[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 2, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35774-35779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-17229]
[[Page 35774]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 970523122-7122-01; I.D. 041897B]
RIN 0648-AH52
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 9
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed rule to implement Amendment 9 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
(FMP). Amendment 9 would require, with limited exceptions, the use of
certified bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) in shrimp trawls in the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Gulf of Mexico shoreward of the
100-fathom (fm) (183-m) depth contour west of 85 deg.30' W. long.; set
the bycatch reduction criterion for the certification of BRDs; and
establish an FMP framework procedure for modifying the bycatch
reduction criterion, for establishing and modifying the BRD testing
protocol and its specifications, and for certifying and decertifying
BRDs. The intended effects are to reduce the unwanted bycatch mortality
of juvenile red snapper and, to the extent practicable, not adversely
affect the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule must be sent to the Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg,
FL 33702. Requests for copies of Amendment 9, which includes a
regulatory impact review (RIR), an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA), a fishery impact statement, and a final supplemental
environmental impact statement (final SEIS) should be sent to the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North,
Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619-2266; Phone: 813-228-2815; Fax: 813-225-
7015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael E. Justen, 813-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented through
regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Background
The shrimp fishery is the most valuable commercial fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico. In 1995, roughly 5,000 large vessels and some 20,000
small boats harvested 219.8 million lb (99,700 mt) with an exvessel
value of $437.4 million. Shrimp species managed under the FMP are brown
shrimp, pink shrimp, rock shrimp, royal red shrimp, seabob shrimp, and
white shrimp. All except royal red shrimp are harvested in water depths
less than 100 fm (183 m). Royal red shrimp are not found in depths less
than 100 fm.
Shrimp trawls have a significant bycatch of non-target finfish and
invertebrates, most of which are discarded dead. Scientific survey
results indicate that the ratio of the weight of finfish bycatch to
that of shrimp caught is about 4.2 to 1.
Bycatch may result in the reduction of species diversity within a
marine ecosystem, adversely impact other fauna, and significantly
reduce the yield in other fisheries that are directed at adults of the
discarded species. Important fish species in the shrimp fishery bycatch
include juveniles of red snapper, king and Spanish mackerel, and
sharks. If left to mature and grow, these juvenile fish possibly could
be harvested later and produce a significantly higher yield in weight
as well as enhancing the reproductive capacity of their stocks.
Recent concerns over the shrimp fishery bycatch in the Gulf of
Mexico have focused on the high mortality of juvenile (age 0 and age 1)
red snapper, a valuable reef fish species for commercial and
recreational fisheries. In 1991, NMFS began participation in a
cooperative research program on the magnitude, composition, and impacts
of the shrimp fishery bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic
and on technological approaches for reducing this bycatch. The shrimp
and finfish industries, states, universities, and NMFS have been major
partners in this cooperative research effort. To date, this research
program has involved expenditures of more than $10 million.
Based on research results, the Council developed Amendment 9 to
reduce the unwanted bycatch of juvenile red snapper while, to the
extent practicable, minimizing adverse effects on the shrimp fishery.
The red snapper stock of the Gulf of Mexico is overfished. Even if the
directed fisheries for adult red snapper were eliminated, the bycatch
of juvenile red snapper in shrimp trawls would still need to be reduced
significantly for the adult spawning stock to recover. Under the
Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of
Mexico, the red snapper stock is subject to a long-term rebuilding
program with the objective of reaching a 20 percent spawning potential
ratio (SPR) by the year 2019, at which point the stock would no longer
be considered overfished.
Management Measures in Amendment 9
The critical management measure would require installation of NMFS-
certified BRDs in shrimp trawls towed in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ
shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour west of 85 deg.30' W.
long., the approximate longitude of Cape San Blas, FL. To be certified,
these BRDs must reduce the bycatch mortality of juvenile red snapper by
a minimum of 44 percent from the average level of mortality on these
age groups during the years 1984-89. Specifically, on board a shrimp
trawler, each trawl net that is rigged for fishing, and each try net
that is rigged for fishing and has a headrope length greater than 16.0
ft (4.9 m), would be required to have a certified BRD installed. BRD
designs that have passed the operational testing phase of the NMFS
cooperative bycatch research program (i.e., the fisheye BRD and the
Andrews turtle excluder device (TED)) would be certified for use in the
EEZ where BRDs are required.
