Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 21 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan, 48660-48664 [2020-17609]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
48660
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 156
Wednesday, August 12, 2020
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 200806–0207]
RIN 0648–BJ18
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States;
Amendment 21 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council has submitted to
NMFS Amendment 21 to the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan. Amendment
21 proposes revisions to the summer
flounder commercial state quota
allocation percentages and the fishery
management plan goals and objectives.
Amendment 21 is intended to increase
equity in state allocations when annual
coastwide commercial quotas are at or
above historical averages, while
recognizing the economic reliance
coastal communities have on the state
allocation percentages currently in
place.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
September 11, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2020–0107, by the following
method:
Electronic submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
• Go to www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20200107,
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Aug 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
• Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and
• Enter or attach your comments.
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).
Copies of Amendment 21, including
the Environmental Impact Statement,
the Regulatory Impact Review, and the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(EIS/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of
this action are available from Dr.
Christopher M. Moore, Executive
Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Suite 201, 800
North State Street, Dover, DE 19901.
The supporting documents are also
accessible via the internet at: http://
www.mafmc.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281–9116.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission
cooperatively manage summer flounder
under the provisions of the Summer
Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The
joint FMP became effective in 1988,
establishing measures to manage
summer flounder fisheries. Summer
flounder is an important commercial
and recreational species. Currently, 60
percent of the total allowable landings
limit (TAL) is allocated to the
commercial fishery (coastwide annual
commercial quota), with the remaining
40 percent allocated to the recreational
fishery. Available quotas are fully
utilized by both sectors in most if not all
fishing years.
The coastwide annual commercial
quota is allocated to each of the states
in the management unit (Maine-North
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Carolina) on a percentage basis. The
existing commercial state-by-state
allocations were last modified in 1993.
The original allocations, adopted in
1992 as part of Amendment 2 to the
FMP (December 4, 1992; 57 FR 57358),
were based on available landings data
from 1980–1989. Shortly thereafter, in
1993, the State of Connecticut argued
that during the early and mid-1980s, the
state did not have the authority to
collect landings data from offshore
fishermen, nor did the NMFS provide a
port agent to the state that would have
collected or validated landings
information. Connecticut contended
that their commercial landings during
the allocation base years were
underreported and therefore its quota
share was too small. Amendment 4
(September 24, 1993; 58 FR 49937)
increased Connecticut’s quota share
from 0.95 percent to 2.26 percent based
on additional landings information
provided by the state. The state-by-state
allocations have not been modified
since Amendment 4.
TABLE 1—CURRENT STATE-BY-STATE
ALLOCATIONS
State
Current state
allocation
percentage
ME ......................................
NH .......................................
MA ......................................
RI ........................................
CT .......................................
NY .......................................
NJ .......................................
DE .......................................
MD ......................................
VA .......................................
NC .......................................
0.04756
0.00046
6.82046
15.68298
2.25708
7.64699
16.72499
0.01779
2.03910
21.31676
27.44584
Total ................................
100
The current commercial allocation is
perceived by many stakeholders as
outdated, given that it was last modified
in 1993 and is based on 1980–1989
landings data. Some other states and
parties assert that the initial allocations
were based on incomplete or otherwise
flawed data.
Summer flounder distribution, center
of biomass, and location of fishing effort
has changed over time, likely due to a
combination of stock rebuilding and
difficult to quantify but widely accepted
climate-related changes in the MidAtlantic Bight and southern New
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
England waters. As changing
environmental conditions have resulted
in an apparent shift in the average
distribution of summer flounder, there
have been requests to incorporate this
information in setting state commercial
quota allocations.
On September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55432),
the Council published a notice of intent
(NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment
21 to consider, in coordination with the
Commission: (1) Performing a
comprehensive review of all aspects of
the FMP related to summer flounder; (2)
updating the FMP goals and objectives
for summer flounder management; and
(3) modifying management strategies
and measures as necessary to achieve
those goals and objectives. The Council
and Commission held scoping meetings
during September and October of 2014
to solicit comments from the public
regarding the range of commercial and
recreational summer flounder
management issues that should be
considered in the amendment.
On March 29, 2018 (83 FR 13478), the
Council published a supplemental NOI
announcing that the scope of the
amendment would be narrowed to
include only commercial summer
flounder management considerations.
