[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82044-82055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33185]
[[Page 82043]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 250
December 29, 2011
Part II
Department of Commerce
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Generic
Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment for the Gulf of
Mexico; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 82044]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 100217097-1757-02]
RIN 0648-AY22
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Generic Annual Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment for the
Gulf of Mexico
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the Generic Annual
Catch Limits/Accountability Measures Amendment (Generic ACL Amendment)
to the Red Drum, Reef Fish Resources, Shrimp, and Coral and Coral Reefs
Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of Mexico (FMPs) as prepared and
submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council).
This rule defers management of selected species to other Federal or
state agencies; removes species not currently in need of Federal
management from the FMPs; develops species groups; modifies framework
procedures; establishes annual catch limits (ACLs); and establishes
accountability measures (AMs). The intent of this final rule is to
specify ACLs for species not undergoing overfishing while maintaining
sustainable catch levels.
DATES: This rule is effective January 30, 2012 except for the
amendments to Sec. 622.32(b)(2)(iii) and Sec. 622.39(b)(1)(ii). NOAA
will publish a document announcing the effective date of the amendments
to Sec. 622.32(b)(2)(iii) and Sec. 622.39(b)(1)(ii) in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the Generic ACL Amendment, which
includes a final environmental impact statement (FEIS), an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and a regulatory impact review,
may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web Site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/Final_Generic_ACL_AM_Amendment_September_9_2011.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Malinowski, Southeast Regional
Office, NMFS, telephone (727) 824-5305; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fisheries for reef fish, red drum,
shrimp, and coral and coral reefs of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) are
managed under their respective FMPs. The FMPs were prepared by the
Council and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
On September 26, 2011, NMFS published a notice of availability for
the Generic ACL Amendment and requested public comment (76 FR 59373).
On October 25, 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule for the Generic ACL
Amendment and requested public comment (76 FR 66021). The proposed rule
and the Generic ACL Amendment outline the rationale for the actions
contained in this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by
this final rule are provided below.
Through this final rule NMFS will defer to other entities'
management of selected stocks that are uncommon in Gulf Federal waters
and are primarily harvested within areas under the jurisdiction of the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council).
This final rule will remove Nassau grouper from the Reef Fish FMP, and
the Council has requested that the Secretary designate the South
Atlantic Council as the responsible council for Nassau grouper.
Similarly, the rule will remove octocorals from the Coral and Coral
Reefs FMP. Removal of these species from their respective FMPs avoids
unnecessary duplication of management efforts. NMFS is delaying the
effective date for removing the prohibition on the harvest of Nassau
grouper in the Gulf until the South Atlantic Council has implemented
the appropriate changes to the FMP for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of
the South Atlantic to prevent any lapse in the protective regulations
necessary for the species.
This rule will remove 10 species from the Reef Fish FMP that the
Council determined are not in need of Federal management. The species
to be removed include those species for which average landings are less
than 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) annually, or that are harvested primarily in
state waters. Additionally, this rule revises or creates five species
groups within the Reef Fish FMP to combine species with similar fishery
characteristics, such as habitat and harvest methods, to allow for more
effective management.
To facilitate timely adjustments to harvest parameters and other
management measures, this final rule revises the current framework
procedures. This revision gives the Council and NMFS greater
flexibility to more promptly alter harvest parameters and other
management measures as new scientific information becomes available.
This rule establishes initial ACLs for species or species groups
not subject to overfishing. Additionally, the ACL for the other shallow
water grouper (SWG) complex will be revised. The ACL for the other SWG
complex includes black grouper, scamp, yellowfin grouper, and
yellowmouth grouper, and does not include gag and red grouper which
have ACLs that are already in place. The rule also establishes
allowable biological catch (ABC) limits in the Gulf Council's area of
jurisdiction for several species managed separately by both the Gulf
and South Atlantic Councils, but for which only single stock
assessments, and single ABCs covering both Council's areas of
jurisdiction, were provided. This rule establishes commercial and
recreational harvest allocations for black grouper for the Gulf based
upon historical landings.
To implement both in-season and post-season management of a stock
to control or mitigate harvest levels with respect to the ACL, this
rule establishes AMs for selected stocks. With the exception of royal
red shrimp, the stocks and stock complexes requiring AMs are in the
reef fish fishery management unit (FMU).
For species within the commercial sector of a Gulf individual
fishing quota (IFQ) program, this rule will make the IFQ program itself
the AM for the commercial sector because commercial landings are
closely monitored and IFQ participants are limited to their specific
IFQ allocation each fishing year. Therefore, this rule will implement
AMs for the recreational sector in the event of a stock ACL overage for
the IFQ related species.
For non-IFQ related species this rule will implement new ACLs and
AMs in both sectors for the following: Vermilion snapper, lane snapper,
mid-water snappers (silk snapper, wenchman, blackfin snapper, and queen
snapper), mutton snapper, yellowtail snapper, gray snapper, cubera
snapper, hogfish, jacks (lesser amberjack, almaco jack, and banded
rudderfish), and royal red shrimp.
For stocks for which an ACL would be set through this rulemaking,
none are currently overfished, in a rebuilding plan, or undergoing
overfishing.
The Generic ACL Amendment retains Federal management for, and keeps
within their respective fishery management units, several species that
do not have specifically codified ACLs and AMs. These species are red
drum, goliath grouper, and corals (excluding
[[Page 82045]]
octocorals). Harvesting these species is currently prohibited in Gulf
Federal waters, and they therefore have a functional ACL of zero.
Additionally, the harvest prohibition serves as a functional AM to
manage the ACL.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received nine comment letters on the Generic ACL Amendment and
the proposed rule. Comments were received from both individuals and
organizations. Additionally, two submissions were from Federal agencies
indicating they had no comment. Comments related to the actions
contained in the amendment or the proposed rule are summarized and
responded to below.
Comment 1: The criteria for removing reef fish species using
average annual landings of 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) or less is inadequate,
and the list of species that meet this criterion has not been fully
analyzed. Insufficient information is presented in the Generic ACL
Amendment regarding overall catch and effort, life history, species
vulnerability, species location, landings relative to population size,
and any population status indicator information. The Council should
have considered the vulnerability of the various stocks, as has been
done for Pacific coast groundfish. The analysis should include
susceptibility to the fishery and species productivity. In addition,
the amendment failed to conduct a vigorous analysis regarding the
composition and grouping of stocks in the Reef Fish FMP, which would
have been more beneficial than this attempt to remove species. The
Council and NMFS should work to revise the Reef Fish FMP in the future
with more detailed analyses of the status and vulnerability of species
and species complexes.
Response: The criteria for species removal included more than just
an evaluation of landings. In determining which species to remove, the
Council and NMFS considered landings data, trends in landings, and
landings history, as well as life history parameters, management
uncertainty and scientific vulnerability, as it is known for each
species. All the related factors are discussed in sections 2.1, and 2.2
of the Generic ACL Amendment, and are thoroughly analyzed throughout
the amendment. Several species, initially considered for removal, were
retained in the Reef Fish FMP for these reasons. National Standard
guidelines state that the principle implicit in National Standard 7 is
that not every fishery needs Federal regulation. The Magnuson-Stevens
Act requires Councils to prepare FMPs only for overfished fisheries and
for other fisheries where regulation would serve some useful purpose
and where the present or future benefits of Federal regulation would
justify the costs. The Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that
continued inclusion of these species in the Reef Fish FMP is
unnecessary. There is no apparent need to improve the condition of the
stock, resolve competing interests, or produce a more efficient
utilization of these resources. No management measures have ever
applied to harvest of these species, other than certain aggregate bag
limits and aggregate commercial trip limits.
