[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 39 (Monday, March 1, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9116-9119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4191]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 090206140-91414-04]
RIN 0648-AX39
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 29 Supplement
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to supplement the regulations
implementing Amendment 29 to the Fishery Management Plan for Reef Fish
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). Amendment 29
established a multi-species individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for
the grouper and tilefish component of the commercial sector of the reef
fish fishery in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) exclusive economic zone. This
final rule removes several measures constraining harvest of shallow-
water grouper species that were inadvertently not removed in the final
rule for Amendment 29, further clarifies existing criteria for approval
of new landing locations for both the red snapper IFQ program and
grouper and tilefish IFQ program, and provides a
[[Page 9117]]
definition of ``offloading'' in the codified text for IFQ participants.
The intent of this final rule is to enhance IFQ program enforcement
capabilities, reduce confusion for IFQ participants offloading their
fish, and allow for more efficient functioning of the IFQ programs for
red snapper and groupers and tilefishes.
DATES: This rule is effective March 31, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)
and record of decision may be obtained from Susan Gerhart, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-
5505.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this
final rule may be submitted by e-mail to [email protected], or
[email protected], or by fax to 202-395-7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-
5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery of the Gulf is managed
under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the 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).
This final rule includes administrative measures that were not
included in the final rule for Amendment 29 (74 FR 44732). These
measures allow for more efficient functioning of the grouper and
tilefish IFQ program, reduce confusion among IFQ participants who are
offloading their fish, and further enhance enforcement capabilities of
the IFQ programs, as intended by the Council. This final rule also
discusses two options considered by the Council at the October 2009
Council meeting. On December 10, 2009, NMFS published a proposed rule
to supplement the final rule for Amendment 29 and requested public
comment (74 FR 65500). NMFS invited comments in the proposed rule on
these options, which include extending the offloading window past 6
p.m. and providing an option to fishermen at the time of landing to
provide a headcount of the IFQ fish onboard. NMFS received comments on
both of these options, which are provided along with NMFS' responses to
these comments in the comments and responses section below.
Comments and Responses
NMFS received seven public comments on the proposed supplemental
rule to Amendment 29. One comment, regarding transferability of IFQ
shares, fell outside the scope of the rule and was not addressed in
this final rule. One comment pertained to the actions addressed in the
proposed rule; the rest pertained to options the Council may consider
in the future. No comments were received pertaining to the FRFA or
economic impacts of this action. The following are NMFS' responses to
topics in these comments.
Comment 1: The rule should further clarify what it means for a
landing location to be accessible by public roads.
Response: The text states that in order for a proposed landing
location to be considered publicly accessible, vehicles must have
access to the site via public roads. NMFS believes that this language
provides a sufficient description of the requirement, and further
clarification is unnecessary.
Comment 2: If a landing location is disapproved, documentation
should be provided explaining the disapproval, and an appeals process
should be created.
Response: NMFS is working to develop a process for informing
participants of the reasons for disapproving a landing location. This
may include a publicly posted list of disapproved sites, or individual
responses to participants.
An appeals process is neither practical nor necessary for the NMFS
disapproval of a landing location. Locations are disapproved by NMFS if
they are not accessible or are deemed unsafe for law enforcement
agents. If participants rectify the situation to eliminate these
deficiencies, they can re-submit the location for another review.
Comment 3: Fishermen with smaller vessels frequently do not have
computers onboard and should be allowed to call dealers to receive a
landing transaction code to transport fish.
Response: Under current regulations, the dealer must enter all
landing transactions through the dealer IFQ account to receive a
landing transaction code. Thus, fishermen may call their dealer to
electronically connect to the IFQ system if they are at a landing site
other than the dealer facility. The fishermen must still accurately
weigh the fish on site to complete the landing transaction before
transporting the fish. There is no specific requirement for a computer
to be onboard a vessel and be used as the mechanism to receive a
landing transaction code, only that a landing transaction code be
received by the fishermen prior to transporting fish.
Comment 4: Allowing a headcount would help small-scale fishermen
because weighing fish onboard is difficult, time consuming, and not
very accurate.
Response: The Council is considering this option for the same
reasons expressed in the comment. NMFS' preliminary determination is
that providing a headcount instead of the weight of the catch at the
time of landing would not allow for adequate monitoring and enforcement
of the IFQ program. However, if the Council chooses to proceed with
this option, some controls would need to be applied to restrict the use
of this option (see Comment 5).
Comment 5: If a headcount is implemented, limitations and controls
should be developed, such as allowing the headcount only for trailered
vessels at public sites, creating a trip limit (e.g., 200 lb (90.7 kg))
for vessels using a headcount, and requiring weights if the
shareholder's allocation is less than a minimum amount.
Response: If the Council chooses to proceed with the headcount
option, the suggested restrictions would be considered. These controls
and limitations would help address NMFS' concerns about monitoring and
enforcement. However, these changes to the regulations would need to be
addressed in future regulatory action before regulations could be
implemented.