Due to ongoing revisions to the
recreational data by the Marine
Recreational Information Program, the
Council and Commission chose to delay
development of an amendment
addressing recreational issues. This
included quota allocation between the
commercial and recreational sectors, as
well as recreational management
measures and strategies. The
supplemental NOI identified that the
commercial fishery-focused amendment
would specifically consider revisions to
the current qualification criteria for
Federal moratorium permit holders, the
current allocation of commercial quota,
and the current list of frameworkable
items in the FMP, and would consider
revising the FMP goals and objectives
for summer flounder.
On August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41072),
the Environmental Protection Agency
announced the public comment period
for the Amendment 21 draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS).
The public comment period extended
until October 12, 2018. During that time,
the Council and Commission held
public hearings on the DEIS in Old
Lyme, Connecticut; Washington, North
Carolina; Dover, Delaware; Newport
News, Virginia; Buzzards Bay,
Massachusetts; Narragansett, Rhode
Island; Toms River, New Jersey; Berlin,
Maryland; Stony Brook, New York; and
via webinar.
In March 2019, the Council and the
Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup,
and Black Sea Bass Board approved
Amendment 21 to the FMP to change
the commercial quota allocation for
summer flounder, as well as revise the
FMP objectives for summer flounder.
The Council and Commission also
considered, but did not approve,
changes to Federal permit qualifying
criteria, and adding landings flexibility
as a frameworkable subject in the FMP.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) for
Amendment 21 was published in the
Federal Register on July 29, 2020 (85 FR
16446). The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) allows us to
approve, partially approve, or
disapprove measures recommended by
the Council in an amendment based on
whether the measures are consistent
with the fishery management plan, plan
amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
48661
and its National Standards, and other
applicable law. As such, we are seeking
comments in response to the NOA on
whether measures in Amendment 21 are
consistent with the Summer Flounder,
Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP, the
Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National
Standards, and other applicable law.
The comment period on the NOA ends
on September 28, 2020. Comments
submitted on the NOA and/or this
proposed rule by that date, will be
considered in our decision to approve,
partially approve, or disapprove
Amendment 21. We will consider
comments received before the end of the
comment period for this proposed rule
(See DATES) in our decision to
implement measures proposed by the
Council.
Proposed State-by-State Allocation
Changes
Amendment 21 would change the
state-by-state commercial quota
allocations when the coastwide quota
exceeds 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt).
When the coastwide quota is 9.55
million lb (4,332 mt) or less, the quota
would be distributed according to the
current allocations. In years when the
coastwide quota exceeds 9.55 million lb
(4,332 mt), any additional quota, beyond
this threshold, would be distributed in
equal shares to all states except Maine,
Delaware, and New Hampshire, which
would split 1 percent of the additional
quota. The Council and Board stated
that this allocation alternative was
selected over other alternatives to
balance preservation of historical state
access and infrastructure at recent quota
levels, with an intent of providing
equitability among states when the stock
and quota are at high levels.
TABLE 2—PROPOSED STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATIONS
Allocation of baseline
quota ≤9.55 mil lb
(4,332 metric tons)
(percent)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
State
Allocation of additional
quota beyond
9.55 mil lb
(4,332 metric tons)
(percent)
ME ................................................................................................................................................
NH ................................................................................................................................................
MA ................................................................................................................................................
RI .................................................................................................................................................
CT ................................................................................................................................................
NY ................................................................................................................................................
NJ .................................................................................................................................................
DE ................................................................................................................................................
MD ...............................................................................................................................................
VA ................................................................................................................................................
NC ................................................................................................................................................
0.04756
0.00046
6.82046
15.68298
2.25708
7.64699
16.72499
0.01779
2.03910
21.31676
27.44584
0.333
0.333
12.375
12.375
12.375
12.375
12.375
0.333
12.375
12.375
12.375
Total ......................................................................................................................................
100
100
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Aug 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
48662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—STATUS QUO STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) AND RESULTING QUOTA (IN LB) COMPARED TO
THE PROPOSED REVISED ALLOCATION (IN PERCENTAGES) AND RESULTING QUOTA (IN LB) AT THE CURRENT, 2020
QUOTA LEVEL (11.53 MILLION LB)
State
Revised
allocation
percentages
(11.53 million
lb quota)
Status quo
distribution of
11.53 million
lb quota
Status quo state
allocation
percentages
Revised
allocation
distribution of
11.53 million
lb quota
Percent
change
ME ............................................................
NH ............................................................
MA ............................................................
RI .............................................................
CT ............................................................
NY ............................................................
NJ .............................................................
DE ............................................................
MD ............................................................
VA ............................................................
NC ............................................................