The species removed from the Reef Fish FMP are landed in very low
numbers, thus they are either not targeted or are not particularly
susceptible to the fishery. These species represent less than one
percent of the total reef fish landings, and trends in landing
histories did not indicate any changes over time. This, in addition to
the other factors addressed in the amendment, indicated to the Council
that Federal conservation and management measures were not currently
necessary for these species. Further, the Council determined, and NMFS
agrees, that defining ACLs on such small landings values would not
provide meaningful management benchmarks. The Council has indicated
that it will continue to evaluate landings and other available
information on species removed from the Reef Fish FMP at least every 5
years, and if it is determined a removed species is in need of
management, the species would be added back into the fishery management
unit. NMFS and the Council recognize that management needs change over
time, and are committed to continued monitoring of Gulf fishery
resources.
Comment 2: Removing species creates potential management gaps that
could allow fishing pressure to go unchecked. Retaining these species
would allow the Council to take more timely action before issues become
a crisis. Removal of the species without strong justification is not
consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires Councils to manage fish stocks to prevent
overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The purpose of this
requirement is to conserve and manage these resources, not remove them
from the ability to conserve and manage them. Trends in landings still
need to be monitored to detect any shifts in harvest.
Response: It is highly unlikely that additional fisheries will
develop to target and harvest these removed species and other species
not included in the management unit for the Reef Fish FMP. These
species have been in the management unit since 1986, without any
specific Federal regulations, other than their inclusion in certain
aggregate bag limits and part of any aggregate commercial trip limits.
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) noted that the
species were originally placed in the Reef Fish FMP to ensure that they
would be included in any monitoring programs, rather than because they
were considered to be in need of Federal management. Data on catches of
these species have been collected over that time period. Based on those
available data, the Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, the landings
trends for these species do not reflect any changes over time. In light
of this fact, and the consideration of the other factors addressed in
the amendment, the species could be removed from the management unit,
consistent with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Species
that are removed by this final rule will continue to have their
commercial and recreational landings monitored through standard record-
keeping requirements of the Marine Recreational Information Program
(MRIP) and commercial trip ticket records. Should a change in landings
be noted, or other indications of a need for conservation and
management arise, the Council could develop a plan amendment to add the
species back into the management unit.
Comment 3: Several species (e.g., red porgy, white grunt, black sea
bass) have not been considered for inclusion in the Reef Fish FMP.
Response: In setting ACLs for all species subject to the Reef Fish
FMP, the Council did not explicitly consider adding new species to the
management unit. Additional species can always be considered for
inclusion as part of a fishery management unit in an FMP, should
landings data indicate Federal management is needed, but this action
was not considered as part of the Generic ACL Amendment. As to the
species specifically noted, the Council removed all porgies, grunts,
and sea basses (except the dwarf sand perches) from the fishery
management unit in 1998 (December 30, 1997, 62 FR 67714), based on a
similar determination that Federal management of the species was not
required. The Council's Reef Fish Advisory Panel has recommended that
red porgy be included in an IFQ program to be developed by the Council.
Should such an IFQ program be
[[Page 82046]]
developed, then red porgy would be added to the Reef Fish FMP at that
time.
Comment 4: The ABC control rule is an overall significant step in
the right direction. There are, nonetheless, aspects of the ABC control
rule in need of improvement. During the process of applying the ABC
control rule to various species and species groups, it became clear
that the tiering system needs modification. In addition, the ABC
control rule fails to adequately account for discard mortality in
unassessed stocks. The Council and NMFS should explore alternative
methodologies such as ``management strategy evaluation'' techniques or
other data-poor methodologies such as ``depletion-corrected average
catch'' and ``depletion-based stock reduction analyses''. The Council
and NMFS need to address these shortcomings to improve the ABC control
rule.
Response: The Council and the SSC are aware of the potential issues
with the ABC control rule and the claims that it would benefit from
modification and improvement. The SSC has already made plans to begin
addressing these issues in 2012. The Council, the SSC, and NMFS all
recognize that establishing and maintaining ACLs and AMs for the
various fisheries will continue to evolve as new information becomes
available.
Comment 5: The Council does not currently have a risk policy in
place for guiding its choice of desired probabilities of overfishing.
The Council needs the results of a risk analysis that considers short-
term and long-term costs and benefits to the resource and the fishing
community in regard to fishing at various levels. We urge NMFS to
invest the resources needed to develop appropriate techniques that will
provide adequate risk analyses.
Response: The Council's ABC control rule explicitly addresses the
probability of overfishing within each tier. In addition, the Council
instructed the SSC to provide ABCs based on a risk of overfishing of
between 15 and 45 percent. In most cases, the SSC has been more risk
adverse than the upper limit. The Council, the SSC, and NMFS all
recognize that this process will continue to be improved over time as
new information becomes available. This final rule to implement ACLs
and AMs is part of an ongoing process to improve the overall management
strategy for Gulf federally managed species.
Comment 6: The ACL/annual catch target (ACT) control rule does not
account for management uncertainty from unknown bycatch amounts. The
management uncertainty buffer is based on an arbitrary scaling. The
size of the buffer is determined by an arbitrary scale, with a maximum
of 25 percent. The control rule needs to be improved by scaling the
maximum size of the buffer by the frequency and magnitude of overages,
rather than by an arbitrary scale.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the scaling of the uncertainty buffer
in the ACL/ACT control rule is arbitrary. The Council rejected more
simplified control rules because they were overly prescriptive and did
not allow adequate input by the SSC. The ACL/ACT control rule selected
by the Council and the SSC is the result of an iterative adaptive
process, in which earlier versions of the control rule were developed,
evaluated, and in some cases applied to actual stocks, and modified
based on the results. The control rule management process is adaptive
and ongoing and is based on the best scientific judgment of the SSC
following accepted scientific procedures. The control rule varies the
size of the uncertainty buffer based on frequency of overages,
precision of available recreational and commercial data, timeliness of
reporting, and stock status (if known). The Gulf Council may increase
or decrease the ACL or ACT based on additional information or their
expert opinion, except that the ACT cannot exceed the ACL and the ACL
cannot exceed the ABC.
The framework procedures implemented through this final rule
provide a means by which the control rule can be modified as
improvements are identified and incorporated. As with the ABC control
rule, the Council intends to continue to develop and modify the ACL/ACT
control rule as better information becomes available.
Comment 7: The generic framework procedures should specifically
state that all analyses and procedures required under other applicable
law must still be undertaken for framework actions.
Response: The framework procedures do specifically identify the
need for consistency with other applicable law. Under Step 6, the
framework notes that for all framework action requests, the NMFS
Regional Administrator will review the Council's recommendations and
supporting information and notify the Council of the determinations, in
accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
Comment 8: The National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines recommend
accounting for management uncertainty with the use of ACTs to maintain
catch at or below the ACL so that overfishing does not occur. The ACT,
in conjunction with AMs, is intended to capture management uncertainty
in the fisheries. The Council has elected to account for management
uncertainty by setting ACTs that are only minimally reduced from the
ACL (ABC) level. No specific management measures are proposed that
would maintain catch levels for any of the species within the Generic
ACL Amendment at the ACT level. Under this scenario, the ACT has no
specific function as a management target. There is a limited capacity
to monitor fisheries in a timely fashion to close them when ACLs are
projected to be exceeded. There are significant lag times present in
the data reporting for both recreational and commercial fisheries. If
an ACL is exceeded, it would be better to have post-season AMs that
enable catch reductions by the amount necessary to maintain catches at
the ACT level the following year.