The fisheye BRD is a cone-shaped rigid frame constructed from
aluminum or steel that is inserted into the top center of the codend to
form an escape opening facing the mouth of the trawl.
The Andrews TED is an approved soft TED made of webbing that is
designed to exclude marine turtles from shrimp trawls. This TED also
meets the bycatch reduction criterion for juvenile red snapper and is
considered as a potentially certifiable BRD upon implementation of
Amendment 9, if not prohibited from use as a TED by other applicable
Federal law or regulation. On December 19, 1996, NMFS issued a final
rule (61 FR 66933) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that
decertified the Andrews TED effective March 1, 1997, in the specified
conservation area (i.e., 0-10 nautical miles offshore west of the
Mississippi River) and, effective December 19, 1997, throughout the
Gulf. New tests indicated that this TED does not meet the requirements
for excluding turtles. That final rule would remove the
[[Page 35775]]
Andrews TED from the list of NMFS-approved TEDs unless improvements or
modifications are made to the design, so that it will exclude turtles
effectively. Thus, the Andrews TED would be a certified BRD upon
implementation of Amendment 9 only during a time when, and in a
geographical area where, it is an approved TED, as specified in the
applicable ESA regulations (i.e., at 50 CFR 227.72(e)(4)(iii)).
Amendment 9 would exclude from the requirement for use of BRDs: (1)
Vessels trawling for royal red shrimp beyond the 100-fm (183-m) depth
contour or trawling for butterfish or groundfish; (2) a single try net
with a headrope of 16 ft (4.9 m) or less on each vessel; and (3)
vessels trawling for shrimp with no more than two rigid-frame roller
trawls limited to 16 ft (4.9 m) or less, such as those used in the Big
Bend area of Florida. The rationale for excluding vessels fishing for
royal red shrimp is that red snapper rarely occur in areas where royal
red shrimp are caught. Vessels trawling for butterfish would be
excluded because, based on observer information, such vessels have a
minimal bycatch of red snapper and only two or three vessels are in the
fishery. Vessels trawling for groundfish would be excluded because
these vessels have a minimal bycatch of red snapper compared to shrimp
trawlers. In the butterfish and groundfish fisheries, the mesh sizes
and deployments of trawls make it highly unlikely that a vessel would
have on-board or landed catch of shrimp in excess of 1 percent, by
weight. Therefore, the codified text of this proposed rule contains no
explicit exemption from the requirement for the use of a BRD by a
vessel trawling for butterfish or groundfish--such vessel, by
definition, would not be a ``shrimp trawler'' required to have a BRD in
each net. Vessels trawling for shrimp with rigid-frame roller trawls
would be excluded because such vessels operate in shallow waters where
red snapper are not found in significant numbers.
Framework Measures in Amendment 9
The purpose of the framework measures is to provide a flexible
management system to minimize regulatory delays while maintaining
substantial Council and public input into management decisions. With
these procedures in place, management can rapidly adapt to changes in
the abundance of red snapper, new scientific information, and changes
in fishing practices, such as seasonal variations in fishing patterns,
areas, and effort. In addition, BRD certification/decertification via
the framework procedure may be expedited to react to changes in the
certification criterion and to the testing of new or modified BRDs.
If Amendment 9 is approved, the following procedures would be
followed under the framework measures that are contained in Amendment 9
but are not part of the proposed rule.
Modification of the Bycatch Reduction Criterion
The Council would evaluate the need for changes to the bycatch
reduction criterion for red snapper and recommend needed changes to the
Regional Administrator, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS (Regional
Administrator). Such changes would be accomplished through regulatory
amendments (which would modify the final rule implementing Amendment 9
through notice-and-comment rulemaking). If the Council determines that
bycatch reduction criteria are needed for other finfish species, those
criteria would be established by FMP amendments.
The Council would establish a Special BRD Advisory Panel (SBAP)
made up of scientists, engineers, fishermen, environmentalists, and
others with knowledge of BRDs and their ability to reduce bycatch of
juvenile red snapper. The SBAP would advise the Council on the need
for, and recommendations regarding, modifications to the bycatch
reduction criterion for red snapper. Prior to recommending such
changes, the Council would also consult its shrimp and reef fish
committees, as appropriate.