0.04756
0.00046
6.82046
15.68298
2.25708
7.64699
16.72499
0.01779
2.03910
21.31676
27.44584
5,484
53
786,399
1,808,248
260,241
881,698
1,928,391
2,051
235,108
2,457,822
3,164,505
0.09663
0.05762
7.77432
15.11491
3.99459
8.45891
15.97798
0.07198
3.81404
19.78123
24.85779
11,142
6,644
896,379
1,742,750
460,576
975,313
1,842,262
8,299
439,759
2,280,776
2,866,103
103.17
12435.85
13.99
¥3.62
76.98
10.62
¥4.47
304.63
87.05
¥7.20
¥9.43
Total ..................................................
100
11,530,000
100
11,530,000
0.00
TABLE 4—STATUS QUO STATE-BY-STATE ALLOCATIONS (IN PERCENTAGES) AND RESULTING QUOTA (IN MT) COMPARED
TO THE PROPOSED REVISED ALLOCATION (IN PERCENTAGES) AND RESULTING QUOTA (IN MT) AT THE CURRENT, 2020
QUOTA LEVEL (5,230 MT)
Status quo
state
allocation
percentages
State
Revised
allocation
distribution of
5,230 mt quota
Percent
change
ME ............................................................
NH ............................................................
MA ............................................................
RI .............................................................
CT ............................................................
NY ............................................................
NJ .............................................................
DE ............................................................
MD ............................................................
VA ............................................................
NC ............................................................
0.04756
0.00046
6.82046
15.68298
2.25708
7.64699
16.72499
0.01779
2.03910
21.31676
27.44584
2.49
0.02
356.70
820.21
118.04
399.93
874.70
0.93
106.64
1,114.85
1,435.39
0.09663
0.05762
7.77432
15.11491
3.99459
8.45891
15.97798
0.07198
3.81404
19.78123
24.85779
5.05
3.01
406.59
790.50
208.91
442.39
835.64
3.76
199.47
1,034.54
1,300.04
103.17
12435.85
13.99
¥3.62
76.98
10.62
¥4.47
304.63
87.05
¥7.20
¥9.43
Total ..................................................
100
5,229.92
100
5,229.92
0.00
Revised Summer Flounder FMP Goals
and Objectives
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Revised
allocation
percentages
(5,230 mt quota)
Status quo
distribution of
5,230 mt quota
The original FMP objectives were
adopted via Amendment 2 to the
Summer Flounder FMP in 1993 and
have remained unchanged since that
time. Amendment 21 revises the FMP
goals and objectives. While the current
FMP contains only management
objectives, the proposed revisions
contain three overarching goals linked
to more specific objectives. The
proposed goals include: (1) Ensuring
sustainability, of both the summer
flounder stock and fishery; (2)
increasing the effectiveness of
management measures, through
partnerships, enforcement, and data
collection; and, (3) optimization of the
social and economic benefits from the
summer flounder stock. Additional
information on these changes can be
found in the EIS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Aug 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant
Administrator has determined that this
proposed rule is consistent with the
Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea
Bass FMP, other provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other
applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this rule is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact
this proposed rule, if adopted, would
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
have on small entities, and also
determines ways to minimize these
impacts. The IRFA incorporates sections
of the preamble to this rule and analyses
contained in Amendment 21 and its
accompanying EIS/RIR/IRFA. A copy of
the complete analysis is available from
the Council (see ADDRESSES). A
summary of the IRFA follows.
Description of the Reasons Why Action
by the Agency Is Being Considered and
Statement of the Objectives of, and
Legal Basis for, This Proposed Rule
This action proposes management
measures for the commercial summer
flounder fishery. This action is taken
under the authority of the MSA and
regulations at 50 CFR part 648. A
complete description of the reasons why
this action is being considered, and the
objectives of and legal basis for this
action, are contained in the preamble to
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
this proposed rule and are not repeated
here.
Description and Estimate of the Number
of Small Entities to Which This
Proposed Rule Would Apply
The entities (i.e., the small and large
businesses) that may be affected by this
action include fishing operations with
summer flounder moratorium
(commercial) permits. The recreational
fishery is not impacted by this action,
and therefore entities with recreational
party/charter permits are not considered
here; nor are private recreational anglers
which are not considered ‘‘entities’’
under the RFA. For RFA purposes only,
NMFS established a small business size
standard for businesses, including their
affiliates, whose primary industry is
commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A
business primarily engaged in
commercial fishing 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.
Vessel ownership data were used to
identify all individuals who own
commercial fishing vessels. Vessels
were then grouped according to
common owners. The resulting
groupings were then treated as entities,
or affiliates, for purposes of identifying
small and large businesses which may
be affected by this action. Based on this
grouping, a total of 607 affiliates
reported revenues from commercial
summer flounder landings during the
2016–2018 period, with 601 of those
business affiliates categorized as small
business and 6 categorized as large
business.
