76874 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 0907271170–0576–03] 

RIN 0648–AY10 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery Off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Amendment 17A 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement Amendment 17A to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region (FMP), as prepared and 

submitted by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council (Council). This 

final rule establishes an annual catch 

limit (ACL) of zero for red snapper, 

which means all harvest and possession 

of red snapper in or from the South 

Atlantic exclusive economic zone (EEZ) 

is prohibited, and for a vessel with a 

Federal commercial or charter vessel/ 

headboat permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper, harvest and possession 

of red snapper is prohibited in or from 

State or Federal waters. This rule also 

implements an area closure for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper that extends 

from southern Georgia to northern 

Florida where harvest and possession of 

all snapper-grouper species is 

prohibited (except when fishing with 

black sea bass pots or spearfishing gear 

for species other than red snapper), and 

requires the use of non-stainless steel 

circle hooks when fishing for snappergrouper species with hook and line gear 

north of 28° N. latitude in the South 

Atlantic EEZ. Additionally, Amendment 

17A establishes a rebuilding plan for red 

snapper and requires a monitoring 

program as the accountability measure 

(AM) for red snapper. The intended 

effects of this rule are to end overfishing 

of South Atlantic red snapper and 

rebuild the stock. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 3, 

2010, except for the amendments to 

§ 622.35, which are effective January 3, 

2011, and the amendments to § 622.41, 

which are effective March 3, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(FRFA), and Record of Decision (ROD) 

may be obtained from Kate Michie, 

Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 

13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 

33701: telephone 727–824–5305; fax 

727–824–5308. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Michie, telephone: 727–824–5305; fax: 

727–824–5308; e-mail: 

Kate.Michie@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is 

managed under the FMP. The FMP was 

prepared by the Council and 

implemented by NMFS under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Background 

On July 29, 2010, NMFS published a 

notice of availability for Amendment 

17A and requested public comment (75 

FR 44753). On August 13, 2010, NMFS 

published the proposed rule to 

implement Amendment 17A and 

requested public comment (75 FR 

49447). NMFS approved Amendment 

17A on October 27, 2010. The rationale 

for the measures contained in 

Amendment 17A is provided in the 

amendment and in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

Effectiveness of Management Measures 

Prohibition on Harvest and Possession 

of Red Snapper 

The prohibition on the harvest and 

possession of red snapper in the South 

Atlantic EEZ, and in State or Federal 

waters for a person on board a vessel for 

which a valid Federal commercial or 

charter vessel/headboat permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper has 

been issued, and the prohibition on the 

sale or purchase of red snapper 

harvested from or possessed in the 

South Atlantic (including State and 

Federal waters) for a vessel for which a 

valid Federal commercial permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper has 

been issued, will be effective December 

3, 2010. 

The interim rule implementing these 

red snapper prohibitions will expire on 

December 5, 2010. Therefore, to prevent 

a lapse in these prohibitions, these 

measures must become effective on or 

before December 5, 2010. 

A red snapper benchmark assessment 

was completed through the Southeast 

Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 

process in late October 2010, which 

provides additional information on the 

effectiveness of these prohibitions. A 

final report of the assessment was 

published on October 25, 2010, and is 

available at http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/

sedar/download/SEDAR%2024_SAR_

October%202010_26.pdf?id=

DOCUMENT. The assessment indicates 

that red snapper are overfished and 

undergoing overfishing and that the 

current harvest prohibition for red 

snapper is providing substantial 

protection to the stock. A lapse could 

also lead to more severe harvest 

reductions for the snapper-grouper 

fishery as a whole with associated 

adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

Snapper-Grouper Area Closure 

The new benchmark assessment 

(SEDAR 24) has recently been 

completed for red snapper and has been 

reviewed by the Council’s Scientific and 

Statistical Committee (SSC) and will be 

considered by the Council at their 

meeting in December 2010. The 

assessment has determined that red 

snapper are overfished and experiencing 

overfishing, but the stock is in better 

condition than indicated by the 

previous assessment (SEDAR 15) with 

the magnitude of overfishing less than 

what was indicated in the previous 

assessment. Results of the new 

assessment suggest less restrictive 

management measures, such as a 

smaller area closure, would be adequate 

to end overfishing of red snapper. 

Therefore, NMFS is considering using 

the emergency action authority under 

section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to address the implications of the 

new assessment and to provide the 

Council time to determine whether 

modifications should be made to the red 

snapper management measures based 

upon the results of SEDAR 24, if 

appropriate. 