Response: Most ACTs for reef fish are set 15 to 20 percent lower
than the ACL; more importantly, the ACTs are set 35 percent or more
lower than the overfishing limit (OFL). Management measures are
generally tailored to achieve the ACT, and NMFS intends for harvest to
remain between this target and the ACL threshold. With respect to
reducing catches the following year for overages, the Council
determined that this was not needed because none of the reef fish
stocks are overfished or under a rebuilding plan. Rather, the AMs
selected provide for in-season monitoring and closures before an ACL is
exceeded for some species, and an adjustment in the following year for
other species.
Comment 9: In-season monitoring for vermilion snapper, based on
delayed and preliminary data, may not sufficiently or accurately
project when ACLs might be met or exceeded. A post-season AM that
reduces the fishing season to the ACT level for vermilion snapper would
provide the Council and NMFS with a very important and useful tool to
maintain catch levels within the ACL. The Council should consider
revising its AMs to better address keeping harvests levels below the
designated ACLs, and apply these procedures consistently across all
reef fish species, even the ones that already have ACLs and AMs (e.g.
gag).
Response: If an established ACL has been reached, the Regional
Administrator has the authority to initiate a harvest closure for a
species to prevent the ACL from being exceeded. A procedure is in
place, in accordance with NS1 guidance to re-evaluate the ACL if it is
exceeded more than once during a 4-year period. ACLs and AMs were
established previously for red snapper, gray triggerfish, greater
amberjack, gag grouper, and red grouper. The mechanisms controlling
[[Page 82047]]
harvest differ among these species, but all were established following
NS1 guidance. NMFS has determined adequate landings monitoring is in
place and has the ability to enact in-season closures, which in some
cases, are preferred to post-season AMs as a method to prevent
overages. The Council's choice for AMs includes in-season monitoring
for vermilion snapper and a closure of all harvest before the ACL is
projected to be met. For all other reef fish species, the Council chose
to have AMs address any ACL overages the following fishing year. For
the Generic ACL Amendment, that AM would rely on in-season monitoring,
as with vermilion snapper. However, the Council is not precluded from
taking additional action the following fishing year, such as setting a
restricted season or placing other harvesting restrictions on the
fishery. The Council can revisit all species it manages at any time if
it is determined revisions to harvesting controls are necessary.
Comment 10: NMFS should analyze the risks of stock group management
and review the appropriateness of proposed stock groups in light of the
proposed species removals and modifications made to initially propose
stock groups to accommodate the IFQ program.
Response: NMFS believes these risks and the appropriateness of
stock group management were adequately reviewed in the Generic ACL
Amendment and its associated analysis. Although ecosystem-based or
single-species ACLs may be desirable for many species, stock groups
provide a solution for setting ACLs for species lacking stock specific
information. In establishing stock groups, the Council considered the
geographic and depth distribution of species, life history
characteristics, exploitation patterns, and vulnerabilities. The
considerations and conclusions for remaining stocks are unaffected by
the removal of species from the FMU. The species removed through this
final rule from the IFQ stock complexes are not expected to alter the
appropriateness of the remaining species contained within the revised
IFQ stock complexes. As noted, the Council has the opportunity to make
changes in its management strategy at any time, as new information and
understanding of species relationships and complexes arises.
Comment 11: The Generic ACL Amendment does not define stock status
determination criteria (SSDC) for unassessed reef fish species. NMFS
disapproved the Council's proposed SSDCs from the Generic Sustainable
Fisheries Act Amendment (May 19, 2000, 65 FR 31831). No definitions of
maximum sustainable yield (MSY), OY, or minimum stock size threshold
(MSST) exist for unassessed reef fish stocks. Without these criteria,
the Council and NMFS are not able to detect if a stock or stock group
is overfished. ACLs are intended to prevent overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks, but without SSDCs, it is not possible to measure if
this goal is being attained. In addition, the amendment fails to
provide a definition of OY; thus it is not possible for the Council to
determine if it achieving that goal as well.
Response: Although some SSDCs have not been defined for unassessed
reef fish stocks, the MSA requires that we establish ACLs for these
stocks, and the Council has done so in this rule based on the best
scientific information available. The Council and NMFS recognize that
OFLs, ABCs, and ACLs in this amendment have been established utilizing
different methodologies than utilized to set many SSDCs in past, but
these methods for unassessed stocks are still based on the best
scientific information available, and are appropriate for the stocks at
issue. In the instances where requisite SSDCs have not been approved,
the OFL, ABC, and ACL values contained in the generic amendment will
serve as proxies for those SSDCs until other adequate SSDCs have been
submitted by the Council and approved by NMFS. The Council and NMFS
intend to revisit these criteria to establish SSDCs that are equivalent
and compatible with the ACLs and OFLs when the revised MRIP information
becomes available. Until these revisions occur, NMFS will make
overfishing determinations based on the OFLs, as provided for in the
Generic ACL Amendment.
Comment 12: Setting ACLs on data-poor species using historical
landings data from the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) is inappropriate. Setting ACLs and implementing AMs based on
this information is inappropriate and AMs should not be implemented
until a more reliable data collection system is developed and
implemented.
Response: The data available has been determined to be the best
scientific information available by the Southeast Fisheries Science
Center and the Council's SSC, which determined which data were to be
used in developing ACLs. Further, a number of Federal courts have
agreed that the MRFSS data constitute the best scientific information
available, and therefore must be used in managing fisheries. NMFS is
currently implementing the new MRIP, which has modified the methods
used to monitor recreational catch and effort. Information from this
newly revised program will be available in 2012. When these data become
available, the Council may need to revise its current management
strategies of ACLs and AMs.
Comment 13: ACLs do not need to be set on red drum or shrimp
species. Red drum is managed successfully by the states, and an ACL is
not needed. Shrimp only live 2 years and populations are affected by
other variables more than catch.
Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council to
establish ACLs for all species it manages. The only applicable
exceptions are annual species and any stocks considered to be ecosystem
stocks. The Council already prohibits the harvest of red drum in
Federal waters; this rule reinforces that current harvest prohibition
and equates it to an ACL of zero. This does not affect the harvest of
these species in state waters, or how states may variably manage red
drum in their respective state waters.
For shrimp, the Generic ACL Amendment and this final rule only
establishes a commercial ACL for royal red shrimp, which is the only
federally managed shrimp species that has an extended life span. Other
shrimp species, such as brown, pink, and white shrimp are considered
annual crops, and are thus exempt from the ACL requirements.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
The regulatory references within the codified text for the
definitions section and for the IFQ program for Gulf groupers and
tilefishes were revised. The introductory paragraph in Sec. 622.20 has
been revised through this final rule and NMFS has identified that the
regulatory citations in that introductory paragraph in the proposed
rule for DWG and SWG were incorrect. The regulatory citation within the
IFQ program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes for DWG was revised from
Sec. 622.20 (b)(2)(vi) to Sec. 622.20 (a)(7) and for SWG from Sec.
622.20 (b)(2)(v) to Sec. 622.20 (a)(6). Additionally, within Sec.
622.2, Definitions and Acronyms, the definitions for DWG and SWG have
been revised to reflect the correct regulatory citations within the
introductory paragraph of Sec. 622.20 (a).