Description of the Projected Reporting,
Record-Keeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements of This Proposed Rule
There are no proposed reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Rules Which May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With This Proposed
Rule
The proposed action does not
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other
Federal rules.
Description of Significant Alternatives
to the Proposed Action Which
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of
Applicable Statutes and Which
Minimize Any Significant Economic
Impact on Small Entities
The proposed action (i.e., the suite of
preferred alternatives) includes
implementation of revised commercial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Aug 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
quota allocation system for the summer
flounder fishery. Specifically, this
action would create state allocations
that vary with overall stock abundance
and resulting commercial quotas. For all
years when the annual commercial
quota is at or below 9.55 million lb
(4,332 mt), the state allocations would
remain status quo. In years when the
annual coastwide quota exceeded this
trigger, the first 9.55 million lb (4,332
mt) would be distributed according to
status quo allocations, and the
additional quota beyond 9.55 million lb
(4,332 mt) would be distributed by
equal shares (with the exception of
Maine, New Hampshire, and Delaware,
which would split 1 percent of the
additional quota).
Additional non-preferred alternatives
were also considered. For the purposes
of the RFA, only the preferred
alternatives and those non-preferred
alternatives which would minimize
negative impacts to small businesses are
required to be considered. Economic
impacts would vary by state and
community under all alternatives, but
alternatives 2A (status quo) and
alternatives 2C (the preferred
alternative) are likely to have fewer
negative impacts overall compared to
other alternatives. Therefore, the
preferred alternative (2C) is compared to
the status quo (alternative 2A) in the
quantitative analysis. Although not
required, we also provide a brief
summary of the relative impacts of the
two additional non-preferred options
(2B and 2D).
The analysis was conducted assuming
full utilization of the 2020 commercial
quota of 11.53 million lb (5,230 mt).
Results indicate that the proposed
action of a quota reallocation threshold
of 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) increases
fleetwide revenue by $0.4 million
relative to No Action and ex-vessel price
by $0.04 per pound relative to No
Action. The proposed action is
estimated to yield a decrease in fisherywide revenue of $0.15 million as
compared to the quota reallocation
threshold of 8.4 million lb (3,810 mt)
(Alternative 2C–1). This slight decrease
in revenue under the proposed action,
relative to the highest revenuegenerating alternative, is not expected to
disproportionately impact small
entities.
Additional alternatives, 2B and 2D,
were considered but not recommended
by the Council. Alternatives 2B and 2D
had more negative impacts on small
businesses than the selected alternative.
Alternative 2B considered revisions to
the quota allocation based on recent
summer flounder biomass distribution,
alternative 2D, the ‘‘scup model’’,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48663
considered a significant change in
summer flounder management by
creating a winter season that was open
to any vessel with a summer flounder
permit.
Compared to the other allocation
alternatives, the impacts of alternative
2D are the most difficult to determine,
as this alternative is associated with the
highest uncertainty regarding impacts
on vessel participation, fishing effort,
landings patterns, and market
responses. Relative to alternative 2A,
alternative 2D is expected to have a
higher magnitude of positive or negative
impacts to states and businesses, due to
the substantial change in the
management system that will benefit
some and negatively impact others.
Shoreside communities would also be
impacted by alternative 2D. Many states
have invested heavily in shoreside
infrastructure to support their fleets.
Under alternative 2D, the distribution of
landings in the winter would be driven
more by vessel preference and market
factors, which would positively impact
some shoreside businesses and
negatively impact others.
Alternative 2B would shift quota
allocation from the Southern region of
the management unit (North Carolina
through New Jersey) to the Northern
region (New York through Maine).
Compared to alternative 2C, alternative
2B is more likely to have a higher
magnitude of positive or negative
impacts (depending on the state), as
allocation changes would be
permanently revised from status quo,
while under 2C there is the potential for
status quo allocation. Additionally,
option 2C has a higher likelihood of
costs and benefits being shared more
equally over time as the quota fluctuates
above and below the trigger point.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 6, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In § 648.102, paragraph (c)(1) is
revised to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
48664
§ 648.102
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 12, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Summer flounder specifications.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Distribution of annual commercial
quota. (i) For years when the annual
commercial quota is at or below
9,550,000 lb (4,332 mt), the quota will
be distributed to the states, based upon
the following percentages (state
followed by percent share in
parenthesis): Maine (0.04756); New
Hampshire (0.00046); Massachusetts
(6.82046); Rhode Island (15.68298);
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:05 Aug 11, 2020
Jkt 250001
Connecticut (2.25708); New York
(7.64699); New Jersey (16.72499);
Delaware (0.01779); Maryland (2.03910);
Virginia (21.31676); and North Carolina
(27.44584).