Circle Hooks 

NMFS is delaying the requirement in 

§ 622.41(n) to use non-stainless steel 

circle hooks when fishing for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper with hookand-line gear and natural baits north of 

28° N. latitude for 3 months. The circle 

hook requirement will be effective 

March 3, 2011. This delay in 

effectiveness will provide additional 

time for manufacturers and retail outlets 

to prepare for the demand for these 

newly required products and will 

provide time for commercial and 

recreational fishers to comply with 

these new gear requirements. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received 138 comments on 

Amendment 17A and the proposed rule, 

including 1 comment from a State 

agency, 1 comment from a Federal 

agency, 1 petition signed by 45 

individuals, 5 letters from nongovernmental organizations, one of 

which was endorsed by 30,388 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76875 

individuals who support approval of 

Amendment 17A, and 130 comments 

from individuals (including 41 copies of 

an identical postcard from an 

Amendment 17A opposition postcard 

campaign). Of these comments, 111 

expressed opposition to Amendment 

17A, 24 expressed support, and 3 

comments were unrelated to 

Amendment 17A actions. Specific 

comments relevant to the actions 

contained in the amendment and the 

rule as well as NMFS’ respective 

responses, are summarized below. 

Comment 1: The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and 4 nongovernmental organizations are 

concerned that the rebuilding schedule 

favors fishermen to the maximum 

extent, rather than balancing benefits to 

the resource and socioeconomic impacts 

on the fishing community. The EPA 

suggests that fishing pressure from 

fisheries for species that co-occur with 

red snapper should be reduced in order 

to reduce red snapper bycatch, and red 

snapper bycatch should be kept as 

landings and counted towards the cooccurring species’ fishery quotas. 

Additionally, the EPA suggests that 

adaptive management measures should 

be applied over the recovery period; 

however, such adaptive management 

measures should balance impacts on the 

fishing community and on the resource. 

Response: Thirty-five years is the 

maximum rebuilding schedule 

recommended for South Atlantic red 

snapper based on the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act National Standard 1 Guidelines and 

is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act mandate to rebuild the 

fishery as quickly as possible, taking 

into account the status and biology of 

the stock, the needs of fishing 

communities, and other factors. The 

Council chose this schedule recognizing 

that based on the information provided 

to them from SEDAR 15, a total red 

snapper harvest prohibition alone was 

not sufficiently restrictive to end 

overfishing and that shorter rebuilding 

schedules would require impractical 

reductions in red snapper bycatch. 

NMFS acknowledges the cumulative 

effects of the Amendment 17A proposed 

regulations, recent fisheries regulations, 

and other circumstances other than 

regulations (rise in fuel costs, decrease 

in dock space, national economic 

recession leading to a decrease in forhire trips, etc.) will likely have negative 

economic and social effects on snappergrouper fishermen. By choosing the 35- 

year rebuilding schedule, negative 

socioeconomic impacts will be 

minimized to the extent practicable 

while still achieving conservation 

objectives, consistent with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

The shortest possible rebuilding 

schedule (15 years) would require most 

or all of the EEZ and State waters be 

closed to fishing over the 15-year period 

to eliminate all incidental mortality of 

red snapper. The significant and 

irreversible socioeconomic impacts of 

such an action makes a 15-year 

rebuilding schedule impractical. While 

the 25-year schedule evaluated in the 

amendment would have less adverse 

socioeconomic effects when compared 

to a 15-year rebuilding plan, such effects 

are not warranted by the limited 

biological benefits of achieving the 

rebuilding goal just 10 years earlier than 

under the 35-year rebuilding schedule. 

It is not possible to implement a 

shorter rebuilding schedule without 

significantly increasing the magnitude 

of negative socioeconomic impacts. 

Because red snapper are widely 

distributed and co-occur with other 

snapper-grouper species, even slight 

increases in the rate at which the red 

snapper stock rebuilds greatly increases 

the need for more restrictive 

management measures. Economic 

analyses indicate it is unlikely that the 

future benefits of rebuilding the red 

snapper stock more quickly would 

outweigh the short-term costs associated 

with the more restrictive regulations 

required by shorter rebuilding 

schedules. 

