)
established the ability to propose multiyear quotas with an annual quota review
to be conducted by the Council to
determine if the multi-year quota
specifications remain appropriate for
each year. NMFS then publishes the
annual final quotas in the Federal
Register. The fishing quotas must
ensure overfishing will not occur. In
recommending these quotas, the
Council considered the most recent
stock assessments and other relevant
scientific information.
E:\FR\FM\23NOP1.SGM
23NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 84538-84544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28173]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 160630574-6574-01]
RIN 0648-BG18
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Hogfish Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in
Amendment 43 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources
of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf)(FMP), as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council)(Amendment 43). This proposed
rule would revise the geographic range of the fishery management unit
(FMU) for Gulf hogfish (the West Florida stock) consistent with the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (South Atlantic Council)
proposed boundary between the Florida Keys/East Florida and West
Florida stocks, set the annual catch limit (ACL) for the West Florida
stock, increase the minimum size limit for the proposed West Florida
stock, and remove the powerhead exception for harvest of hogfish in the
Gulf reef fish stressed area. This proposed rule would also correct a
reference in the regulatory definition for charter vessel. The purpose
of this proposed rule is to manage hogfish using the best scientific
information available.
DATES: Written comments must be received by December 23, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by
``NOAA-NMFS-2016-0126'' by either of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0126, click the
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or
attach your comments.
Mail: Submit all written comments to Peter Hood, NMFS
Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL
33701.
Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period,
may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the
public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business
information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily
by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous
comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Electronic copies of Amendment 43, which includes an environmental
assessment, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from
the Southeast Regional Office Web site at https://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/reef_fish/2016/am43/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Hood, NMFS Southeast Regional
Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: peter.hood@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS and the Council manage the Gulf reef
fish fishery, which includes hogfish, under the FMP. The Council
prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP
[[Page 84539]]
through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the
Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
Background
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery
management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing
basis, the optimum yield from federally managed fish stocks. These
mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the
greatest overall benefit to the nation, particularly with respect to
providing food production and recreational opportunities, and
protecting marine ecosystems.
Hogfish occur throughout the Gulf but are caught primarily off the
Florida west coast. Hogfish are managed with a stock ACL and no
allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors. Generally,
the fishing season for both sectors is open year-round, January 1
through December 31. However, accountability measures (AMs) for hogfish
specify that if commercial and recreational landings exceed the stock
ACL in a fishing year, then during the following fishing year, if the
stock ACL is reached or is projected to be reached, the commercial and
recreational sectors will be closed for the remainder of the fishing
year. The hogfish ACL and AMs were implemented in 2012 (76 FR 82044,
December 29, 2011). The AMs were triggered when the hogfish ACL was
exceeded in 2012, and the 2013 season was closed on December 2 because
NMFS determined that the 2013 hogfish stock ACL had been harvested (78
FR 72583, December 3, 2013). The stock ACL was exceeded again in 2013.
However, there was no closure in 2014 and the stock ACL was not
exceeded in the 2014 or 2015 fishing years.
In 2014, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC) completed the most recent stock assessment for hogfish through
the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review process (SEDAR 37). SEDAR 37
divided the hogfish stock into three stocks based upon genetic analysis
as follows: the West Florida stock, the Florida Keys/East Florida
stock, and the Georgia through North Carolina stock. The West Florida
stock is completely within the jurisdiction of the Gulf Council and the
Georgia through North Carolina stock is completely within the
jurisdiction of the South Atlantic Council. The Florida Keys/East
Florida stock crosses the two Councils' jurisdictional boundary, with a
small portion of the stock extending into the Gulf Council's
jurisdiction off the west coast of Florida. Based on SEDAR 37 and the
Gulf and South Atlantic Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committee
(SSC) recommendations, NMFS determined that the West Florida stock is
not overfished or undergoing overfishing, the Florida Keys/East Florida
stock is overfished and experiencing overfishing, and the status of the
Georgia through North Carolina stock is unknown. NMFS notified the Gulf
and South Atlantic Councils of these stock status determinations via
letter on February 17, 2015.