In addressing changes to bycatch reduction criterion for juvenile
red snapper, the Council would consider the status of red snapper
stocks as reflected in stock assessments, the impacts of shrimp trawl
bycatch, and the impacts of the directed fishery for red snapper on the
stock. The Council would also consider factors related to the shrimp
fishery such as changes in fishing effort, the effects of state and
Federal management efforts on bycatch, changes in TED gear or rules
that may affect bycatch, closed areas, closed seasons and/or seasonal
usage of BRDs, and limitations on the types and sizes of trawl gear.
The Council would consider environmental and ecological effects, social
and economic factors in the commercial and recreational fisheries for
both red snapper and shrimp, and other relevant data. Modifications to
the bycatch reduction criterion would be based on the best available
scientific information and must be achievable through available, or
soon to be available, technology. Public comments would be received
prior to changes, and public testimony would be obtained at the meeting
at which the Council considers changing the criteria.
The bycatch reduction criterion would be specified in terms of a
percentage reduction in bycatch mortality of juvenile red snapper (age
0 and age 1) from the average level of mortality on those age groups
during the years 1984-89. The criterion may be further qualified
according to seasons and geographic areas.
If changes are needed to the bycatch reduction criterion for
juvenile red snapper, the Council would send a regulatory amendment to
the Regional Administrator that details its recommendations along with
any relevant reports and public comments. The Regional Administrator
would review the Council's recommendations, all scientific reports, and
comments of the SBAP and other Council committees. If it is determined
that the recommendations are consistent with the objectives of the FMP,
the provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law,
the Regional Administrator would draft proposed regulations
implementing the changes to the bycatch reduction criterion for
publication in the Federal Register. A comment period of not less than
15 days would be provided on the proposed rule.
If the Regional Administrator rejects the recommended changes of
the Council, the Regional Administrator would notify the Council and
provide written reasons for rejection along with recommendations for
revisions. In the event of rejection, the existing criterion for
bycatch reduction of red snapper would remain in effect until changes
are approved and implemented.
Establishment and Modification of BRD Certification/Decertification
Criteria and the BRD Testing Protocol
The criterion for the certification of a BRD would be that the BRD
can consistently meet or exceed the established bycatch reduction
criterion through the testing protocol established by the Regional
Administrator. This BRD certification criterion may be modified through
implementation of a regulatory amendment concurrent and consistent with
changes to the bycatch reduction criterion.
The Council has not established criteria for shrimp loss from BRDs;
however, shrimp loss data should accompany any application for
certification of a BRD to allow evaluation of shrimp loss while
satisfying bycatch reduction requirements. In addition, the applicant
should provide information on cost and
[[Page 35776]]
operational considerations (e.g., ease of handling and any special
operating tactics such as hauling back while towing away from high seas
to minimize shrimp loss).
The BRD testing protocol would include the testing parameters and
statistical guidelines to be followed in evaluating the effectiveness
of BRD designs in meeting the established bycatch reduction criterion.
The basic testing procedure would include an accurate and detailed
written description and diagram of the gear used, including the types
and rigging of trawls, BRDs, and TEDs. Also, the BRD must be rotated
between outside and inside nets from side to side to reduce net bias.
Modification of gear during testing constitutes the beginning of a new
test.
All testing would be done under the supervision of qualified
scientists or other technical personnel approved by the Regional
Administrator to ensure that the protocol is followed and to help
prevent the need for additional evaluation. Testing would be
accomplished by comparison of a net with an experimental BRD and
approved TED to a net with only the same type of TED. Testing will
involve at least the minimum number of tows specified by the protocol.
Testing would be done in areas where juvenile red snapper are present.
The Regional Administrator would develop the testing protocol for
certifying new BRDs. This testing protocol would include specifications
and guidelines regarding various testing parameters. Prior to
implementation of the testing protocol, the Regional Administrator
would provide copies of the protocol to the Council and provide a
reasonable period for the Council's review and comment. In reviewing
the testing protocol, the Council may consult appropriate committees
and advisory panels for recommendations. The Council would advise the
RA in writing of any recommendations regarding the testing protocol,
including its guidelines and parameters, and provide any relevant
reports and comments. The RA would review the Council's recommendations
along with other comments and reports. The BRD testing protocol would
be published in the Federal Register.