Classification
The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined
that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and
[[Page 82048]]
management of the species within the Generic ACL Amendment and is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for
this action. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant economic issues raised by
public comments, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of
the analyses completed to support the action. No public comments
specific to the IRFA were received and therefore no public comments are
addressed in the following FRFA.
NMFS agrees with the Council's choice of preferred alternatives as
those which would be expected to best achieve the Council's objectives
while minimizing, to the extent practicable, the adverse effects on
fishers, support industries, and associated communities. The preambles
of the proposed rule and this rule provide a summary of the actions
contained within this rule and is not repeated here.
The purpose of this rule, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and
the National Standard 1 guidelines, is to establish the methods for
implementing ACLs, AMs and associated parameters for stocks managed by
the Gulf Council, along with initial specifications of an ACL that may
be changed under the framework procedures for specifying an ACL.
Additionally, this rule is intended to improve management capability to
prevent or end overfishing and to maintain stocks at healthy levels,
and to do so in a consistent and structured manner across all FMPs.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this
rule.
The rule would not establish any new reporting, record-keeping or
compliance requirements. The AMs may constitute a new compliance
requirement and were analyzed in the IRFA. No duplicative, overlapping,
or conflicting Federal rules have been identified for this rule.
Management of certain species affected by this rule was developed with
explicit consideration of applicable rules in the state of Florida and
the South Atlantic Council.
The rule is expected to directly affect commercial harvesting and
for-hire fishing vessels that harvest reef fish, royal red shrimp, red
drum, or octocorals in the Gulf. It should be noted that harvest and
possession of red drum in the Gulf EEZ is currently prohibited. The
Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all
major industry sectors in the U.S., including fish harvesters and for-
hire operations. A business involved in fish harvesting is classified
as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not
dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has
combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 million (NAICS code
114111, finfish fishing) for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
For for-hire vessels, all the above qualifiers apply except that the
annual receipts threshold is $7.0 million (NAICS code 713990,
recreational industries).
In 2009, there were 999 vessels with Gulf commercial reef fish
permits and 430 vessels with Gulf royal red shrimp permits. There is no
entity possessing a Federal permit for harvesting red drum or
octocorals in the Gulf EEZ. Based on home states, as reported in
Federal permit applications, vessels with commercial reef fish permits
were distributed as follows: 37 vessels in Alabama, 814 vessels in
Florida, 48 vessels in Louisiana, 15 vessels in Mississippi, 77 vessels
in Texas, and 8 vessels in other states. The corresponding distribution
of vessels with royal red shrimp permits is as follows: 57 vessels in
Alabama, 65 vessels in Florida, 88 vessels in Louisiana, 25 vessels in
Mississippi, 152 vessels in Texas, and 43 vessels in other states. In
2008 and 2009, the maximum annual commercial fishing revenue by an
individual vessel with a commercial Gulf reef fish permit was
approximately $606,000 (2008 dollars). The maximum revenue by an
individual vessel in the royal red shrimp or coral fisheries was far
less than $606,000.
The for-hire fleet is comprised of charterboats, which charge a fee
on a vessel basis, and headboats, which charge a fee on an individual
angler (head) basis. In 2009, there were 1,419 for-hire vessels that
were permitted to operate in the Gulf reef fish fishery. These vessels
were distributed as follows: 141 vessels in Alabama, 876 vessels in
Florida, 100 vessels in Louisiana, 52 vessels in Mississippi, 232
vessels in Texas, and 18 vessels in other states. The for-hire permit
does not distinguish between headboats and charter boats, but in 2009
the headboat survey program included 79 headboats. The majority of
headboats were located in Florida (43), followed by Texas (22), Alabama
(10), and Louisiana (4). The average charterboat is estimated to earn
approximately $88,000 (2008 dollars) in annual revenues, while the
average headboat is estimated to earn approximately $461,000 (2008
dollars).
Based on the foregoing revenue estimates, all commercial and for-
hire vessels expected to be directly affected by this rule are
determined for the purpose of this analysis to be small business
entities. Some fleet activity (i.e., multiple vessels owned by a single
entity) may exist in the for-hire sector but its extent is unknown, and
all vessels are treated as independent entities in this analysis.
Because all entities expected to be directly affected by this rule
are small business entities, no disproportionate effects on small
entities relative to large entities are expected because of this rule.
Removing octocorals from the Coral and Coral Reefs FMP is mainly
administrative in nature and would have no direct effects on the
profitability of small business entities. Removing Nassau grouper from
the Reef Fish FMP, with eventual management of the species being
assumed by the South Atlantic Council, has no direct effects on the
profits of small entities, given the current prohibition on the harvest
of this species. Removing species from the Reef Fish FMP which have
average annual landings of 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) or less (except those
misidentified as another species or those exhibiting a trend in
landings that may indicate a change is status), or those mainly
harvested in state waters, such as anchor tilefish, blackline tilefish,
red hind, rock hind, misty grouper, schoolmaster, dog snapper, mahogany
snapper, sand perch, and dwarf sand fish, will not directly change the
current harvest or use of a resource, and therefore will not affect the
profitability of small entities. Similarly, rearranging species into
species groupings will not directly change the current harvest or use
of a resource, and therefore will not affect the profitability of small
entities.
The establishment of an ABC control rule is not anticipated to
directly affect the harvest and other typical uses of the resource
since this action is administrative in nature. As such, this management
action is not expected to result in any direct effects on the profits
of small entities.
The establishment of an ACL/ACT control rule is an administrative
action and will not affect the harvest and other customary uses of the
resource. Therefore, this action has no direct consequence on the
profitability of small entities.
Modifications to the framework procedure are also administrative in
nature. Since these modifications will not affect the harvest and other
[[Page 82049]]
customary uses of the resource, they would have no direct consequence
on the profitability of small entities.
Any management actions enacted through the modified framework
procedure will be evaluated as to their effects on the profits of small
entities at the time of their implementation. Initial ACL specification
for royal red shrimp will set the ACL for the species at 334,000 lb
tails (151,500 kg) which is significantly above the historical landings
(138,116 lb (62,648 kg) in 2008). This action, therefore, will not
affect harvests and profits of small entities in the foreseeable
future.
Apportioning black grouper between the Gulf and South Atlantic
Council's jurisdictional areas will result in an increase of profits
(producer surplus) to the commercial sector ranging from approximately
$90,000 to $113,000 annually for all vessels combined. The effects on
for-hire profits are expected to be positive but cannot be quantified
with available information. The apportionment of yellowtail snapper
between the Gulf and South Atlantic Council's jurisdictional areas is
very close to the recent landings ratio of the species between the two
jurisdictional areas. Thus, this management action is expected to have
minimal effects on the profits of small entities in both areas.
The apportionment of mutton snapper between the Gulf and South
Atlantic Council's jurisdictional areas will favor the Gulf fishing
fleet and thus will be expected to increase the profits of the Gulf
fishing fleet. The effects on the profits of the South Atlantic fishing
fleet will, in turn, decrease. In the absence of sufficient information
to quantify the effects of this action, its net effects on the fishing
fleets of both areas cannot be determined.
The apportionment of black grouper in the Gulf between the
commercial and recreational sectors will tend to favor the commercial
over the recreational sector. In this sense, the commercial sector is
expected to experience profit increases ranging from approximately
$11,000 to $14,000 annually for all vessels combined. The negative
effects on the for-hire fleet cannot be estimated with available
information.