(ii) For years when the annual
commercial quota is greater than
9,550,000 lb (4,332 mt), the quota up to
9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) will be
distributed as outlined in paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section and the
additional quota above 9.55 million lb
will be distributed based upon the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
following percentages (state followed by
percent share in parenthesis): Maine
(0.333); New Hampshire (0.333);
Massachusetts (12.375); Rhode Island
(12.375); Connecticut (12.375); New
York (12.375); New Jersey (12.375);
Delaware (0.333); Maryland (12.375);
Virginia (12.375); and North Carolina
(12.375).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2020–17609 Filed 8–11–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 12, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48660-48664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17609]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 156 / Wednesday, August 12, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 48660]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 200806-0207]
RIN 0648-BJ18
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 21
to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management
Plan
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has submitted to
NMFS Amendment 21 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass
Fishery Management Plan. Amendment 21 proposes revisions to the summer
flounder commercial state quota allocation percentages and the fishery
management plan goals and objectives. Amendment 21 is intended to
increase equity in state allocations when annual coastwide commercial
quotas are at or above historical averages, while recognizing the
economic reliance coastal communities have on the state allocation
percentages currently in place.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 11, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2020-0107, by the following method:
Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via
the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2020-
0107,
Click the ``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required
fields, and
Enter or attach your comments.
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).
Copies of Amendment 21, including the Environmental Impact
Statement, the Regulatory Impact Review, and the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (EIS/RIR/IRFA) prepared in support of this action
are available from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-
Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street,
Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the
internet at: http://www.mafmc.org.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Keiley, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281-9116.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission cooperatively manage summer flounder under
the provisions of the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan (FMP). The joint FMP became effective in 1988,
establishing measures to manage summer flounder fisheries. Summer
flounder is an important commercial and recreational species.
Currently, 60 percent of the total allowable landings limit (TAL) is
allocated to the commercial fishery (coastwide annual commercial
quota), with the remaining 40 percent allocated to the recreational
fishery. Available quotas are fully utilized by both sectors in most if
not all fishing years.
The coastwide annual commercial quota is allocated to each of the
states in the management unit (Maine-North Carolina) on a percentage
basis. The existing commercial state-by-state allocations were last
modified in 1993. The original allocations, adopted in 1992 as part of
Amendment 2 to the FMP (December 4, 1992; 57 FR 57358), were based on
available landings data from 1980-1989. Shortly thereafter, in 1993,
the State of Connecticut argued that during the early and mid-1980s,
the state did not have the authority to collect landings data from
offshore fishermen, nor did the NMFS provide a port agent to the state
that would have collected or validated landings information.
Connecticut contended that their commercial landings during the
allocation base years were underreported and therefore its quota share
was too small. Amendment 4 (September 24, 1993; 58 FR 49937) increased
Connecticut's quota share from 0.95 percent to 2.26 percent based on
additional landings information provided by the state. The state-by-
state allocations have not been modified since Amendment 4.
Table 1--Current State-by-State Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current state
State allocation
percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME..................................................... 0.04756
NH..................................................... 0.00046
MA..................................................... 6.82046
RI..................................................... 15.68298
CT..................................................... 2.25708
NY..................................................... 7.64699
NJ..................................................... 16.72499
DE..................................................... 0.01779
MD..................................................... 2.03910
VA..................................................... 21.31676
NC..................................................... 27.44584
----------------
Total................................................ 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current commercial allocation is perceived by many stakeholders
as outdated, given that it was last modified in 1993 and is based on
1980-1989 landings data. Some other states and parties assert that the
initial allocations were based on incomplete or otherwise flawed data.
Summer flounder distribution, center of biomass, and location of
fishing effort has changed over time, likely due to a combination of
stock rebuilding and difficult to quantify but widely accepted climate-
related changes in the Mid-Atlantic Bight and southern New
[[Page 48661]]
England waters. As changing environmental conditions have resulted in
an apparent shift in the average distribution of summer flounder, there
have been requests to incorporate this information in setting state
commercial quota allocations.