The following are testing parameters and guidelines that would be
included in the testing protocol. There may be other parameters that
would be required to be examined in evaluating BRD performance. The RA
would determine if the researcher has complied with these testing
parameters as specified in the protocol including: Valuation and
oversight personnel, sample size, experimental design, season and area
of testing, time of day, required measurements, length of tows,
descriptions of devices in nets, shrimp loss, and any other relevant
parameters.
For each new BRD proposed for certification, the applicant would be
required to submit an application to the Regional Administrator along
with a complete report on the BRD testing. This report would be
required to contain a comprehensive description of the tests, including
a summary of all data collected together with copies or listings of all
data collected during the certification trials, and analyses of the
data that demonstrate compliance with the testing protocol and the
ability of the BRD to meet or exceed the bycatch reduction criterion.
An applicant would be required to provide photographs, drawings, and
similar material describing the BRDs. In addition, any unique or
special circumstances of the tests should be described.
The Regional Administrator would determine if a BRD meets or
exceeds the bycatch reduction criterion and whether the required
reports and supporting materials are complete. The Regional
Administrator would also determine whether the testing protocol was
followed. If the applicant complies with the testing protocol and the
BRD meets or exceeds the current bycatch reduction criterion, the
Regional Administrator would certify the BRD (with any appropriate
conditions as indicated by test results) and announce the certification
in the Federal Register, amending the list of certified BRDs.
The Regional Administrator would advise the applicant, in writing,
if a BRD is not certified. This notification would explain why the BRD
was not certified and what the applicant may do to modify the BRD or
the testing procedures to improve the chances of having the BRD
certified in the future. If certification were denied because of
insufficient information, the applicant would have 60 days from receipt
of such notification to provide the additional information; afterwards,
the applicant would have to re-apply. If the Regional Administrator
subsequently certifies the BRD, the Regional Administrator would
announce the certification in the Federal Register, amending the list
of certified BRDs.
The Regional Administrator would decertify a BRD whenever it is
determined that the BRD does not satisfy the bycatch reduction
criterion. Before any proposed action would be taken to decertify a
BRD, the Council and public would be advised and provided an
opportunity to comment on the advisability of the proposed
decertification. The Regional Administrator would consider any comments
from the Council, and if the Regional Administrator elects to decertify
the BRD, it would be accomplished through publication of proposed and
final rules in the Federal Register with a comment period of not less
than 15 days.
The Regional Administrator would, if necessary, modify the BRD
testing protocol to more appropriately evaluate BRDs to determine if
they meet the bycatch reduction criterion as established or modified by
the Council. If the Regional Administrator determines that changes to
the testing protocol are needed, the Regional Administrator would
follow the same basic process as for initial implementation (i.e.,
consultation with the Council and regulatory amendment).
One-Year Delayed Effectiveness Period
In a letter dated March 26, 1997, based on the Council's motions
passed at its meeting of March 10-13, 1997, the Council Chairman
requested NMFS to:
1) Implement Amendment 9 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan
with an effective date of one year from its approval date
(approximately August 1, 1998).
2) Develop and implement a transition plan including, but not
limited to the following elements:
A. Outreach to encourage the industry to experiment with
existing and new BRDs to develop as many acceptable models as
possible, and any BRD other than a hard TED will be acceptable
during the transition period;
B. Technology transfer to provide training and assistance to
the industry in the use of BRDs; and
C. Educational assistance to provide the industry with
knowledge to obtain the maximum benefit of newly developed devices.
3) Freeze the existing total allowable catch (TAC) for red
snapper until the effective implementation date of Amendment 9.
In a letter dated April 8, 1997, to the Council, the Regional
Administrator advised that NMFS could not grant its request for delayed
implementation of Amendment 9 because the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires
NMFS to implement approved fishery management plans and amendments
without delay, and that a 1-year delay in implementation would be
inconsistent with the administrative record supporting Amendment 9. In
a letter dated April 10, 1997, to the Regional Administrator, the
Council Chairman indicated: ``In regard to your letter of April 8
regarding Shrimp Amendment 9, I do not think it was ever the Council's
intent that the secretarial
[[Page 35777]]
review process for approval and implementation be halted or slowed.''
