[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48848-48852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23769]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 950725189-6245-04 ; I.D. 060696A]
RIN 0648-AI92
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South
Atlantic; Changes in Catch Limits
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the framework procedure for adjusting
management measures of the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal
Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic
(FMP), NMFS implements commercial vessel trip limits for the Atlantic
migratory group of king mackerel. The intended effects of this rule are
to preclude an early closure of the commercial fishery, protect king
mackerel from overfishing, and maintain healthy stocks while still
allowing catches by important commercial fisheries.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark F. Godcharles, 813-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic
resources are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and is
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of
the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act).
In accordance with the framework rulemaking procedures of the FMP,
the South Atlantic Council (Council) recommended, and NMFS published, a
proposed rule to establish commercial vessel trip limits for the
Atlantic migratory group of king mackerel (61 FR 34785, July 3, 1996).
That proposed rule described the FMP framework procedures through which
the Council recommended the trip limits and explained the need and
rationale for
[[Page 48849]]
them. Those descriptions are not repeated here.
Comments and Responses
Three letters were received during the comment period. One from the
Council supported the proposed trip limits and requested approval and
expedient implementation to forestall a possible closure during the
1996-97 season. The other two--from a gillnet fisherman and a
commercial fishermen's organization--opposed the trip limits. Similar
comments were addressed in the final rule implementing the partially
approved 1995-96 mackerel catch specifications (60 FR 57686; November
17, 1995) and in the proposed rule announcing this action (61 FR 34785;
July 3, 1996).
National Standard 1
Comment: One commenter stated that trip limits for Atlantic group
king mackerel are unnecessary and inconsistent with maintaining optimum
yield (OY) and maximizing benefits to everyone. He further commented
that such proposals designed to decrease efficiency and prevent quota
overruns are not justifiable considering that the annual commercial
quota has not been harvested since the 1988-89 season and that the
resource is not considered overfished.
Response: National Standard 1 requires conservation and management
measures to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis,
the OY from each fishery. NMFS believes the trip limits will not
preclude harvest of the commercial quota or achievement of OY. Rather,
in consideration of newly available stock assessment information and
the Council's recent actions to reduce total allowable catch (TAC) and
quotas, NMFS has determined that the trip limits are necessary to
achieve the objectives of the FMP and those specified for this action.
Specifically, the trip limits should: Prevent user groups from
exceeding their traditional portion of the quota; reduce the likelihood
of a closure that would negatively impact commercial fisheries north of
Florida; limit harvest during the spawning period, and, thus protect
the stock from recruitment overfishing and help in rebuilding it to the
level capable of meeting the long-term OY target of the FMP; and
minimize gear and user group conflicts resulting from possible effort
shifts by fishermen displaced from other fisheries.
This year's stock assessment for Atlantic group king mackerel
provided much lower estimates of the spawning potential ratio (SPR) and
the acceptable biological catch (ABC) range than in previous years.
Levels of SPR form the basis of the FMP definitions for ``overfished,''
``overfishing,'' and ``OY.'' The recommended ABC range establishes the
boundaries for the Council's selection of the annual TAC. The 1996 SPR
estimate, which declined to 32 percent from last year's estimate of 55
percent, is above the 20 percent SPR level delineating overfished
stocks but is below the 40 percent SPR level required to meet the long-
term, target level OY proposed by the Council in FMP Amendment 8. The
estimated 1996 range of ABC decreased to 4.4 - 6.8 million lb (1,996 -
3,084 mt) from the 1995 estimate of 7.3 - 15.5 million lb (3,311 -
7,031 mt). Accordingly, the Council recommended that the 1996-97 TAC be
decreased from 7.3 to 6.8 million lb (3,311 to 3,048 mt).
If the Council's recommended TAC is approved, the resulting 1996-97
commercial quota of 2.52 million lb (1,143 mt) will be somewhat above
levels harvested during the past 4 fishing years, which ranged from
about 2.0 - 2.2 million lb (907 - 998 mt). Moreover, this resulting
quota will be similar to catch levels during the preceding 3-year
period (1989-90 through 1991-92 fishing years), which ranged from 2.5 -
2.7 million lb (1,134 - 1,225 mt). Therefore, at the expected
commercial quota level of 2.52 million lb, implementation of vessel
trip limits is necessary to avoid an early closure of the fishery and
help ensure equitable distribution of the commercial quota among
traditional fisheries.