Potential effects on small entities anticipated from the
implementation of ACLs and/or ACTs for reef fish stocks and stock
groupings will depend on the extent to which the ACLs and ACTs being
implemented will affect the harvest or other customary uses of the
resource. Aggregate ACLs and ACTs are specified for both the commercial
and recreational sectors and together with the specific ACLs and ACTS
set for the commercial sector, will allow for increased harvest levels
for both sectors. Therefore, positive effects on the profits of small
entities are expected to result from this action in the near future.
Specifying in-season AMs for vermilion snapper when the ACL is
reached or projected to be reached within the fishing year will result
in short-term negative effects on the profits of small entities. The
expectation, however, over the medium and long-term is for profits of
these small entities to increase or at least not be further impaired
due to increased protection for the stock. Implementing AMs for royal
red shrimp and other reef fish species that do not currently have AMs
enacted the following year after their ACLs are exceeded will
negatively affect the short-term profits of small entities. Again, the
expectation is for this action to improve medium and long-term
profitability.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the management of octocorals. The first alternative, the
no action alternative, would retain the management of species under the
Gulf Coral and Coral Reefs FMP. The second alternative would remove the
species from the FMP, with eventual management of the species being the
responsibility of the South Atlantic Council. Similar to the preferred
alternative of removing octocorals from the Coral and Coral Reefs FMP,
these two other alternatives will have no direct effects on the profits
of small entities. The second alternative would mainly entail
additional administrative cost on the part of the South Atlantic
Council.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the management of Nassau grouper. The first alternative,
the no action alternative, would retain the management of the species
under the Gulf Reef Fish FMP. The second alternative would remove the
species from the FMP, with eventual management of the species being the
responsibility of the South Atlantic Council. Similar to the preferred
alternative of removing Nassau grouper from the Reef Fish FMP, these
two other alternatives would have no direct effects on the profits of
small entities. The second alternative would mainly entail additional
administrative cost on the part of the South Atlantic Council.
Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the management of yellowtail snapper. The first
alternative would remove the species from the Gulf Reef Fish FMP. The
second alternative would remove the species from the FMP, with eventual
management of the species being the responsibility of the South
Atlantic Council. The third alternative would add the species to a
joint plan with the South Atlantic Council. Similar to the preferred no
action alternative, these three other alternatives would have no
effects on the profits of small entities. The second alternative would
mainly entail additional administrative cost on the part of the South
Atlantic Council.
Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the management of mutton snapper. The first alternative
would remove the species from the Gulf Reef Fish FMP. The second
alternative would remove the species from the FMP, with eventual
management of the species being the responsibility of the South
Atlantic Council. The third alternative would add the species to a
joint plan with the South Atlantic Council. Similar to the preferred no
action alternative, these three other alternatives would have no direct
effects on the profits of small entities. The second alternative would
mainly entail additional administrative cost on the part of the South
Atlantic Council while the third alternative would entail additional
administrative costs on both Councils.
Five alternatives, of which two are the preferred alternatives,
were considered for removing stocks from the Reef Fish FMP. The first
alternative, the no action alternative, would not remove any species
from Gulf Reef Fish FMP. This alternative would have no direct effects
on the short-term profitability of small entities, but over time this
is more likely to result in profit reduction than the preferred
alternative when certain species with historically low landings become
subject to restrictive measures. The second alternative would remove
species with average landings of 100,000 lb (45,359 kg) or below from
the Reef Fish FMP, except for species that are long-lived, may be
misidentified as another species, or have trends in landings that may
indicate a change in status. This alternative would have no direct
short-term effects on profits of small entities, but with a relatively
high historical landings threshold certain species may not be well
protected for long-term sustainability. This alternative could then
eventually lead to lower harvest and lower profits to small entities
over time. The third alternative would remove species from the Reef
Fish FMP if Federal waters are at the edge of the species distribution.
This alternative would not directly affect the profitability of small
entities, and could possibly have similar long-term effects as the
preferred alternative.
[[Page 82050]]
Five alternatives, of which two with one sub-alternative are the
preferred alternatives, were considered for species groupings. The
first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the
current species groupings. This alternative would have no direct short-
term economic effects on small entities. The second alternative would
revise the species groupings by adding groupings when life history and
landings data may be too sparse to set individual catch limits.
Although this alternative would have no direct consequence on the
economic status of small entities, it would provide for a greater
number of groupings. The third alternative would use species groupings
based on NMFS analysis, which uses fishery-dependent data from multiple
sectors over multiple years, and life history data when available, to
create complexes and sub-complexes. This alternative would have no
direct effects on the economic status of small entities, but it would
provide for more groupings than the preferred alternative. In addition
to these alternatives, two other sub-alternatives were considered
regarding the selection of an indicator species within each grouping,
noting that the preferred sub-option is not to use any indicator
species. The first sub-option is to use as an indicator species the
most vulnerable stock in the group based on productivity-susceptibility
analysis. This sub-option would likely result in more restrictive
environment that would condition the implementation of ACLs and other
management measures. The second sub-option would use the assessed
species as an indicator species. This sub-option has similar effects as
the first sub-option but it would be relatively less constrictive.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the ABC control rule. The first alternative, the no
action alternative, would not specify an ABC control rule. This
alternative would have no immediate effects on the economic status of
small entities, but it may not comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
National Standard 1 guidelines, which require Councils to establish an
acceptable ABC control rule. The second alternative would adopt an ABC
control rule fixing the buffer between the overfishing limit and ABC at
a level such that ABC is equal to 75 percent of the overfishing limit
or ABC is equal to the yield at 75 percent of FMSY (fishing
mortality at maximum sustainable yield). Although this alternative is
simpler than the preferred alternative, it lacks the stock specificity
contained in the preferred alternative.
Five alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the ACL/ACT control rule. The first alternative, the no
action alternative, would not establish an ACL/ACT control rule. The
second alternative would establish an initial estimate of ACL/ACT based
upon a flow chart method that reviews data availability, data
timeliness, and data quality to develop the ACT buffer percentage, and
followed by a review by the Council's Socioeconomic Panel. This
alternative would have economic effects similar to the preferred
alternative, but it would produce a less conservative buffer when
comparing stock complexes or stocks with high dead discard levels.
Therefore, this alternative may result in less adverse economic impacts
in the short-term than the preferred alternative. The third alternative
would set the buffer between ACL and ACT at a fixed percentage: 25
percent for all sectors; 0 percent for IFQ fisheries and 25 percent for
all other sectors; or 2 percent for IFQ fisheries and 25 percent for
all other sectors, and will be followed by a review by the Council's
Socioeconomic Panel. This alternative may result in lower economic
benefits than the preferred alternative, because it would establish
control rules that may not take account of stock specificity. The
fourth alternative would set the buffer between ACL and ACT at a fixed
percentage of 0 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, or 25 percent,
followed by a review by the Council's Socioeconomic Panel. This
alternative has about the same economic implications as the third
alternative, except possibly when dealing with IFQ species, so that it
would also tend to provide lower economic benefits than the preferred
alternative.
Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the generic framework procedures. The first alternative,
the no action alternative, would retain the current framework
procedures for implementing management measures. The second alternative
would add modifications that would make the framework procedures
broader than the preferred alternative while the third alternative
would make the framework procedures narrower than the preferred
alternative. Similar to the preferred alternative, these three other
alternatives would have no direct economic effects on small entities.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for specifying ACL for royal red shrimp. The first
alternative, the no action alternative, would not set an ACL for the
species. This alternative is the least likely to affect the profits of
small entities, but it would not meet the legal requirements for
establishing an ACL by 2011. The second alternative would set an ACL
for the species based on average landings from 1962-2008 (141,379 lb
(64,128 kg) of tails), from the last 5 years (191,860 lb (87,026 kg) of
tails), or from the last 10 years (233,182 lb (105,770 kg) of tails).