He further indicated: ``My reading of the Council intent was as soon as
the rules were approved that the requirement for bycatch reduction
devices (BRDs) be modified to allow the use of noncertified BRDs as
well as certified BRDs for a one-year period. This would allow testing
by the industry of other BRD designs, hopefully resulting in designs
that could be certified during that period. Also during that period we
had hoped that National Marine Fisheries Service and National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration personnel (including Sea Grant) would
provide assistance to the industry in evaluating and `tuning' that
gear.''
NMFS has initiated Secretarial review of Amendment 9 and has
announced the availability of Amendment 9 for public review and
comment. NMFS is proceeding with publication of this proposed rule for
public comment. As indicated above, Amendment 9 measures approved by
NMFS must be implemented without delay. If approved, the measure
requiring all affected shrimp fishermen to use NMFS-certified BRDs
would become effective in accordance with the Administrative Procedure
Act. Amendment 9 does not provide for the use of non-certified BRDs. If
the Council wants to allow the use of non-certified BRDs for whatever
period, it would have to amend the FMP and submit such amendment to
NMFS for review, approval, and implementation.
Availability of and Comments on Amendment 9
Additional background and rationale for the measures discussed
above are contained in Amendment 9, the availability of which was
announced in the Federal Register on April 29, 1997 (62 FR 23211).
Written comments on Amendment 9 must be received by June 30, 1997.
Comments that are received by NMFS by June 30, 1997, whether
specifically directed to Amendment 9 or the proposed rule, will be
considered by NMFS in its decision to approve, disapprove, or partially
approve Amendment 9. Comments received after that date will not be
considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received on Amendment
9 or on this proposed rule during their respective comment periods will
be addressed in the final rule.
Classification
At this time, NMFS has not made a final determination that the
provisions of Amendment 9 are consistent with the national standards,
other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable
laws. In making that final determination, NMFS will take into account
the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Council prepared a final SEIS for Amendment 9 that was filed
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for public review and
comment; a notice of its availability was published by the EPA in the
Federal Register (June 6, 1997, 62 FR 31098). The public comment period
will end July 7, 1997. The final SEIS assesses the impacts on the human
environment of both the Gulf shrimp fishery and the Council's proposed
and alternative management measures for reducing shrimp fishery
bycatch.
According to the final SEIS, the bycatch reduction measures of
Amendment 9 (i.e., the installation of certified BRDs in shrimp
trawls): (1) Would reduce the bycatch mortality of juvenile red snapper
by 44 percent, an amount necessary for rebuilding the red snapper stock
to a healthy level by 2019; (2) would reduce red snapper bycatch in
geographic areas where red snapper are concentrated; (3) would reduce
the bycatch of other finfish in the area where BRDs are required (i.e.,
in the Gulf EEZ within the 100-fathom (183-m) contour west of Cape San
Blas, FL); no finfish bycatch reduction is expected for most of
Florida's west coast; (4) may result in a loss of shrimp harvested; the
amount of this loss will depend on the type of BRD used and the
operation of the trawl and vessel; (5) would still result in some
reduced level of incidental take of finfish in shrimp trawls because
BRDs are not 100 percent effective; and (6) would not affect shrimp
fishery incidental catch in state controlled waters unless the states
adopt similar BRD regulations or unless some level of voluntary use of
BRDs would occur in these areas.
The best available stock assessment model indicates that the red
snapper stock will rebound with a substantial reduction in the bycatch
mortality of the juveniles, but the ecological consequences of reducing
the bycatch mortality of other fishes and invertebrates, particularly
those that have little commercial value due to size or marketability,
are not fully understood. Based on the results of ecological modeling,
the mandated use of BRDs could have a negative effect on the biomass of
shrimp stocks (i.e., between a 5.9 and 8.2 percent reduction in shrimp
biomass resulting primarily from increased populations of bottom fish
predators); three of four models considered showed shrimp biomass
reductions resulting from increased finfish predation--one model
indicated the potential for a small increase in shrimp biomass. Shrimp
fishermen will be adversely affected to the extent that their catch is
reduced through the loss of shrimp from BRDs as well as any resultant
loss of catch from potential reductions in the total shrimp biomass.