As discussed in detail in the preamble to the proposed rule (60 FR
34785; July 3, 1996), the Council also proposed the trip limits to
prevent excessive harvest of pre-spawning and spawning fish and, thus,
to avoid recruitment overfishing of both Atlantic and Gulf groups of
king mackerel. The trip limits should prevent excessive catches of the
Atlantic group king mackerel throughout the spring/summer spawning
season and of the Gulf group king mackerel during April. King mackerel
harvest in April, unrestricted by daily vessel trip limits, could
result in the unintentional taking of large quantities of Gulf group
king mackerel when such fish are still located within the boundaries of
the Atlantic group. The Council considers such catches ``double-
dipping,'' (i.e., overrunning of Gulf group quotas that have already
been harvested during the south Florida winter fishing season). Such
overruns contribute to exceeding TAC, or the yearly OY target, and
increase the risk of recruitment overfishing and of not achieving OY.
According to the Council's impact analyses, the trip limits would
alter or reduce the efficiency of operations for some fishermen. For
some years and areas, particularly south Florida, the trip limits would
have substantially reduced some individual vessel's landings as well as
the area's total catch. Nevertheless, given the estimated reduced stock
size and the lower commercial quota for the 1996-97 fishing year,
implementation of trip limits is necessary to prevent recruitment
overfishing, to avoid disproportionate and inequitable harvest of the
available quota by one user group compared to another, and to minimize
the possibility of an early closure of the commercial fishery.
Avoidance of such problems is consistent with National Standards 1, 3,
and 4 (as discussed herein) and with the objectives of the FMP (e.g.,
stabilize fishery yields at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and
minimize gear and user group conflicts). For these reasons, NMFS
believes that the trip limits strike a reasonable balance between
achieving efficient resource utilization and promoting stability of the
socioeconomic and biological characteristics of the fishery.
National Standard 2
Comment: A commenter stated that the trip limits, particularly the
1,250-lb (567-kg) commercial trip limit proposed for off Monroe County
(Florida Keys), are not supported by the best available scientific
information. He submitted an annotated bibliography suggesting that the
trip limits are not designed to provide maximum protection for spawning
king mackerel. For example, the largest trip limit is proposed for an
area off the South Atlantic Bight, which he contends is a major
spawning area. However, the most restrictive trip limits are proposed
for south Florida in areas where the commenter suggests the
contribution of spawning fish is not important. He also states that off
North Carolina, king mackerel have a prolonged spawning season which
peaks June through August. Therefore, he infers that few, if any, king
mackerel spawn in the Florida Keys area. Finally, the commenter
speculates that the proposals were not reviewed by the Council's
Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).
Response: National Standard 2 requires conservation and management
measures to be based upon the best scientific information available.
The Director of NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science Center has certified
that the trip limits are based on the best available scientific
information and appear risk-averse in maintaining the stock at a size
level not posing risks of recruitment
[[Page 48850]]
overfishing. Furthermore, the trip limit proposals have been reviewed
by the SSCs of both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Councils.
The lower trip limits are designed to prevent excessive catches and
overfishing off south Florida where about half to two-thirds of the
commercial quotas for the Atlantic and Gulf groups of king mackerel are
taken annually. The trip limits off south Florida should protect
against double-dipping of quotas already taken during the winter season
and allow greater escapement for overwintering fish to migrate to
summer spawning grounds. They also would preclude excessive harvest
during summer spawning months.
Although larval collection surveys have provided some information
on the location of king mackerel spawning grounds, the findings of the
surveys are not considered conclusive because the patchy occurrence of
larvae in oceanic waters has made biological sampling difficult.
Therefore, information yielded from sparse larval data collections off
south Florida is unlikely to be representative or an accurate indicator
of the actual spawning contribution of this area. Presently,
determination of this type of information is confounded by seasonal
migrations, protracted spawning seasons, and inconclusive findings of
stock identification genetics studies. Until further scientific
information becomes available, protection of spawners by trip limits,
even in areas considered as minor spawning grounds, is a conservative
approach in a risk-averse management program that prevents overfishing
and rebuilds stocks to long-term OY target levels. As indicated by the
1996 stock assessment, both groups of king mackerel are below SPR
target levels representing the long-term OY.
National Standard 3
Comment: One commenter stated that the different trip limits do not
provide uniform management for the stock throughout its range. He
reasoned that if Atlantic group king mackerel is in jeopardy, fishing
mortality from commercial fishing should be reduced uniformly
throughout its range.
Response: National Standard 3 requires that an individual stock of
fish, to the extent practicable, be managed as a unit throughout its
range, and that interrelated stocks of fish be managed as a unit or in
close coordination. The goal of National Standard 3 is not to manage
stocks with identical measures but to manage a given stock as a unit
throughout its range. Indeed, National Standard 6 requires conservation
and management measures to take into account and allow for variations
among, and contingencies in, fisheries, fishery resources, and catches.