Because only a small portion of the Florida Keys/East Florida stock
extends into the Gulf Council's jurisdiction off south Florida, the
Gulf Council's SSC recommended that the South Atlantic Council's SSC
take the lead in setting the overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable
biological catch (ABC) for the Florida Keys/East Florida stock. The
Gulf Council's SSC reviewed and provided recommendations on the west
Florida shelf (Gulf) portion of the stock assessment.
Management Measures Contained in This Proposed Rule
If implemented, this proposed rule would: Revise the hogfish FMU
managed by the FMP to the West Florida hogfish stock, which includes
hogfish in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ), except south of a
line extending due west from 25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west coast of
Florida; specify the ACL for the West Florida hogfish stock; increase
the minimum size limit for the West Florida stock; and remove the
powerhead exception for harvest of hogfish in the Gulf reef fish
stressed area.
Fishery Management Unit
The South Atlantic Council developed and submitted for review by
the Secretary of Commerce a rebuilding plan for the Florida Keys/East
Florida stock through Amendment 37 to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 37). A small portion of
the Florida Keys/East Florida stock, as defined by the SEDAR 37,
extends into Gulf waters in the Gulf Council's jurisdiction in south
Florida. Therefore, in Amendment 43 and this proposed rule, the Gulf
Council would revise the hogfish FMU in the Gulf to be the West Florida
stock, and would define the geographic range of this stock consistent
with the South Atlantic Council's proposed boundary between the Florida
Keys/East Florida and West Florida hogfish stocks in Amendment 37. This
boundary would be a line extending west along 25[deg]09' N. lat. to the
outer boundary of the EEZ, which is just south of Cape Sable, Florida,
on the west coast of Florida. The Gulf Council would manage hogfish
(the West Florida stock) in the Gulf EEZ except south of 25[deg]09' N.
lat. off the west coast of Florida. The South Atlantic Council would
manage hogfish (the Florida Keys/East Florida stock) in the Gulf EEZ
south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west coast of Florida, and in the
South Atlantic EEZ to the state border of Florida and Georgia. This
boundary is south of the line used in SEDAR 37, which defined the West
Florida stock as north of the Monroe and Collier County, Florida,
boundary line. Therefore, it is possible that some fish that are part
of the Florida Keys/East Florida stock will be harvested under the
regulations set by the Gulf Council. However, the majority of hogfish
landings in Monroe County occur in the Florida Keys, and the proposed
boundary is far enough north of the Florida Keys that fishing trips
originating in the Florida Keys rarely travel north of the boundary,
and far enough south of Naples and Marco Island, Florida, that fishing
trips originating from these locations rarely travel south of the
boundary. In addition, the boundary line proposed by the Gulf and South
Atlantic Councils is currently used by the FWC as a regulatory boundary
for certain state-managed species. Using a pre-existing management
boundary will increase enforceability and help fishermen by simplifying
regulations across adjacent management jurisdictions.
In accordance with section 304(f) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Gulf Council requested that the Secretary of Commerce designate the
South Atlantic Council as the responsible Council for management of the
Florida Keys/East Florida hogfish stock in Gulf Federal waters south of
25[deg]09' N. lat. near Cape Sable on the west coast of Florida. If the
Gulf Council's request is approved, the Gulf Council would continue to
manage hogfish in Federal waters in the Gulf, except in Federal waters
south of this boundary. Therefore, the South Atlantic Council, and not
the Gulf Council, would establish the management measures for the
entire range of the Florida Keys/East Florida hogfish stock, including
in Federal waters south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. near Cape Sable in the
Gulf. Commercial and recreational for-hire vessels fishing for hogfish
in Gulf Federal waters, i.e., north and west of the jurisdictional
boundary between the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils (approximately at
the Florida Keys), as defined at 50 CFR 600.105(c), would still be
required to have the appropriate Federal Gulf reef fish permits, and
[[Page 84540]]
vessels fishing for hogfish in South Atlantic Federal waters, i.e.,
south and east of the jurisdictional boundary, would still be required
to have the appropriate Federal South Atlantic snapper-grouper permits.