Conversely, both recreational and commercial red snapper fishermen
should benefit from the predicted recovery of the red snapper stock.
Fishermen who target other highly sought-after species that are also
taken in the shrimp fishery bycatch (e.g., king and Spanish mackerel)
also should benefit to the extent that populations of these species
increase. The effects of the shrimp fishery on the red snapper stock
have heretofore been adverse because of the bycatch mortality of
juveniles; the effects of this fishery on other finfish populations
have probably been adverse but the exact biological impacts are unknown
or not well understood.
The overall effects of the proposed BRD measures will be positive
for the red snapper stock and probably positive for the other finfish
stocks affected by shrimp fishery bycatch (the probable effects on
these other species is not well understood). Although the overall
effects of the bycatch reduction measures may be positive for finfish,
they may have negative effects in terms of a reduced biomass of shrimp
because of increased finfish predation and reduced nutrient recycling.
Whether this will result in a corresponding reduction in shrimp harvest
is unknown at this time. Firm conclusions about impacts of BRDs on
shrimp catches are difficult given an approximate 12 percent
variability in annual Gulf shrimp landings over the last five years.
Because of these uncertainties, it is difficult to predict the effects
of BRDs on shrimp fishery participants or fishing communities resulting
from changes in the biomass of shrimp stocks or the level of shrimp
landings.
The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(IRFA) based on the RIR that describes the impacts this proposed rule,
if adopted, would have on small entities. Based on the IRFA, NMFS has
concluded that Amendment 9, if approved and implemented through final
regulations, would have significant economic impacts on a substantial
number of small entities. A summary of the IRFA's assessment of the
significant impacts on small entities follows.
Amendment 9 will affect most of the roughly 5,000 shrimp vessels
that
[[Page 35778]]
operate in the Gulf, because the vast majority of such vessels operate
in the EEZ for at least part of the year. It will also affect a
substantial, but unknown, number of shrimp boats that are smaller than
the typical offshore shrimp vessel (smaller craft that do not require
U.S. Coast Guard documentation) but operate in the EEZ during periods
of favorable weather when harvestable shrimp populations are found in
the near-shore portion of the EEZ. All of the vessels and boats that
would be affected by Amendment 9 are considered small business entities
for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, because their
individual annual gross revenues are less than $3 million. The small
entities that would be affected by Amendment 9 generate annual gross
revenues ranging from almost nil to about $200,000, while incurring
annual operating costs ranging from $8,000 to $98,000.
The shrimp loss from using BRDs would cause at least a 5-percent
reduction in gross revenues for a large, but unknown, number of shrimp
vessels. The owners of affected shrimp fishing vessels and boats will
have to purchase and use certified BRDs, each costing between $50 and
$200; vessels and boats may fish with between one and five nets. In
addition, affected small entities would incur annual increases in
operating costs ranging from 0.2 to 10 percent; these costs generally
would be less than 5 percent. The IRFA indicates that, depending on the
type of certified BRD shrimpers choose, between 10 and 513 full-time
shrimp vessels (i.e., between 0.3 and 16.6 percent of the fleet size of
these vessels) would leave the shrimp fishery because of the effects of
the BRD requirements.
The subject proposed rule to implement Amendment 9 would not
establish any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements. However, the
BRD testing protocol required by Amendment 9 will be published under a
separate and subsequent proposed rule and will include two new
collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (see discussion below regarding Paperwork Reduction Act).
The impacts of these information collections on small entities will be
discussed in the subsequent rulemaking.
Regarding other Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule, if Amendment 9 is approved and implemented, the
Andrews TED would be a NMFS-certified BRD only for that period of time
and for that geographic area for which it will still be a NMFS-
certified TED (see discussion above regarding the Andrews TED in
relation to Amendment 9 and the ESA). After that period of time or
outside of that area, the Andrews TED would not be a NMFS-certified
BRD.