Comment 6: Extending the offloading time period past 6 p.m. would
help fishermen who trailer their boats. Under current regulations, some
fishermen landing after 6 p.m. must leave the boat overnight at their
landing location and offload in the morning. Problems include: leaving
a vessel unattended in a public area, the need to reassemble a crew for
offloading, and restrictions on docking/parking at public sites.
Response: The Council is considering this option for the same
reasons expressed in the comment. Because Amendment 29 specifically
states that the allowable time period to offload IFQ fish is between 6
a.m. and 6 p.m. local time, the Council would need to address this
option in a future plan amendment if it is to be implemented in the
future.
Classification
The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that the
FMP, Amendment 29, and the final rule are consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.
[[Page 9118]]
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
NMFS prepared an FEIS for Amendment 29. A notice of availability
for the FEIS was published on May 8, 2009 (74 FR 21684).
NMFS prepared a FRFA, as required by section 604 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, for Amendment 29. A copy of the full analysis is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Two of the measures contained in
this final rule, namely the measure to remove the trip limit and
accountability measures that constrain commercial harvest and the
measure to clarify existing landing location criteria, are measures
inherent in an IFQ program. Providing a definition of the term
``offloading'' for IFQ participants is further clarification of an
existing IFQ component. The FRFA prepared for Amendment 29 analyzed the
economic conditions that would exist assuming these measures were
already included in the IFQ program for Gulf groupers and tilefishes.
No new economic effects would be expected to accrue to this rule in
addition to those described in Amendment 29 and no comments were
received about the economic impacts of the proposed rule, therefore, no
new economic analysis has been conducted for those measures in this
final rule.
This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been
approved by OMB under control number (0648-0587). Public reporting
burden for the ``Landing Location Criteria Form'' is estimated to
average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of
the collection-of-information requirement, including suggestions for
reducing the burden, to NMFS and to the OMB (see ADDRESSES).
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: February 23, 2010.
Eric C. Schwaab,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
0
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.
0
2. In Sec. 622.16, a sentence is added after the heading in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) and paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(A) and (B) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 622.16 Gulf red snapper individual fishing quota (IFQ) program.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * * For the purpose of this paragraph, offloading means to
remove IFQ red snapper from a vessel. * * *
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(A) Landing locations must have a street address. If there is no
street address on record for a particular landing location, global
positioning system (GPS) coordinates for an identifiable geographic
location must be provided.
(B) Landing locations must be publicly accessible by land and
water, and must satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Vehicles must have access to the site via public roads;
(2) Vessels must have access to the site via navigable waters;
(3) No other condition may impede free and immediate access to the
site by an authorized law enforcement officer. Examples of such
conditions include, but are not limited to: A locked gate, fence, wall,
or other barrier preventing 24-hour access to the site; a gated
community entry point; a guard animal; a posted sign restricting access
to the site; or any other physical deterrent.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 622.20, a sentence is added after the heading in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) and paragraphs (c)(3)(v)(A) and (B) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 622.20 Individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for Gulf groupers
and tilefishes.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * * For the purpose of this paragraph, offloading means to
remove IFQ groupers and tilefishes from a vessel. * * *
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(A) Landing locations must have a street address. If there is no
street address on record for a particular landing location, global
positioning system (GPS) coordinates for an identifiable geographic
location must be provided.
(B) Landing locations must be publicly accessible by land and
water, and must satisfy the following criteria:
(1) Vehicles must have access to the site via public roads;
(2) Vessels must have access to the site via navigable waters;
(3) No other condition may impede free and immediate access to the
site by an authorized law enforcement officer. Examples of such
conditions include, but are not limited to: A locked gate, fence, wall,
or other barrier preventing 24-hour access to the site; a gated
community entry point; a guard animal; a posted sign restricting access
to the site; or any other physical deterrent.
* * * * *
Sec. 622.44 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 622.44, paragraph (h) is removed.
0
5. In Sec. 622.49, paragraphs (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(i), and (a)(5)(i) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.49 Accountability measures.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Commercial fishery. If SWG commercial landings exceed the
applicable ACL as specified in this paragraph (a)(3)(I), the AA will
file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near
the beginning of the following fishing year, to maintain the SWG
commercial quota for that following year at the level of the prior
year's quota. The applicable commercial ACLs for SWG, in gutted weight,
are 7.99 million lb (3.62 million kg) for 2010, and 8.04 million lb
(3.65 million kg) for 2011 and subsequent fishing years.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Commercial fishery. If gag commercial landings exceed the
applicable ACL as specified in this paragraph (a)(4)(I), the AA will
file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near
the beginning of the following fishing year, to maintain the gag
commercial quota for that following year at the level of the prior
year's quota. The applicable commercial ACLs for gag, in gutted
[[Page 9119]]
weight, are 1.71 million lb (0.78 million kg) for 2010, and 1.76
million lb (0.80 million kg) for 2011 and subsequent fishing years.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Commercial fishery. If red grouper commercial landings exceed
the ACL, 5.87 million lb (2.66 million kg) gutted weight, the AA will
file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near
the beginning of the following fishing year, to maintain the red
grouper commercial quota for that following year at the level of the
prior year's quota.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-4191 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S