Those permit holders would still be required to follow the sale and
reporting requirements associated with the respective permits.
NMFS specifically seeks public comment regarding the revised stock
boundaries and the manner in which the Councils would have jurisdiction
over these stocks if both Amendment 37 for the South Atlantic Council
and Amendment 43 for the Gulf Council are approved and implemented.
NMFS published notices of availability, seeking comments on Amendment
37 and Amendment 43, on October 7, 2016, and November 4, 2016,
respectively (81 FR 69774 and 81 FR 76908).
Annual Catch Limit
The current stock ACL and annual catch target (ACT) for Gulf
hogfish were established based on 1999-2008 landings. The ACL and ACT
were set using the Gulf Council's ABC control rule for stocks that have
not been assessed, but are stable over time, or are unlikely to undergo
overfishing at current average levels. The SEDAR 37 projections
produced annual yields for OFL and ABC for the West Florida hogfish
stock for the 2016 through 2026 fishing years are based on an
overfishing threshold of the fishing morality rate (F) at 30 percent
spawning potential ratio (F30SPR).
However, because of increasing uncertainty with long-range projections,
the Gulf Council's SSC only provided OFL and ABC recommendations for
the West Florida hogfish stock for the first 3 years, 2016 through
2018. The 2016-2018 OFLs were 257,100 lb (116,619 kg), 229,400 lb
(104,054 kg), and 211,000 lb (95,708 kg), round weight, respectively,
and the 2016-2018 ABCs were 240,400 lb (109,044 kg), 216,800 lb (98,339
kg), and 200,800 lb (91,081 kg), round weight, respectively. The Gulf
Council's SSC also made constant catch OFL and ABC recommendations
based on the averages of the 2016-2018 OFLs and ABCs of 232,000 lb
(105,233 kg), and 219,000 lb (99,337 kg), round weight, respectively.
For 2019, and subsequent years, the SSC recommended an OFL and ABC set
at the equilibrium yield of 161,900 lb (73,028 kg), and 159,300 lb
(72,257 kg), round weight, respectively.
The proposed rule would set the ACL for the West Florida hogfish
stock at 219,000 lb (99,337 kg), round weight, for the 2017 and 2018
fishing years and is based on the Gulf Council's SSC ABC
recommendations that averaged the 2016 through 2018 ABC yield streams.
In 2019, and subsequent fishing years, the stock ACL would be set at
the equilibrium ABC of 159,300 lb (72,257 kg), round weight. The
Council decided to discontinue the designation of an ACT, because it is
not used in the current AMs or for other management purposes.
Minimum Size Limit
Although the West Florida hogfish stock is not overfished or
undergoing overfishing, the stock could be subject to seasonal closures
if landings exceed the stock ACL and AMs are triggered. The Gulf
Council's Reef Fish Advisory Panel recommended increasing the minimum
size limit in Federal waters from 12 inches (30.5 cm), fork length
(FL), to 14 inches (35.6 cm), FL, to reduce the directed harvest rate
and reduce the probability of exceeding the ACL. This minimum size
limit increase was also supported in public testimony by fishermen. The
minimum size limit increase is projected to reduce the recreational
harvest rate by 10 to 35 percent and reduce the commercial harvest rate
by 6 to 28 percent, depending upon time of year and type of fishing.
This action has an additional benefit of allowing hogfish to grow
larger and have an additional spawning opportunity before being
susceptible to harvest.