On September 16, 2014 (79 FR 55432), the Council published a notice
of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for Amendment 21 to consider, in
coordination with the Commission: (1) Performing a comprehensive review
of all aspects of the FMP related to summer flounder; (2) updating the
FMP goals and objectives for summer flounder management; and (3)
modifying management strategies and measures as necessary to achieve
those goals and objectives. The Council and Commission held scoping
meetings during September and October of 2014 to solicit comments from
the public regarding the range of commercial and recreational summer
flounder management issues that should be considered in the amendment.
On March 29, 2018 (83 FR 13478), the Council published a
supplemental NOI announcing that the scope of the amendment would be
narrowed to include only commercial summer flounder management
considerations. Due to ongoing revisions to the recreational data by
the Marine Recreational Information Program, the Council and Commission
chose to delay development of an amendment addressing recreational
issues. This included quota allocation between the commercial and
recreational sectors, as well as recreational management measures and
strategies. The supplemental NOI identified that the commercial
fishery-focused amendment would specifically consider revisions to the
current qualification criteria for Federal moratorium permit holders,
the current allocation of commercial quota, and the current list of
frameworkable items in the FMP, and would consider revising the FMP
goals and objectives for summer flounder.
On August 17, 2018 (83 FR 41072), the Environmental Protection
Agency announced the public comment period for the Amendment 21 draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS). The public comment period
extended until October 12, 2018. During that time, the Council and
Commission held public hearings on the DEIS in Old Lyme, Connecticut;
Washington, North Carolina; Dover, Delaware; Newport News, Virginia;
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Narragansett, Rhode Island; Toms River,
New Jersey; Berlin, Maryland; Stony Brook, New York; and via webinar.
In March 2019, the Council and the Commission's Summer Flounder,
Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board approved Amendment 21 to the FMP to
change the commercial quota allocation for summer flounder, as well as
revise the FMP objectives for summer flounder. The Council and
Commission also considered, but did not approve, changes to Federal
permit qualifying criteria, and adding landings flexibility as a
frameworkable subject in the FMP.
A Notice of Availability (NOA) for Amendment 21 was published in
the Federal Register on July 29, 2020 (85 FR 16446). The Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)
allows us to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures
recommended by the Council in an amendment based on whether the
measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan
amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and
other applicable law. As such, we are seeking comments in response to
the NOA on whether measures in Amendment 21 are consistent with the
Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and its National Standards, and other applicable law. The comment
period on the NOA ends on September 28, 2020. Comments submitted on the
NOA and/or this proposed rule by that date, will be considered in our
decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 21. We
will consider comments received before the end of the comment period
for this proposed rule (See DATES) in our decision to implement
measures proposed by the Council.
Proposed State-by-State Allocation Changes
Amendment 21 would change the state-by-state commercial quota
allocations when the coastwide quota exceeds 9.55 million lb (4,332
mt). When the coastwide quota is 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) or less,
the quota would be distributed according to the current allocations. In
years when the coastwide quota exceeds 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt), any
additional quota, beyond this threshold, would be distributed in equal
shares to all states except Maine, Delaware, and New Hampshire, which
would split 1 percent of the additional quota. The Council and Board
stated that this allocation alternative was selected over other
alternatives to balance preservation of historical state access and
infrastructure at recent quota levels, with an intent of providing
equitability among states when the stock and quota are at high levels.
Table 2--Proposed State-by-State Allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation of
Allocation of additional quota
State baseline quota <=9.55 beyond 9.55 mil lb
mil lb (4,332 metric (4,332 metric tons)
tons) (percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME................................................................ 0.04756 0.333
NH................................................................ 0.00046 0.333
MA................................................................ 6.82046 12.375
RI................................................................ 15.68298 12.375
CT................................................................ 2.25708 12.375
NY................................................................ 7.64699 12.375
NJ................................................................ 16.72499 12.375
DE................................................................ 0.01779 0.333
MD................................................................ 2.03910 12.375
VA................................................................ 21.31676 12.375
NC................................................................ 27.44584 12.375
---------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 100 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48662]]
Table 3--Status Quo State-by-State Allocations (in Percentages) and Resulting Quota (in lb) Compared to the Proposed Revised Allocation (in Percentages)
and Resulting Quota (in lb) at the Current, 2020 Quota Level (11.53 Million lb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised
Status quo state Status quo Revised allocation allocation
State allocation distribution of percentages (11.53 distribution of Percent change
percentages 11.53 million lb million lb quota) 11.53 million lb