This alternative would likely result in a harvest reduction and profit
reduction as well, except when the ACL is set at the highest of the
three sub-options. Other sub-options would set the ACL equal to 75
percent of ABC (250,500 lb (113,625 kg)) or set the ACL corresponding
to the ACL/ACT control rule. These sub-options would be unlikely to
result in short-term profit reductions, although they are more
restrictive than the preferred alternative/sub-alternative, because
these sub-options would provide for ACLs that are much higher than
historical landings.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for establishing the Gulf portion of the jurisdictional
apportionment of the black grouper ABC, as agreed upon by both
councils. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not
apportion the species ABC between the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils.
This alternative would tend to maintain the distribution of landings
and potentially the economic benefits between the Gulf and South
Atlantic fishing fleets. The second alternative would evenly apportion
the species' ABC between the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils. The
effects of this alternative on small entities would be lower profits
than the preferred alternative.
Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for establishing the Gulf portion of the jurisdictional
apportionment of the yellowtail snapper ABC, as agreed upon by both
councils. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not
apportion the species ABC between the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils.
This alternative would tend to maintain the distribution of landings
and potentially the economic benefits between the Gulf and South
Atlantic fishing fleets. The second alternative would apportion 73
percent of the species ABC to the South Atlantic Council and 27 percent
to the Gulf Council. This alternative would potentially yield higher
profits to the Gulf fishing fleet than the preferred alternative, but
the difference in the profit outcome of the two alternatives would be
relatively small. The third alternative would apportion 77 percent to
the South Atlantic Council and 23 percent to the Gulf Council. This
[[Page 82051]]
alternative would result in lower profits to the Gulf fishing fleet
than the preferred alternative, although the difference in profit
outcome between the two alternatives would be relatively small.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for establishing the Gulf portion of the jurisdictional
apportionment of the mutton snapper ABC, as agreed upon by both
councils. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not
apportion the species ABC between the Gulf and South Atlantic Councils.
This alternative would tend to maintain the distribution of landings
and potentially economic benefits between the Gulf and South Atlantic
fishing fleets. The second alternative would apportion 79 percent of
the species' ABC to the South Atlantic Council and 21 percent to the
Gulf Council. This alternative would result in lower profits to Gulf
fishing fleet than the preferred alternative, although the difference
in profit outcome between the two alternatives would be relatively
small.
Four alternatives, including the preferred alternative, were
considered for the sector allocation of black grouper. The first
alternative, the no action alternative, would not establish sector
allocation of the species. This alternative would tend to maintain the
distribution of landings and potentially economic benefits between the
commercial and recreational sectors. The second alternative would
allocate 18 percent of the species' ACL to the recreational sector and
82 percent to the commercial sector. This alternative would result in
higher profit increases to the commercial sector than the preferred
alternative. However, it would also result in lower profits for the
for-hire fleet. The net effects of this alternative cannot be estimated
with available information. The third alternative would allocate 24
percent of the species ACL to the recreational sector and 76 percent to
the commercial sector. This alternative would provide slightly higher
profitability to the commercial sector and lower profitability to the
for-hire sector than the preferred alternative. The net effects of this
alternative cannot be estimated with available information.
Three alternatives, including the preferred alternative, and two
sub-options, one of which is the preferred sub-option, were considered
for specifying ACLs/ACTs for reef fish stocks and stock groupings. The
first alternative, the no action alternative, would not set an annual
ACL/ACT for stocks or stock groups, but this would not meet the legal
requirements for establishing an ACL by 2011. The second alternative
would set a 10 percent buffer between the ABC and ACL or between the
ACL and ACT if ACL is equal to ABC. This alternative would likely
result in lower profits to small entities than the preferred
alternative. The second sub-option would set the ABC equal to the value
specified in the ACL/ACT control rule, with the ACT not being used
unless specified otherwise by the Council. This alternative would
likely result in profits to small entities that would be equal to or
less than those of the preferred alternative.
Four alternatives, of which two are the preferred alternatives, and
five sub-options, of which two are the preferred sub-options, were
considered for AMs. The first alternative, the no action alternative,
would not create new AMs for reef fish and royal red shrimp. This
alternative would likely result in higher profits for small entities
than the preferred alternative, but it would not be consistent with the
legal requirement that NMFS establish AMs for stocks managed by the
Council. The second alternative would implement only post-season AMs
for stocks and sectors that do not currently have AMs, should the ACL
for a year be exceeded. This alternative would likely result in larger
profit reductions in the short-term than the preferred alternative due
to possibly more restrictive corrective actions being implemented to
address ACL overages. The first sub-option would set the trigger for
post-season AMs if the average landings for the past 3 years exceed the
ACL. This sub-option would likely result in lower short-term profit
reductions than the preferred alternative, although over time it would
result in larger profit reductions due to more restrictive actions to
remedy the overages. The second sub-option would set the trigger for
post-season AMs if average landings for the past 5 years, after
excluding the highest and lowest values, exceed the ACL. This
alternative would have nearly similar effects as the second
alternative. The third sub-option would provide for an overage
adjustment if the ACL for the stock or sector is exceeded and the stock
is under a rebuilding plan. The amount of adjustment would equal the
full amount of the overage, unless the best scientific information
shows a lesser amount is needed to mitigate the effects of exceeding
the ACL. This sub-option would result in larger profit reductions in
the short-term than the preferred alternative due to harvest reductions
that would be implemented to mitigate the overages.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: December 20, 2011.
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 amended
as follows:
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Sec. 622.1 [Amended]
0
2. In Sec. 622.1, paragraph (b), in Table 1, remove the row titled,
``FMP for Coral and Coral Reefs of the Gulf of Mexico''.
0
3. In Sec. 622.2, the definitions for ``deep-water grouper (DWG)'' and
``shallow-water grouper (SWG)'' are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.2 Definitions and acronyms.
* * * * *
Deep-water grouper (DWG) means, in the Gulf, yellowedge grouper,
warsaw grouper, snowy grouper, and speckled hind. In addition, for the
purposes of the IFQ program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes in Sec.
622.20, scamp are also included as DWG as specified in Sec.
622.20(a)(7).
* * * * *
Shallow-water grouper (SWG) means, in the Gulf, gag, red grouper,
black grouper, scamp, yellowfin grouper, and yellowmouth grouper. In
addition, for the purposes of the IFQ program for Gulf groupers and
tilefishes in Sec. 622.20, speckled hind and warsaw grouper are also
included as SWG as specified in Sec. 622.20(a)(6).
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 622.3, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.3 Relation to other laws and regulations.
* * * * *
(c) For allowable octocoral, if a state has a catch, landing, or
gear regulation that is more restrictive than a catch, landing, or gear
regulation in this part, a person landing in such state allowable
octocoral taken from the South Atlantic EEZ must comply with the more
restrictive state regulation.