Powerhead Exemption
Currently, as described at 50 CFR 622.35(a), a regulatory exemption
allows for the harvest of hogfish using powerheads in the reef fish
stressed area. The powerhead exemption is a regulatory holdover from
when hogfish were listed in the regulations as a ``species in the
fishery but not in the reef fish fishery management unit.'' Amendment
15 to the FMP (62 FR 67714, December 30, 1997) removed 25 reef fish
species and left 4 species (hogfish, queen triggerfish, sand perch, and
dwarf sand perch) in the category of ``species in the fishery but not
the management unit.'' Amendment 15 to the FMP also included a
provision that reinstated the allowance of powerheads in the reef fish
stressed area to harvest these four reef fish species. In 1999,
Amendment 16B to the FMP (64 FR 57403, October 10, 1999) removed the
distinction between reef fish species in the management unit and those
in the fishery but not in the management unit and also removed queen
triggerfish from the FMU. Even though the ``species in the fishery but
not the management unit'' category no longer existed, the other three
species from this category continued to be listed as exempt from
powerhead prohibition. Sand perch and dwarf sand perch were removed
from the FMP in 2011, through the Gulf Council's Generic ACL/AM
Amendment (76 FR 82043, December 29, 2011), leaving only hogfish
subject to the powerhead exemption.
This proposed rule would remove the provision that exempts hogfish
from the prohibition on the use of powerheads to take Gulf reef fish in
the Gulf reef fish stressed area. By removing the powerhead exemption
for hogfish, hogfish would be subject to the same regulations for Gulf
reef fish in the stressed area as other species in the reef fish FMU.
The stressed area begins at the shoreward boundary of Federal waters
and generally follows the 10-fathom contour from the Dry Tortugas to
Sanibel Island, Florida; the 20-fathom contour to Tarpon Springs,
Florida; the 10-fathom contour to Cape San Blas, Florida; the 25-fathom
contour to south of Mobile Bay, Alabama; the 13-fathom contour to Ship
Island, Mississippi; the 10-fathom contour off Louisiana; and the 30-
fathom contour off Texas. The original FMP established the stressed
area for purposes of preventing the localized depletion of reef fish
stocks in nearshore waters, and to reduce the potential for gear
conflicts (49 FR 39548, October 9, 1984). The coordinates for the reef
fish stressed area are provided in 50 CFR part 622, Table 2 in Appendix
B.
Management Measures Contained in Amendment 43 But Not Codified Through
This Proposed Rule
Amendment 43 would also specify hogfish status determination
criteria (SDC) for the hogfish West Florida stock. The minimum stock
size threshold (MSST) and maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT)
are used to determine if a stock is overfished or undergoing
overfishing, respectively. If the stock biomass falls below the MSST,
then the stock is considered overfished and the Gulf Council would then
need to develop a rebuilding plan capable of returning the stock to a
level that allows the stock to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
on a continuing basis. If fishing mortality exceeds the MFMT, a stock
is considered to be undergoing overfishing because this level of
fishing mortality, if continued, would reduce the stock biomass to an
overfished condition.
Currently, the only SDC implemented for Gulf hogfish is the
overfishing threshold, or MFMT. This threshold was approved by NMFS
through the Gulf Council's Sustainable Fisheries Act Generic Amendment
on November 17, 1999. The overfished threshold, or
[[Page 84541]]
MSST, and MSY in the Sustainable Fisheries Act Generic Amendment were
disapproved because these values were not biomass based.
In setting SDC in Amendment 43, the Council selected the spawning
potential ratio (SPR) as the basis for an MSY proxy. The SPR is
calculated as the average number of eggs per fish over its lifetime
when the stock is fished compared to the average number of eggs per
fish over its lifetime when the stock is not fished. The SPR assumes
that a certain amount of fish must survive and spawn in order to
replenish the stock. Analyses of stocks with various life histories
suggest that, in general, SPR levels of 30 to 40 percent are most
commonly associated with MSY. Amendment 43 proposes to use the
equilibrium yield from fishing at FF30SPR
as a proxy for MSY. This proxy is consistent to that used in SEDAR 37
and is consistent with the MSY proxy commonly used for reef fish
species.