quota quota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME........................................................ 0.04756 5,484 0.09663 11,142 103.17
NH........................................................ 0.00046 53 0.05762 6,644 12435.85
MA........................................................ 6.82046 786,399 7.77432 896,379 13.99
RI........................................................ 15.68298 1,808,248 15.11491 1,742,750 -3.62
CT........................................................ 2.25708 260,241 3.99459 460,576 76.98
NY........................................................ 7.64699 881,698 8.45891 975,313 10.62
NJ........................................................ 16.72499 1,928,391 15.97798 1,842,262 -4.47
DE........................................................ 0.01779 2,051 0.07198 8,299 304.63
MD........................................................ 2.03910 235,108 3.81404 439,759 87.05
VA........................................................ 21.31676 2,457,822 19.78123 2,280,776 -7.20
NC........................................................ 27.44584 3,164,505 24.85779 2,866,103 -9.43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 100 11,530,000 100 11,530,000 0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Status Quo State-by-State Allocations (in Percentages) and Resulting Quota (in mt) Compared to the Proposed Revised Allocation (in Percentages)
and Resulting Quota (in mt) at the Current, 2020 Quota Level (5,230 mt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised
Status quo state Status quo Revised allocation allocation
State allocation distribution of percentages (5,230 distribution of Percent change
percentages 5,230 mt quota mt quota) 5,230 mt quota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME........................................................ 0.04756 2.49 0.09663 5.05 103.17
NH........................................................ 0.00046 0.02 0.05762 3.01 12435.85
MA........................................................ 6.82046 356.70 7.77432 406.59 13.99
RI........................................................ 15.68298 820.21 15.11491 790.50 -3.62
CT........................................................ 2.25708 118.04 3.99459 208.91 76.98
NY........................................................ 7.64699 399.93 8.45891 442.39 10.62
NJ........................................................ 16.72499 874.70 15.97798 835.64 -4.47
DE........................................................ 0.01779 0.93 0.07198 3.76 304.63
MD........................................................ 2.03910 106.64 3.81404 199.47 87.05
VA........................................................ 21.31676 1,114.85 19.78123 1,034.54 -7.20
NC........................................................ 27.44584 1,435.39 24.85779 1,300.04 -9.43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 100 5,229.92 100 5,229.92 0.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Summer Flounder FMP Goals and Objectives
The original FMP objectives were adopted via Amendment 2 to the
Summer Flounder FMP in 1993 and have remained unchanged since that
time. Amendment 21 revises the FMP goals and objectives. While the
current FMP contains only management objectives, the proposed revisions
contain three overarching goals linked to more specific objectives. The
proposed goals include: (1) Ensuring sustainability, of both the summer
flounder stock and fishery; (2) increasing the effectiveness of
management measures, through partnerships, enforcement, and data
collection; and, (3) optimization of the social and economic benefits
from the summer flounder stock. Additional information on these changes
can be found in the EIS.
Classification
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the
Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is
consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP,
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law,
subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order
12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted,
would have on small entities, and also determines ways to minimize
these impacts. The IRFA incorporates sections of the preamble to this
rule and analyses contained in Amendment 21 and its accompanying EIS/
RIR/IRFA. A copy of the complete analysis is available from the Council
(see ADDRESSES). A summary of the IRFA follows.
Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, This Proposed
Rule
This action proposes management measures for the commercial summer
flounder fishery. This action is taken under the authority of the MSA
and regulations at 50 CFR part 648. A complete description of the
reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and
legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to
[[Page 48663]]
this proposed rule and are not repeated here.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which This
Proposed Rule Would Apply
The entities (i.e., the small and large businesses) that may be
affected by this action include fishing operations with summer flounder
moratorium (commercial) permits. The recreational fishery is not
impacted by this action, and therefore entities with recreational
party/charter permits are not considered here; nor are private
recreational anglers which are not considered ``entities'' under the
RFA. For RFA purposes only, NMFS established a small business size
standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary
industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily
engaged in commercial fishing 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.
Vessel ownership data were used to identify all individuals who own
commercial fishing vessels. Vessels were then grouped according to
common owners. The resulting groupings were then treated as entities,
or affiliates, for purposes of identifying small and large businesses
which may be affected by this action. Based on this grouping, a total
of 607 affiliates reported revenues from commercial summer flounder
landings during the 2016-2018 period, with 601 of those business
affiliates categorized as small business and 6 categorized as large
business.
Description of the Projected Reporting, Record-Keeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of This Proposed Rule
There are no proposed reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements.
Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With This
Proposed Rule
The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
other Federal rules.
Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which
Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes and Which
Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
The proposed action (i.e., the suite of preferred alternatives)
includes implementation of revised commercial quota allocation system
for the summer flounder fishery. Specifically, this action would create
state allocations that vary with overall stock abundance and resulting
commercial quotas. For all years when the annual commercial quota is at
or below 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt), the state allocations would remain
status quo. In years when the annual coastwide quota exceeded this
trigger, the first 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) would be distributed
according to status quo allocations, and the additional quota beyond
9.55 million lb (4,332 mt) would be distributed by equal shares (with
the exception of Maine, New Hampshire, and Delaware, which would split
1 percent of the additional quota).
Additional non-preferred alternatives were also considered. For the
purposes of the RFA, only the preferred alternatives and those non-
preferred alternatives which would minimize negative impacts to small
businesses are required to be considered. Economic impacts would vary
by state and community under all alternatives, but alternatives 2A
(status quo) and alternatives 2C (the preferred alternative) are likely
to have fewer negative impacts overall compared to other alternatives.
Therefore, the preferred alternative (2C) is compared to the status quo
(alternative 2A) in the quantitative analysis. Although not required,
we also provide a brief summary of the relative impacts of the two
additional non-preferred options (2B and 2D).
The analysis was conducted assuming full utilization of the 2020
commercial quota of 11.53 million lb (5,230 mt). Results indicate that
the proposed action of a quota reallocation threshold of 9.55 million
lb (4,332 mt) increases fleetwide revenue by $0.4 million relative to
No Action and ex-vessel price by $0.04 per pound relative to No Action.
The proposed action is estimated to yield a decrease in fishery-wide
revenue of $0.15 million as compared to the quota reallocation
threshold of 8.4 million lb (3,810 mt) (Alternative 2C-1). This slight
decrease in revenue under the proposed action, relative to the highest
revenue-generating alternative, is not expected to disproportionately
impact small entities.
Additional alternatives, 2B and 2D, were considered but not
recommended by the Council. Alternatives 2B and 2D had more negative
impacts on small businesses than the selected alternative. Alternative
2B considered revisions to the quota allocation based on recent summer
flounder biomass distribution, alternative 2D, the ``scup model'',
considered a significant change in summer flounder management by
creating a winter season that was open to any vessel with a summer
flounder permit.
Compared to the other allocation alternatives, the impacts of
alternative 2D are the most difficult to determine, as this alternative
is associated with the highest uncertainty regarding impacts on vessel
participation, fishing effort, landings patterns, and market responses.
Relative to alternative 2A, alternative 2D is expected to have a higher
magnitude of positive or negative impacts to states and businesses, due
to the substantial change in the management system that will benefit
some and negatively impact others. Shoreside communities would also be
impacted by alternative 2D. Many states have invested heavily in
shoreside infrastructure to support their fleets. Under alternative 2D,
the distribution of landings in the winter would be driven more by
vessel preference and market factors, which would positively impact
some shoreside businesses and negatively impact others.
Alternative 2B would shift quota allocation from the Southern
region of the management unit (North Carolina through New Jersey) to
the Northern region (New York through Maine). Compared to alternative
2C, alternative 2B is more likely to have a higher magnitude of
positive or negative impacts (depending on the state), as allocation
changes would be permanently revised from status quo, while under 2C
there is the potential for status quo allocation. Additionally, option
2C has a higher likelihood of costs and benefits being shared more
equally over time as the quota fluctuates above and below the trigger
point.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 6, 2020.
Donna S. Wieting,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
0
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 648.102, paragraph (c)(1) is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 48664]]
Sec. 648.102 Summer flounder specifications.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Distribution of annual commercial quota. (i) For years when the
annual commercial quota is at or below 9,550,000 lb (4,332 mt), the
quota will be distributed to the states, based upon the following
percentages (state followed by percent share in parenthesis): Maine
(0.04756); New Hampshire (0.00046); Massachusetts (6.82046); Rhode
Island (15.68298); Connecticut (2.25708); New York (7.64699); New
Jersey (16.72499); Delaware (0.01779); Maryland (2.03910); Virginia
(21.31676); and North Carolina (27.44584).
(ii) For years when the annual commercial quota is greater than
9,550,000 lb (4,332 mt), the quota up to 9.55 million lb (4,332 mt)
will be distributed as outlined in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section
and the additional quota above 9.55 million lb will be distributed
based upon the following percentages (state followed by percent share
in parenthesis): Maine (0.333); New Hampshire (0.333); Massachusetts
(12.375); Rhode Island (12.375); Connecticut (12.375); New York
(12.375); New Jersey (12.375); Delaware (0.333); Maryland (12.375);
Virginia (12.375); and North Carolina (12.375).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-17609 Filed 8-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