The comments received in opposition to the proposed rule were
considered to be rigid interpretations of the national standards that
do not reflect accurately the flexibility described in the Guidelines
for Fishery Management Plans and the legislative history of the
Magnuson Act. Consequently, NMFS has determined that the trip limits
are an important part of a risk-adverse program to protect against
overfishing, distribute the annual commercial quota equitably among
resource users throughout the management area, preclude in-season
closure and resultant negative socioeconomic impacts, rebuild the stock
to long-term OY target levels, and, thus, provide the socioeconomic and
conservation benefits intended by the Council.
National Standard 4
Comment: One commenter believed that the trip limit proposals were
not fair and equitable to the commercial fishermen of Monroe County. He
did not believe that, compared to the lower trip limits proposed for
Florida's southeast and Florida Keys fisheries, the higher trip limit
proposed for the northern area logically follows from the Council's
projection of an additional effort shift from nearby fishermen
displaced from New England fishery closures. He stated, ``Ideally, all
users should bear the burden of resource conservation.''
Another commenter indicated that the trip limit proposals were
unjust and unfair to Florida east coast net fishermen. He believed that
the proposed trip limits would eliminate nets in favor of hook-and-line
fishermen. Net fishermen, he stated, should have a share of the east
coast subzone quota similar to that provided by the gillnet quota for
the Florida west coast subzone.
Response: National Standard 4 requires conservation and management
measures to not discriminate between residents of different states; the
allocation or assignment of fishing privileges among U.S. fishermen
must be fair and equitable to all affected fishermen, reasonably
designed to promote conservation, and implemented in a way so as to
prevent any particular individual, corporation, or other entity from
acquiring an excessive share of such privileges.
NMFS believes the trip limits are consistent with National Standard
4. From the perspective of assigning fishing privileges, they would be
fair and equitable, reasonably calculated to promote conservation, and
carried out in such a manner that no particular entity acquires an
excessive share of such privileges. Although there will be some
disadvantage to more efficient fishermen (e.g., high liners or net gear
users), the trip limits are necessary to achieve long-term OY targets
and to maximize overall benefits from the fishery to participants
throughout the management area.
In response to previous comments received, the Council increased
the trip limit proposed for the Florida Keys from 50 fish to 1,250-lb
(567-kg) (about 125 fish) per day. The higher limit was proposed to
help offset costs of producing Atlantic group king mackerel from more
distant fishing grounds and, thus, allow a more efficient and
profitable operation of vessels in that area. The different trip limits
in different areas of the coast may disadvantage some mackerel
fishermen over others. However, the overall benefits to the entire
community of resource users should offset any adverse impacts on
specific fishermen. The 1,250-lb (567-kg) trip limit for the Florida
Keys and the 500-lb (227-kg) trip limit for the Florida east coast
should provide fair access while preventing excessive catches, early
closures, and quota overruns. For these reasons, NMFS believes that the
trip limits satisfy the requirements of National Standard 4 regarding
fairness and equity to all fishery participants throughout the
management area, while providing a rational management approach to
achieve OY.
Concern about the possibilities of effort increasing from displaced
fishermen entering the fishery was only one of several factors
supporting the implementation of trip limits. Some protection from
potential effort shifts will be provided by all the trip limits.
The comment suggesting a separate gillnet quota for Florida
southeast coast fishermen is not within the scope of this action,
therefore, no response is provided.
Other Comments
Comment: The Council chairman stated that, after reviewing the 1996
stock assessment and the decreased SPR estimate, the Council remains
concerned about the status of Atlantic group king mackerel. In
addition, he expressed concern that the TAC reduction recommended by
the Council in response to the lower 1996 ABC range would result in an
early closure of the 1996-97 fishing season, thereby negatively
impacting states north of Florida. To avoid this potential
[[Page 48851]]
situation, he expressed the Council's support and request to implement
the trip limits as soon as possible.
Response: During agency review of the proposed action, NMFS
carefully considered these and other comments before approving the
Council's regulatory amendment and issuing this implementing final
rule. NMFS issued this final rule in as timely a manner as practicable
consistent with the Council's stated objectives and concerns about the
effects of an early fishery closure.
Changes from the Proposed Rule
Since the proposed rule was published, NMFS has consolidated most
of its fishery regulations for the Southeast Region into one set of
regulations at 50 CFR part 622 (61 FR 34930, July 3, 1996).
Accordingly, this final rule amends the regulations for coastal
migratory pelagic resources in 50 CFR part 622 in lieu of an amendment
to similar regulations previously contained in part 642. Minor changes
in language have been made to conform to the standards in part 622.
Further, the addition, in logical order, of commercial trip limits for
Atlantic group king mackerel, as contained in this final rule, requires
redesignation of existing paragraphs in Sec. 622.44(a). For convenience
and ease of understanding, this final rule redesignates and reprints
the existing commercial trip limits for Gulf group king mackerel
contained in that paragraph without substantive change.