* * * * *
[[Page 82052]]
0
5. In Sec. 622.4, the first sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ix) and
paragraph (a)(3)(ii) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.4 Permits and fees.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) Gulf IFQ vessel accounts. For a person aboard a vessel, for
which a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued, to
fish for, possess, or land Gulf red snapper or Gulf groupers (including
DWG and SWG, as specified in Sec. 622.20(a)) or tilefishes (including
goldface tilefish, blueline tilefish, and tilefish), regardless of
where harvested or possessed, a Gulf IFQ vessel account for the
applicable species or species groups must have been established. * * *
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Allowable octocoral. For an individual to take or possess
allowable octocoral in the South Atlantic EEZ, other than allowable
octocoral that is landed in Florida, a Federal allowable octocoral
permit must have been issued to the individual. Such permit must be
available for inspection when the permitted activity is being conducted
and when allowable octocoral is possessed, through landing ashore.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 622.20, the first three sentences in paragraph (a) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.20 Individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for Gulf groupers
and tilefishes.
(a) General. This section establishes an IFQ program for the
commercial components of the Gulf reef fish fishery for groupers
(including DWG, red grouper, gag, and other SWG) and tilefishes
(including goldface tilefish, blueline tilefish, and tilefish). For the
purposes of this IFQ program, DWG includes yellowedge grouper, warsaw
grouper, snowy grouper, speckled hind, and scamp, but only as specified
in paragraph (a)(7) of this section. For the purposes of this IFQ
program, other SWG includes black grouper, scamp, yellowfin grouper,
yellowmouth grouper, warsaw grouper, and speckled hind, but only as
specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this section. * * *
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 622.31, paragraphs (f) and (n) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods.
* * * * *
(f) Power-assisted tools. A power-assisted tool may not be used in
the Caribbean EEZ to take a Caribbean coral reef resource, in the Gulf
EEZ to take prohibited coral or live rock, or in the South Atlantic EEZ
to take allowable octocoral, prohibited coral, or live rock.
* * * * *
(n) Gulf reef fish may not be used as bait in any fishery, except
that, when purchased from a fish processor, the filleted carcasses and
offal of Gulf reef fish may be used as bait in trap fisheries for blue
crab, stone crab, deep-water crab, and spiny lobster.
0
8. In Sec. 622.32, the first sentence of paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.32 Prohibited and limited-harvest species.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Red drum may not be harvested or possessed in or from the
Gulf EEZ. * * *
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 622.34, the third sentence of paragraph (g)(1) is revised
to read as follows:
Sec. 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * * The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to hogfish.
* * * * *
0
10. In Sec. 622.37, paragraph (d)(1)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 622.37 Size limits.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Cubera, gray, and yellowtail snappers--12 inches (30.5 cm),
TL.
* * * * *
0
11. In Sec. 622.39, the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) and
paragraph (b)(1)(v) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.39 Bag and possession limits.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Groupers, combined, excluding goliath grouper--4 per person
per day, but not to exceed 1 speckled hind or 1 warsaw grouper per
vessel per day, or 2 gag per person per day. * * *
* * * * *
(v) Gulf reef fish, combined, excluding those specified in
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iv) and paragraphs (b)(1)(vi)
through (b)(1)(vii) of this section--20.
* * * * *
0
12. In Sec. 622.42, paragraph (a)(1)(ii), the introductory text for
paragraph (a)(1)(iii), paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A), paragraph (a)(1)(iv),
and paragraph (b) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.42 Quotas.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Deep-water groupers (DWG) have a combined quota, as specified
in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) through (E) of this section. These quotas
are specified in gutted weight, that is eviscerated, but otherwise
whole.
(A) For fishing year 2012--1.127 million lb (0.511 million kg).
(B) For fishing year 2013--1.118 million lb (0.507 million kg).
(C) For fishing year 2014--1.110 million lb (0.503 million kg).
(D) For fishing year 2015--1.101 million lb (0.499 million kg).
(E) For fishing year 2016 and subsequent fishing years--1.024
million lb (0.464 million kg).
(iii) Shallow-water groupers (SWG) have separate quotas for gag and
red grouper and a combined quota for other shallow-water grouper (SWG)
species (including black grouper, scamp, yellowfin grouper, and
yellowmouth grouper), as specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A) through
(C) of this section. These quotas are specified in gutted weight, that
is, eviscerated but otherwise whole.
(A) Other SWG combined. (1) For fishing year 2012--509,000 lb
(230,879 kg).
(2) For fishing year 2013--518,000 lb (234,961 kg).
(3) For fishing year 2014--523,000 lb (237,229 kg).
(4) For fishing year 2015 and subsequent fishing years--525,000 lb
(238,136 kg).
* * * * *
(iv) Tilefishes (including goldface tilefish, blueline tilefish,
and tilefish)--582,000 lb (263,991 kg), gutted weight, that is,
eviscerated but otherwise whole.
* * * * *
(b) South Atlantic allowable octocoral. The quota for all persons
who harvest allowable octocoral in the EEZ of the South Atlantic is
50,000 colonies. A colony is a continuous group of coral polyps forming
a single unit.
* * * * *
0
13. In Sec. 622.43, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.43 Closures.
(a) * * *
(2) South Atlantic allowable octocoral. Allowable octocoral may not
be harvested or possessed in the South Atlantic EEZ and the sale or
purchase of
[[Page 82053]]
allowable octocoral in or from the South Atlantic EEZ is prohibited.
* * * * *
0
14. In Sec. 622.48, paragraphs (d), (e), (i), and (j) are revised,
paragraphs (m), (n), and (o) are added and reserved, and paragraph (p)
is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.48 Adjustment of management measures.
* * * * *
(d) Gulf reef fish. For a species or species group: Reporting and
monitoring requirements, permitting requirements, bag and possession
limits (including a bag limit of zero), size limits, vessel trip
limits, closed seasons or areas and reopenings, annual catch limits
(ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), quotas (including a quota of
zero), accountability measures (AMs), MSY (or proxy), OY, TAC,
management parameters such as overfished and overfishing definitions,
gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition),
gear markings and identification, vessel markings and identification,
allowable biological catch (ABC) and ABC control rules, rebuilding
plans, sale and purchase restrictions, transfer at sea provisions, and
restrictions relative to conditions of harvested fish (maintaining fish
in whole condition, use as bait).
(e) Gulf royal red shrimp. Reporting and monitoring requirements,
permitting requirements, size limits, vessel trip limits, closed
seasons or areas and reopenings, annual catch limits (ACLs), annual
catch targets (ACTs), quotas (including a quota of zero),
accountability measures (AMs), MSY (or proxy), OY, TAC, management
parameters such as overfished and overfishing definitions, gear
restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition), gear
markings and identification, vessel markings and identification,
allowable biological catch (ABC) and ABC control rules, rebuilding
plans, sale and purchase restrictions, transfer at sea provisions, and
restrictions relative to conditions of harvested shrimp (maintaining
shrimp in whole condition, use as bait).
* * * * *
(i) Gulf shrimp. For a species or species group: Reporting and
monitoring requirements, permitting requirements, size limits, vessel
trip limits, closed seasons or areas and reopenings, annual catch
limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), quotas (including a quota
of zero), accountability measures (AMs), MSY (or proxy), OY, TAC,
management parameters such as overfished and overfishing definitions,
gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition),
gear markings and identification, vessel markings and identification,
allowable biological catch (ABC) and ABC control rules, rebuilding
plans, sale and purchase restrictions, transfer at sea provisions,
restrictions relative to conditions of harvested shrimp (maintaining
shrimp in whole condition, use as bait), target effort and fishing
mortality reduction levels, bycatch reduction criteria, BRD
certification and decertification criteria, BRD testing protocol,
certified BRDs, and BRD specification.
