[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59152-59153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-28476]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 990621165-9165-01; I.D. 022599A]
RIN 0648-AL43
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Species in the South Atlantic;
Amendment 4 to the Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and
Live/Hard Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region (Coral FMP)
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Supplement to the proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this supplement to the proposed rule for Amendment
4 to the Coral FMP, which is contained in the Comprehensive Amendment
Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the
South Atlantic Region (EFH Amendment). The supplement is intended to
provide information inadvertently omitted from the summary of the
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) published in the
proposed rule to implement Amendment 4 to the Coral FMP. Specifically,
this supplement summarizes IRFA information regarding the economic
impact the proposed rule would have on the shark, grouper, and tilefish
fisheries.
DATES: Written public comments on this supplement to the proposed rule
for Amendment 4, the IRFA, and the original proposed rule for Amendment
4 will be accepted until December 2, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Southeast Regional
Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St Petersburg, FL 33702.
Copies of the IRFA are available from the Southeast Regional Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Barnette, 727-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplement to the proposed rule for
Amendment 4 to the Coral FMP republishes, for the convenience of the
public, the portion of the classification section of the proposed rule
for Amendment 4 (64 FR 37082; July 9, 1999) that addressed the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and adds information inadvertently omitted
from the classification section relevant to the economic impact the
proposed rule would have on the shark, grouper, and tilefish fisheries.
Classification
The EFH Amendment contains Amendment 4 to the Coral FMP (Actions 3A
and 3B in the EFH Amendment). Except for Actions 3A and 3B, the EFH
Amendment does not contain measures that would result in immediate
economic effects. These actions would enlarge the existing Oculina Bank
HAPC, add two ``satellite'' HAPC areas, and prohibit bottom longline,
bottom trawl, dredge, pot or trap fishing in these areas. The Council
originally determined that these regulations would affect trawling for
calico scallops, but suggested that there would not be a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS reviewed the
Council's suggestion and made an independent determination that certain
criteria for significance, in particular the NMFS criterion of a 5
percent negative impact on revenues, may be met. NMFS also noted that
information relative to the impacts on calico scallopers homeported
outside the east coast of Florida was not available. In an effort to
supply some of the missing information, NMFS subsequently interviewed 9
vessel owners who represented 11 vessels not homeported on the east
coast of Florida. The combined response was that owners of 4 of the
vessels, or 36 percent of the sample, reported 5 percent or more of
their calico scallop harvests as coming from the areas where trawling
would be prohibited. Accordingly, NMFS determined there would be a
significant impact on a substantial number of small calico scallop
entities and prepared an IRFA.
In addition to the new information gathered by NMFS, 178 fishermen
have recently indicated that the expanded Oculina HAPC will have a
significant impact on their historical shark and snapper/grouper
species landings. These fishermen have provided NMFS with maps showing
their fishing areas and have also provided information regarding the
potential revenue impacts of the area to be closed to their fishing
operations. NMFS subsequently contacted the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's Marine Fisheries Information System (DEP)
and reviewed information from the NMFS Accumulative Landings System to
obtain catch data for the offshore area encompassing the expanded
Oculina HAPC. The data obtained indicate that these fishermen may be
impacted by the regulations. There are two statistical areas,
specifically 732.9 and 736.9, that include the expanded Oculina HAPC.
In the case of sharks taken by bottom longline gear in 1997, the DEP
data show a catch of 289,316 pounds (131,234 kg) while similar NMFS
data indicate a catch of 295,529 pounds (134,052 kg) for areas 732.9
and 736.9 combined. These landings are from large areas that encompass
the expanded Oculina HAPC, so a smaller, but an unknown portion of the
landings may have been taken from the expanded Oculina HAPC. Due to a
continuing lack of definitive information regarding the significance of
the proposed actions on small business entities, including firms that
engage in trawling for calico scallops and firms that engage in bottom
longline fishing for sharks and snapper-grouper species, NMFS is
soliciting additional information during the public comment period on
this supplement to the proposed rule. Any new information which becomes
available during the public comment period will be carefully reviewed
by NMFS and will be used in developing the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis for the final rule. A summary of the IRFA follows.
The proposed action responds to the Magnuson-Stevens Act
requirements to identify essential fish habitats and to minimize any
fishing related damage to these habitats. The overall objective of the
proposed rule is to identify and maintain essential fish habitats. The
Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for the rule. Most of the
provisions of the proposed rule would result in regulations that would
not have cost or revenue effects on small entities. However, a proposal
to enlarge
[[Page 59153]]
an existing protected area, called the Oculina Bank HAPC, would also
prohibit the use of bottom tending gear in the expanded Oculina HAPC.
This portion of the proposed rule would apply to about 25 small fishing
businesses that have historically participated in the calico scallop
fishery. Most of the vessels used by these small businesses were not
built specifically for harvesting calico scallops, but are shrimp
trawling vessels using modified gear. In 1997, the industry had
landings that generated gross revenues of $1.3 million, which indicates
that gross revenue per vessel averaged about $52,000. Complete
information regarding variability of revenues among vessels does not
exist, but it is known with reasonable certainty that the actual
landings of calico scallops and the associated revenues would show a
considerable amount of variation among the 25 vessels in the industry,
and differential impacts are expected.
Other information indicates the possibility that bottom longline
fishermen who land sharks and snapper-grouper species may be impacted
by the prohibition on the use of bottom tending gear in the expanded
Oculina HAPC. According to information contained in the Final Fishery
Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks, dated April
1999, there were 802 shark fishermen who reported landings in 1997 and
are permitted under regulations governing the Highly Migratory Species
fisheries. The information confirms that these fishermen also target
other species, including snapper-grouper. During the winter, the
directed shark fishery is concentrated in the southeastern United
States, particularly in Florida. However, it is known that the universe
of 802 shark fishermen includes firms that specialize in the use of
pelagic longline gear and only a portion of the 802 permitted fishermen
harvest sharks and other species from the two statistical areas
containing the expanded Oculina HAPC. Specifically, available
information indicates that the bottom longline fishermen targeting
sharks and snapper-grouper species in the general area encompassing the
Oculina HAPC utilize fishing craft in the 30 to 49-foot (9 to 15-m)
category, take trips that average 7 to 10 days, incur variable expenses
of $3,683 per trip, generate gross revenues ranging from $5,954 to
$7,145 per trip and realize annual returns to the owner, captain, and
crew that range from $34,000 to $51,000. Regarding compliance costs,
there are no additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
costs associated with the proposed action, and no existing duplicative,
overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. Two
alternatives were considered and rejected. One of the alternatives
considered was no action. While this option obviously would have no
impact on small business entities, it was rejected since it would
provide no additional protection for essential fish habitats. The other
alternative would expand the Oculina Bank HAPC by a greater area than
required by the proposed alternative. This option would provide
additional protection to essential fish habitats but would result in
the closure of a major portion of the known historic fishing grounds
for calico scallops and would result in major negative impacts on the
calico scallop industry. The resulting negative economic impacts were
deemed to be greater than the benefits that would accrue from the
additional protection for essential fish habitats, and the alternative
was rejected on that basis.
Copies of the IRFA are available (see ADDRESSES).
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: October 22, 1999.
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 99-28476 Filed 11-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