Classification
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted,
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The reasons for this certification were published in
the preamble to the proposed rule (61 FR 34966, July 3, 1996) and are
not repeated here. No comments were received in response to the
proposed rule that required a change in that assessment. As a result, a
regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.
To avoid early closure of the commercial Atlantic group king
mackerel fishery and disproportionate harvest of the quota by certain
user groups, it is essential that the trip limits for commercial
vessels that harvest Atlantic group king mackerel from New York through
southwest Florida be implemented as soon as possible. The Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, therefore, finds that good cause
exists, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to establish an effective date of
less than 30 days after the date of publication of this final rule. To
provide sufficient notification of the trip limits, particularly to
vessels that may be at sea, NMFS makes the final rule effective
September 23, 1996.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico. Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: September 11, 1996.
Nancy Foster,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 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
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 622.44, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.44 Commercial trip limits.
* * * * *
(a) King mackerel--(1) Atlantic group. (i) North of 29 deg.25' N.
lat., which is a line directly east from the Flagler/Volusia County,
FL, boundary, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on
board or landed from a vessel in a day in amounts exceeding 3,500 lb
(1,588 kg).
(ii) In the area between 29 deg.25' N. lat. and 28 deg.47.8' N.
lat., which is a line directly east from the Volusia/Brevard County, FL
boundary, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on
board or landed from a vessel in a day in amounts exceeding 3,500 lb
(1,588 kg) from April 1 through October 31.
(iii) In the area between 28 deg.47.8' N. lat. and 25 deg.20.4' N.
lat., which is a line directly east from the Dade/Monroe County, FL
boundary, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on
board or landed from a vessel in a day in amounts exceeding 500 lb (227
kg) from April 1 through October 31.
(iv) In the area between 25 deg.20.4' N. lat. and 25 deg.48' N.
lat., which is a line directly west from the Monroe/Collier County, FL
boundary, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may not be possessed on
board or landed from a vessel in a day in amounts exceeding 1,250 lb
(567 kg) from April 1 through October 31.
(2) Gulf group. Commercial trip limits are established in the
eastern zone as follows. (See Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i) for specification of
the eastern zone and Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(3) for specifications of
the subzones in the eastern zone.)
(i) Florida east coast subzone. In the Florida east coast subzone,
king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed
from a vessel for which a commercial permit for king and Spanish
mackerel has been issued, as required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iv)--
(A) From November 1, each fishing year, until 75 percent of the
subzone's fishing year quota of king mackerel has been harvested--in
amounts not exceeding 50 king mackerel per day.
(B) From the date that 75 percent of the subzone's fishing year
quota of king mackerel has been harvested until a closure of the
Florida east coast subzone has been effected under Sec. 622.43(a)--in
amounts not exceeding 25 king mackerel per day. However, if 75 percent
of the subzone's quota has not been harvested by March 1, the vessel
limit remains at 50 king mackerel per day until the subzone's quota is
filled or until March 31, whichever occurs first.
(ii) Florida west coast subzone--(A) Gillnet gear. (1) In the
Florida west coast subzone, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be
possessed on board or landed from a vessel for which a commercial
permit with a gillnet endorsement has been issued, as required under
Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(ii), from July 1, each fishing year, until a closure
of the Florida west coast subzone's fishery for vessels fishing with
run-around gillnets has been effected under Sec. 622.43(a)--in amounts
not exceeding 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per day.
(2) In the Florida west coast subzone:
(i) King mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or
landed from a vessel that uses or has on board a run-around gillnet on
a trip only when such vessel has on board a commercial permit for king
and Spanish mackerel with a gillnet endorsement.
(ii) King mackerel from the west coast subzone landed by a vessel
for which such commercial permit with endorsement has been issued will
be counted against the run-around gillnet quota of
Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)(ii).
(iii) King mackerel in or from the EEZ harvested with gear other
than run-around gillnet may not be retained on board a vessel for which
such commercial permit with endorsement has been issued.
(B) Hook-and-line gear. In the Florida west coast subzone, king
mackerel in or
[[Page 48852]]
from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a vessel with a
commercial permit for king and Spanish mackerel, as required by
Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iv), and operating under the hook-and-line gear quota
in Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)(i):
(1) From July 1, each fishing year, until 75 percent of the
subzone's hook-and-line gear quota has been harvested--in amounts not
exceeding 125 king mackerel per day.
(2) From the date that 75 percent of the subzone's hook-and-line
gear quota has been harvested until a closure of the west coast
subzone's hook-and-line fishery has been effected under
Sec. 622.43(a)--in amounts not exceeding 50 king mackerel per day.
(iii) Notice of trip limit changes. The Assistant Administrator, by
filing a notification of trip limit change with the Office of the
Federal Register, will effect the trip limit changes specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section when the
requisite harvest level has been reached or is projected to be reached.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-23769 Filed 9-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