Several alternatives to the proposed measures of Amendment 9 were
considered by the Council. The status quo, which would have no negative
economic effects on the shrimp trawling industry, was rejected because
the critical bycatch reduction objective cannot be met without some
action to reduce the shrimp fishery bycatch of red snapper. The
alternative of closing the shrimp season for a portion of the year was
rejected because this would not likely result in a large enough
reduction of red snapper bycatch and because the negative impacts on
the shrimp industry would be significant. The alternative of meeting
the bycatch reduction objective through permanently closing some shrimp
trawling areas where juvenile red snapper are concentrated was rejected
because the projected economic losses to the shrimp industry were
greater than the preferred alternative. The proposed rule does provide
for certain exemptions from the BRD requirements (e.g., exemptions for
gear and fishing operations in certain depth and geographic zones where
juvenile red snapper are not abundant) to reduce negative economic
impacts on shrimp fishermen while still meeting the bycatch reduction
objectives. A copy of the IRFA is available from the Council (see
ADDRESSES).
This rule would not establish any new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. As discussed above, the BRD testing protocol is expected
to include two new collection-of-information requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act. These two requirements are the
notification of NMFS prior to conducting BRD certification tests and
the submission of test results with the application for certification.
The estimated burden hours (i.e., response times for these
requirements) for these requirements have not been determined. When
determined, these new collection-of-information requirements will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. These
requirements and their response times/burden hours will be part of
another proposed rule containing the BRD testing protocol to be
published by NMFS subsequently in the Federal Register with an
opportunity for public comment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Virgin Islands.
Dated: June 25, 1997.
David L. Evans,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 622.2, a definition for ``Shrimp trawler'' is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 622.2 Definitions and acronyms.
* * * * *
Shrimp trawler means any vessel that is equipped with one or more
trawl nets whose on-board or landed catch of shrimp is more than 1
percent, by weight, of all fish comprising its on-board or landed
catch.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 622.41, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.41 Species specific limitations.
* * * * *
(h) Shrimp in the Gulf--(1) BRD requirement. (i) Except as exempted
in paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) through (iv) of this section, on a shrimp
trawler in the Gulf EEZ shoreward of the 100-fathom (183-m) depth
contour west of 85 deg.30' W. long., each net that is rigged for
fishing must have a certified BRD installed. A trawl net is rigged for
fishing if it is in the water, or if it is shackled, tied, or otherwise
connected to a sled, door, or other device that spreads the net, or to
a tow rope, cable, pole, or extension, either on board or attached to a
shrimp trawler.
(ii) A shrimp trawler is exempt from the requirement to have a
certified BRD installed in each net provided that at least 90 percent
(by weight) of all shrimp on board or offloaded from such trawler is
royal red shrimp.
(iii) A single try net with a headrope length of 16 ft (4.9 m) or
less used by a shrimp trawler is exempt from the requirement to have a
BRD installed provided it is either pulled immediately in front of
another net or is not connected to another net.
(iv) Up to two rigid-frame roller trawls that are 16 ft (4.9 m) or
less in length used or possessed on board a shrimp trawler are exempt
from the requirement
[[Page 35779]]
to have a certified BRD installed. A rigid-frame roller trawl is a
trawl that has a mouth formed by a rigid frame and a grid of rigid
vertical bars; has rollers on the lower horizontal part of the frame to
allow the trawl to roll over the bottom and any obstruction while being
towed; and has no doors, boards, or similar devices attached to keep
the mouth of the trawl open.
(2) Certified BRDs. The following BRDs are certified for use by
shrimp trawlers in the Gulf EEZ. Specifications of these certified BRDs
are contained in Appendix D of this part.
(i) Fisheye.
(ii) Andrews TED. The Andrews TED is certified as a BRD only during
a time when and in a geographical area where it is an approved TED, as
specified at 50 CFR 227.72(e)(4)(iii).
4. In Sec. 622.48, paragraph (i) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 622.48 Adjustment of management measures.
* * * * *
(i) Gulf shrimp. Bycatch reduction criteria, BRD testing protocol,
certified BRDs, and BRD specifications.
5. In Appendix D, paragraph D is added to read as follows:
Appendix D to Part 622--Specifications for Certified BRDs
* * * * *
D. Andrews TED. Specifications for the Andrews TED are at 50 CFR
227.72(e)(4)(iii)(C).
[FR Doc. 97-17229 Filed 7-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F