Both the proposed hogfish MFMT and MSST are based on this MSY
proxy. The current MFMT value of FF30SPR
for hogfish is already consistent with the MSY proxy and is not being
changed in Amendment 43. To be consistent with the MSY proxy, the MSST
needs to be equal to or reduced from the spawning stock biomass (SSB)
capable of producing an equilibrium yield when fished at
FF30SPR
(SSBF30SPR). The closer the MSST value is
to SSBF30SPR, the more likely a stock
could be mistakenly declared overfished due to year-to-year
fluctuations in SSB resulting in an unneeded rebuilding plan. However,
if MSST is set too low, then rebuilding the stock equilibrium levels
could take longer because the difference between
SSBF30SPR and MSST is larger. Therefore,
in Amendment 43, the Gulf Council determined that setting the MSST at
75 percent of SSBF30SPR balanced the
likelihood of declaring the stock as overfished as a result of natural
variations in stock size with being able to allow the stock to recover
quickly from an overfished state.
Additional Proposed Changes to Codified Text Not in Amendment 43
In 2013, NMFS reorganized the regulations in 50 CFR part 622 to
improve the organization of the regulations and make them easier to use
(78 FR 57534, September 19, 2013). However, during that reorganization,
a regulatory reference in the definition of ``charter vessel'' in Sec.
622.2, was inadvertently not updated as needed. The current charter
vessel definition includes a reference to Sec. 622.4(a)(2) as the
provision that specifies the required commercial permits under the
various fishery management plans. Although Sec. 622.4(a)(2) addressed
all of the required commercial permits before the 2013 reorganization,
that provision now refers to operator permits. The reorganization of
the regulations removed the various commercial permit provisions from
Sec. 622.4 and placed them in the appropriate subparts throughout part
622. This proposed rule would update the regulatory reference in the
definition of charter vessel in Sec. 622.2 to refer to commercial
permits ``as required under this part''. This update in language would
make the regulatory reference in the definition of charter vessel
consistent with the current regulatory definition for headboat in Sec.
622.2.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with Amendment 43, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after
public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C.
603. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if
adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why
it is being considered, the objectives of, and legal basis for this
action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble
and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of the full analysis
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this
proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal
rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting or record-
keeping requirements are introduced by this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would directly affect all vessels with a Gulf
Federal commercial reef fish permit that harvest hogfish. A Federal
commercial reef fish permit is required for commercial vessels to
harvest reef fish species, including hogfish, in the Gulf EEZ. Over the
period 2010 through 2014, the number of vessels with recorded
commercial harvests of hogfish in the Gulf EEZ ranged from 55 in 2010
to 75 in 2014, or an average of 61 vessels per year, based on mandatory
Federal logbook data. The average annual revenue per vessel from the
harvest of all finfish species during this period by these vessels was
approximately $35,600 (this estimate and all subsequent monetary
estimates in this analysis are in 2014 dollars), of which approximately
$2,200 was derived from the harvest of hogfish.
NMFS has not identified any other small entities that might be
directly affected by this proposed rule. Although recreational anglers
would be directly affected by the actions in this proposed rule,
recreational anglers are not small entities under the RFA. The actions
in this proposed rule would not directly apply to or change the
operation of the charter vessel and headboat (for-hire) component of
the recreational sector or the service this component provides, which
is providing a platform to fish for and retain those fish which are
caught and within legal allowances. Although angler demand for for-hire
services could be affected by the management changes in this proposed
rule, the resultant effects on for-hire businesses would be indirect
consequences of this proposed rule.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size
standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary
industry is commercial fishing. A business primarily engaged in
commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business
if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field
of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual
receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations
worldwide. All commercial fishing vessels expected to be directly
affected by this proposed rule are believed to be small business
entities.
This proposed rule contains four actions pertaining to the
management of the West Florida hogfish stock in the Gulf: Defining the
hogfish FMU, establishing the stock ACL, setting the minimum size
limit, and prohibiting the harvest of hogfish with powerheads in the
reef fish stressed area. Two of these actions, defining the FMU and
prohibiting the use of powerheads, would not be expected to have any
direct economic effects on any small entities.