(j) Gulf red drum. Reporting and monitoring requirements,
permitting requirements, bag and possession limits (including a bag
limit of zero), size limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or
areas and reopenings, annual catch limits (ACLs), annual catch targets
(ACTs), quotas (including a quota of zero), accountability measures
(AMs), MSY (or proxy), OY, TAC, management parameters such as
overfished and overfishing definitions, gear restrictions (ranging from
regulation to complete prohibition), gear markings and identification,
vessel markings and identification, allowable biological catch (ABC)
and ABC control rules, rebuilding plans, sale and purchase
restrictions, transfer at sea provisions, and restrictions relative to
conditions of harvested fish (maintaining fish in whole condition, use
as bait).
* * * * *
(p) Gulf coral resources. For a species or species group: Reporting
and monitoring requirements, permitting requirements, bag and
possession limits (including a bag limit of zero), size limits, vessel
trip limits, closed seasons or areas and reopenings, annual catch
limits (ACLs), annual catch targets (ACTs), quotas (including a quota
of zero), accountability measures (AMs), MSY (or proxy), OY, TAC,
management parameters such as overfished and overfishing definitions,
gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition),
gear markings and identification, vessel markings and identification,
allowable biological catch (ABC) and ABC control rules, rebuilding
plans, sale and purchase restrictions, transfer at sea provisions, and
restrictions relative to conditions of harvested corals.
0
15. In Sec. 622.49, the section heading and paragraph (a)(3) are
revised, paragraphs (c) and (e), (f), (g), and (h) are added and
reserved, and paragraphs (a)(6) through (a)(16) and paragraph (d) are
added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.49 Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures
(AMs).
(a) * * *
(3) Other shallow-water grouper (SWG) combined (including black
grouper, scamp, yellowfin grouper, and yellowmouth grouper)--(i)
Commercial sector. The IFQ program for groupers and tilefishes in the
Gulf of Mexico serves as the accountability measure for other
commercial SWG. The commercial ACL for other SWG is equal to the
applicable quota specified in Sec. 622.42(a)(1)(iii)(A).
(ii) Recreational sector. If the sum of the commercial and
recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceeds the stock
complex ACL specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section, then
during the following fishing year, if the sum of the commercial and
recreational landings reaches or is projected to reach the applicable
ACL specified in (a)(3)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the
recreational sector for the remainder of that fishing year.
(iii) The stock complex ACLs for other SWG, in gutted weight, are
688,000 lb (312,072 kg) for 2012, 700,000 lb (317,515 kg) for 2013,
707,000 lb (320,690 kg) for 2014, and 710,000 lb (322,051 kg) for 2015
and subsequent years.
* * * * *
(6) Deep-water grouper (DWG) combined (including yellowedge
grouper, warsaw grouper, snowy grouper, and speckled hind)--
(i) Commercial sector. The IFQ program for groupers and tilefishes
in the Gulf of Mexico serves as the accountability measure for
commercial DWG. The commercial ACL for DWG is equal to the applicable
quota specified in Sec. 622.42(a)(1)(ii).
(ii) Recreational sector. If the sum of the commercial and
recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceeds the stock
complex ACL specified in paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of this section, then
during the following fishing year, if the sum of commercial and
recreational landings reaches or is projected to reach the applicable
ACL specified in (a)(6)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the
recreational sector for the remainder of that fishing year.
(iii) The stock complex ACLs for DWG, in gutted weight, are 1.216
million lb (0.552 million kg) for 2012, 1.207 million lb (0.547 million
kg) for 2013, 1.198 million lb (0.543 million kg) for 2014, 1.189
million lb (0.539 million
[[Page 82054]]
kg) for 2015, and 1.105 million lb (0.501 million kg) for 2016 and
subsequent years.
(7) Tilefishes combined (including goldface tilefish, blueline
tilefish, and tilefish)--(i) Commercial sector. The IFQ program for
groupers and tilefishes in the Gulf of Mexico serves as the
accountability measure for commercial tilefishes. The commercial ACL
for tilefishes is equal to the applicable quota specified in Sec.
622.42(a)(1)(iv).
(ii) Recreational sector. If the sum of the commercial and
recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceeds the stock
complex ACL specified in paragraph (a)(7)(iii) of this section, then
during the following fishing year, if the sum of commercial and
recreational landings reaches or is projected to reach the applicable
ACL specified in (a)(7)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the
recreational sector for the remainder of that fishing year.
(iii) The stock complex ACL for tilefishes is 608,000 lb (275,784
kg), gutted weight.
(8) Lesser amberjack, almaco jack, and banded rudderfish, combined.
If the sum of the commercial and recreational landings, as estimated by
the SRD, exceeds the stock complex ACL, then during the following
fishing year, if the sum of commercial and recreational landings
reaches or is projected to reach the stock complex 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. The stock complex ACL for lesser amberjack, almaco jack,
and banded rudderfish, is 312,000 lb (141,521 kg), round weight.
(9) Silk snapper, queen snapper, blackfin snapper, and wenchman,
combined. If the sum of the commercial and recreational landings, as
estimated by the SRD, exceeds the stock complex ACL, then during the
following fishing year, if the sum of commercial and recreational
landings reaches or is projected to reach the stock complex 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. The stock complex ACL for silk snapper, queen snapper,
blackfin snapper, and wenchman, is 166,000 lb (75,296 kg), round
weight.
(10) Vermilion snapper. If the sum of the commercial and
recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, 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 the fishing year. The stock ACL for
vermilion snapper is 3.42 million lb (1.55 million kg), round weight.
(11) Lane snapper. 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. The stock ACL for lane snapper is 301,000 lb (136,531
kg), round weight.
(12) Gray snapper. 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. The stock ACL for gray snapper is 2.42 million lb (1.10
million kg), round weight.
(13) Cubera snapper. 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. The stock ACL for cubera snapper is 5,065 lb (2,297 kg),
round weight.
(14) Yellowtail snapper. 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. The stock ACL for yellowtail snapper is 725,000 lb
(328,855 kg), round weight.
(15) Mutton snapper. 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. The stock ACL for mutton snapper is 203,000 lb (92,079
kg), round weight.
(16) Hogfish. 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. The stock ACL for hogfish is 208,000 lb (94,347 kg),
round weight.
* * * * *
(d) Royal red shrimp in the Gulf. (1) Commercial sector. If
commercial landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the commercial
ACL, then during the following fishing year, if commercial landings
reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL, the AA will file a
notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the
commercial sector for the remainder of that fishing year. The
commercial ACL for royal red shrimp is 334,000 lb (151,500 kg), tail
weight.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
16. In Appendix A to part 622, Table 3 is revised to read as
follows:
Appendix A to Part 622--Species Tables
* * * * *
Table 3 of Appendix A to Part 622--Gulf Reef Fish
Balistidae--Triggerfishes
Gray triggerfish, Balistes capriscus
Carangidae--Jacks
Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili
Lesser amberjack, Seriola fasciata
Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana
Banded rudderfish, Seriola zonata
Labridae--Wrasses
Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus
Lutjanidae--Snappers
Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus
Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis
Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella
Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus
Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus
Gray (mangrove) snapper, Lutjanus griseus
Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris
Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus
Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus
Wenchman, Pristipomoides aquilonaris
Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens
Malacanthidae--Tilefishes
Goldface tilefish, Caulolatilus chrysops
Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps
Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps
Serranidae--Groupers
Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi
Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus
Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara
[[Page 82055]]
Red grouper, Epinephelus morio
Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus
Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus
Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci
Yellowmouth grouper, Mycteroperca interstitialis
Gag, Mycteroperca microlepis
Scamp, Mycteroperca phenax
Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-33185 Filed 12-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P