Defining the FMU is an administrative action that forms the
platform from which subsequent harvest regulations, such as the ACL and
minimum size limit, are based. Although direct economic effects may
accrue due to the imposition and change of these harvest regulations,
these effects would be indirect consequences of defining the
[[Page 84542]]
FMU. Indirect effects are outside the scope of the RFA.
Prohibiting the use of powerheads would not be expected to directly
affect any small entities because powerheads are not expected to be a
gear used to harvest hogfish. The use of powerheads for the harvest of
other reef fish species in these areas is currently prohibited and,
because of the small size of hogfish, powerheads would be expected to
result in excessive damage to the fish and adversely affect its market
quality. Thus, it is not expected that any hogfish in the reef fish
stressed area are commercially harvested using powerheads, and the
proposed prohibition would not be expected to reduce revenue to any
commercial fishermen.
The proposed changes in the West Florida hogfish stock ACL and
minimum size limit have independent and interactive effects. The
proposed West Florida hogfish stock ACL would be expected to result in
an increase in total (all vessels) commercial fishing revenue for 2016
through 2018 fishing years by approximately $8,900 per year, followed
by a decrease in revenue of approximately $39,300 in 2019, and
thereafter until the stock ACL (or other management aspect) is changed.
The proposed minimum size limit would be expected to reduce commercial
harvest by 17 percent, resulting in a decrease in commercial revenue
each year if vessels are unable to compensate for the increased minimum
size limit. Independent of the proposed West Florida hogfish stock ACL,
the proposed minimum size limit would be expected to result in a
decrease in total (all vessels) commercial revenue of approximately
$28,500 per year.
In combination, the proposed revisions to the West Florida hogfish
stock ACL and minimum size limit would be expected to result in a
decrease in total (all vessels) commercial revenue of approximately
$21,100 per year for 2016 through 2018 and approximately $61,100 in
2019 and each year thereafter until the stock ACL (or other management
aspect) is changed. As previously stated, these projected reductions
assume an inability of fishermen to benefit from the full proposed
increase in the ACL due to the proposed increase in the minimum size
limit, as well as compensate for the effects of the larger minimum size
limit on their normal harvests (i.e., pre-ACL increase). Averaged
across the number of small business entities expected to be directly
affected by this proposed action (55-75 entities, or an average of 61
entities per year), the expected reduction in revenue each year for
2016 through 2018 would range from $282 (75 entities) to $384 (55
entities) per year, or an average of $347 (61 entities). For 2019, and
thereafter, the expected average reduction would range from $814 (75
entities) to $1,111 (55 entities) per year, or an average of $1,001 (61
entities).
Compared to the average annual revenue per vessel from all
commercial fishing (approximately $35,600), the expected reduction in
revenue per year as a result of the proposed West Florida hogfish stock
ACL and minimum size limit would average approximately one percent of
average annual total revenue for 2016 through 2018. For 2019, and
thereafter, the average expected reduction in annual revenue would be
approximately three percent of average annual total revenue.
In conjunction with the proposed ACL for the West Florida stock,
this proposed rule would eliminate the ACT (i.e., an ACT would not be
defined). Although this would eliminate the current West Florida
hogfish ACT, the hogfish ACT is not currently used as a fishing
restraint and does not affect the harvest of hogfish, or associated
revenue, in the Gulf. As a result, not defining an ACT would not be
expected to have any economic effects on any small entities.
In addition to the four actions that pertain to the management of
hogfish in the Gulf, this proposed rule would make a minor revision to
the definition of a charter vessel. A regulatory reference within the
definition of charter vessel was inadvertently not updated when the
regulations at 50 CFR part 622 were reorganized in 2013 (78 FR 57534,
September 19, 2013). This revision would be editorial in nature and
would not be expected to have any direct effect on any small entities.
Because the proposed actions to define the Gulf hogfish FMU,
specify the SDC for the West Florida hogfish stock, prohibit the use of
powerheads to harvest hogfish in the reef fish stressed area, and
revise the definition of charter vessel would not be expected to have
any direct adverse economic effects on any small entities, the issue of
significant alternatives is not relevant.
Four alternatives, including no action, were considered for the
action to set the West Florida hogfish stock ACL. Each of these
alternatives included options to set the West Florida hogfish ACT, and
the option selected by the Gulf Council was to not define an ACT. As
previously discussed, the current ACT does not restrict harvest. Thus,
not defining an ACT would not be expected to have any direct economic
effects, and the issue of significant alternatives (or options) is not
relevant.
The first alternative (no action) to the proposed ACL for the West
Florida hogfish stock would have resulted in less revenue to commercial
fishermen in 2016 through 2018, and more revenue in 2019, and
thereafter than the proposed change. Cumulatively (2016 through 2019
and thereafter), this alternative would have resulted in more
commercial fishing revenue than the proposed ACL. However, this
alternative was not selected by the Gulf Council because it would not
enable the increase in stock ACL for the West Florida hogfish stock
resulting from SEDAR 37. Under the proposed rule, the ACL in 2019 will
be substantially reduced from the 2017 and 2018 ACL if a new hogfish
assessment is not completed. This may suggest the ``no action'' ACL
would be preferable to the proposed ACL. However, retaining the ``no
action'' ACL in 2019 and beyond would have been inconsistent with the
ABC recommendations provided by the Council's SSC. In addition, the
Council expects a new assessment to be completed in sufficient time to
avoid the scheduled reduction to the ACL beginning in the 2019 fishing
year.
The second alternative to the proposed ACL for the West Florida
hogfish stock would set the ACL higher in 2016 and reduce it
thereafter, until it reached the lowest level in 2019. This alternative
would be expected to result in increased commercial fishing revenue in
2016, decreased revenue in 2017 and 2018, and the same revenue in 2019,
and thereafter compared to the proposed ACL. This alternative was not
adopted by the Gulf Council because it would require successive
reductions in the ACL in 2017 and 2018 (after the initial increase in
2016), in addition to the reduction in 2019, common to both this
alternative and the proposed ACL. The Gulf Council determined that
employing a constant ACL for the 2016 through 2018 fishing years would
result in greater economic stability for affected fishermen and
associated businesses.
Finally, the fourth alternative to the proposed ACL for the West
Florida hogfish stock would set the ACL at the lowest level, resulting
in less revenue in 2016 through 2018, and the same revenue in 2019, and
thereafter compared to the proposed ACL. This alternative was not
selected because it would unnecessarily limit hogfish harvest and cause
greater economic losses than the proposed ACL.
Four alternatives, including no action, were considered for the
action to change the hogfish minimum size limit. The Gulf Council
determined that slowing
[[Page 84543]]
the hogfish directed harvest rate was prudent to reduce the likelihood
that the ACL is exceeded, thus triggering AMs. Exceeding the ACL may
require an AM closure in the following year, and the Gulf Council
determined that a closure is more economically harmful than reducing
the harvest rate to help ensure a longer open season. Therefore, to
reduce the harvest rate, the Gulf Council is proposing to increase the
hogfish minimum size limit.
The first alternative (no action) to the proposed minimum size
limit would not change the minimum size limit, would not reduce the
harvest rate, and would not achieve the Gulf Council's objective. Two
other minimum size limits were considered in Amendment 43, each of
which are higher than the current and proposed size limits. Because
these alternatives would result in a higher minimum size limit than the
Council's preferred alternative, each would be expected to result in
greater reductions in hogfish harvest and associated revenue. These
alternatives were not adopted because the Gulf Council concluded that
the resultant reductions in the hogfish harvest rate would be greater
than necessary, and would result in excessive adverse economic effects
on fishermen and associated businesses.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, Hogfish,
Recreational, South Atlantic.
Dated: November 16, 2016.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH
ATLANTIC
0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 622.1, revise the Table 1 entry for ``FMP for the Reef Fish
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico'', and add footnote 7 to Table 1 to
read as follows:
Sec. 622.1 Purpose and scope.
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 622.1--FMPs Implemented Under Part 622
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsible
FMP title fishery management Geographic area
council(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
FMP for the Reef Fish Resources GMFMC............. Gulf.1 3 4 7
of the Gulf of Mexico.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Regulated area includes adjoining state waters for purposes of data
collection and quota monitoring.
* * * * * * *
\3\ Regulated area includes adjoining state waters for Gulf red snapper
harvested or possessed by a person aboard a vessel for which a Gulf
red snapper IFQ vessel account has been established or possessed by a
dealer with a Gulf IFQ dealer endorsement.
\4\ Regulated area includes adjoining state waters for Gulf groupers and
tilefishes harvested or possessed by a person aboard a vessel for
which an IFQ vessel account for Gulf groupers and tilefishes has been
established or possessed by a dealer with a Gulf IFQ dealer
endorsement.
* * * * * * *
\7\ Hogfish are managed by the FMP in the Gulf EEZ except south of
25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west coast of Florida. Hogfish in the
remainder of the Gulf EEZ south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west
coast of Florida are managed under the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper
Fishery of the South Atlantic Region.
0
3. In Sec. 622.2, revise the first two sentences in the definition of
Charter vessel to read as follows:
Sec. 622.2 Definitions and acronyms.
* * * * *
Charter vessel means a vessel less than 100 gross tons (90.8 mt)
that is subject to the requirements of the USCG to carry six or fewer
passengers for hire and that engages in charter fishing at any time
during the calendar year. A charter vessel with a commercial permit, as
required under this part, is considered to be operating as a charter
vessel when it carries a passenger who pays a fee or when there are
more than three persons aboard, including operator and crew, except for
a charter vessel with a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish or
South Atlantic snapper-grouper. * * *
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 622.34, add paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 622.34 Seasonal and area closures designed to protect Gulf reef
fish.
* * * * *
(g) Recreational sector for hogfish in the Gulf EEZ south of
25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west coast of Florida. See Sec.
622.183(b)(4) for the applicable seasonal closures.
0
5. In Sec. 622.35, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 622.35 Gear restricted areas.
(a) * * *
(1) A powerhead may not be used in the stressed area to take Gulf
reef fish. Possession of a powerhead and a mutilated Gulf reef fish in
the stressed area or after having fished in the stressed area
constitutes prima facie evidence that such reef fish was taken with a
powerhead in the stressed area.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 622.37, revise paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 622.37 Size limits.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida--14 inches (40.6 cm), fork length. See Sec.
622.185(c)(3)(ii) for the hogfish size limit in the Gulf EEZ south of
25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west coast of Florida.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 622.38, revise paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
Sec. 622.38 Bag and possession limits.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
[[Page 84544]]
(7) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida--5. See Sec. 622.187(b)(3)(ii) for the
hogfish bag and possession limits in the Gulf EEZ south of 25[deg]09'
N. lat. off the west coast of Florida.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 622.41, revise paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 622.41 Annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs),
and accountability measures (AMs).
* * * * *
(p) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida. If the sum of the commercial and
recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceeds the stock ACL,
then during the following fishing year, if the sum of commercial and
recreational landings reaches or is projected to reach the stock ACL,
the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register
to close the commercial and recreational sectors for the remainder of
that fishing year. For the 2016 through 2018 fishing years, the stock
ACL for hogfish in the Gulf EEZ except south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off
the west coast of Florida is 219,000 lb (99,337 kg), round weight. For
the 2019 and subsequent fishing years, the stock ACL for hogfish in the
Gulf EEZ except south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west coast of
Florida is 159,300 lb (72,257 kg), round weight. See Sec.
622.193(u)(2) for the ACLs, ACT, and AMs for hogfish in the Gulf EEZ
south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off the west coast of Florida.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 622.43, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 622.43 Commercial trip limits.
* * * * *
(c) Hogfish in the Gulf EEZ south of 25[deg]09' N. lat. off the
west coast of Florida--see Sec. 622.191(a)(12) for the applicable
commercial trip limit.
[FR Doc. 2016-28173 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P