The Council is exploring, through 

Amendment 22 to the Snapper-Grouper 

FMP, alternative strategies for managing 

red snapper catch and bycatch as the 

stock rebuilds, which could include a 

bycatch retention policy if that is 

determined to be a feasible option. 

Comment 2: Two commenters 

expressed support for the exemption to 

fish with black sea bass pots within the 

snapper-grouper closed area. One 

commenter expressed opposition to this 

exemption. The EPA questioned how 

‘‘ghost fishing’’ with black sea bass pots 

was addressed in the Council’s decision 

to allow the use of black sea bass pots 

within the closed area. 

Response: The majority of the black 

sea bass component of the snappergrouper fishery is north of the closed 

area, and only a small percentage of red 

snapper are taken in black sea bass pots. 

Therefore, the Council determined this 

gear type was sufficiently selective so 

that it may be deployed within the 

closed area without adversely affecting 

the rebuilding efforts of red snapper. 

Allowing this gear also helps to offset, 

to some degree, some of the negative 

socioeconomic impacts expected from 

the area closure. 

During its March 2010 meeting, after 

the draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) was filed with the EPA 

for publication in the Federal Register, 

the Council chose not to exempt the use 

of black sea bass pots within the closed 

area, citing concerns about the ‘‘ghost 

fishing’’ that takes place in lost pots and 

the potential interactions with protected 

species. However, at its June 2010 

meeting, the Council modified its 

decision to allow the use of black sea 

bass pots, because they are a highly 

selective gear type that could be used to 

fish for species other than red snapper 

within the closed area without affecting 

red snapper rebuilding. Additionally, 

the Council is developing Amendment 

18A to the FMP, which includes actions 

to limit the number of black sea bass 

pots allowed per vessel, thereby limiting 

participation in the black sea bass 

component of the snapper-grouper 

fishery, and requires pots to be returned 

to port at the completion of a fishing 

trip. If approved, these controls should 

limit effort shift into the black sea bass 

component of the snapper-grouper 

fishery, minimizing the occurrence of 

black sea bass pot ‘‘ghost fishing’’ on 

snapper-grouper species, and 

interactions with protected species. 

Comment 3: Two commenters 

expressed support for the exemption to 

use spearfishing gear within the 

snapper-grouper closed area when 

fishing for species other than red 

snapper. One commenter expressed 

opposition to this exemption. The EPA 

expressed concerns with the exemption 

related to potential collection of 

undersized fish, exceeding quotas, and 

spearfishing injury. 

Response: Overall, spearfishing gear is 

considered a highly selective gear type 

that is least likely to produce red 

snapper bycatch or bycatch mortality, 

and it is the most selective gear type 

available if the user is well-versed in 

species identification. Therefore, the use 

of spearfishing gear within the closed 

area for species other than red snapper 

is unlikely to adversely affect red 

snapper rebuilding efforts, while 

helping to offset, to a small degree, some 

of the negative socioeconomic impacts 

expected from the area closure. 

Amendment 17A analyses conclude 

that spearfishing does have the potential 

to remove greater biomass of reef fish 

than rod and reel fishing. Spearfishing 

has been shown to result in the removal 

of larger fish from the population than 

with rod and reel. According to the 

biological impact analysis in 

Amendment 17A, removing larger fish 

from a population can have a negative 

effect on overall ecosystem health by 

altering the composition of the natural 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76876 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

communities; however, any such effect 

is expected to be more than offset by the 

conservation benefits derived from the 

hook-and-line gear prohibition within 

the area closure. If the use of 

spearfishing gear increases as a result of 

this exemption, it may be reasonable to 

assume incidences of spear-related 

injuries may also increase. However, the 

Council determined the potential 

negative impacts of allowing the use of 

spearfishing gear did not outweigh the 

potential offset of negative 

socioeconomic impacts that may result 

from the area closure. 

Comment 4: Eighteen commenters 

expressed support for the requirement 

to use non-stainless steel circle hooks 

north of 28° N. latitude with live bait. 

Three commenters expressed opposition 

to the circle hook requirement, citing 

that it would inhibit effective harvest of 

certain species and would incur a 

significant economic burden. The EPA 

expressed support of the requirement, 

but stated that regulatory discard 

mortalities are often related to 

barotrauma caused by rapid surfacing 

rather than hooking injuries, and certain 

species such as yellowtail snapper and 

mangrove snapper are not readily 

caught with circle hooks. 

Response: Many studies indicate that 

hooking injuries are a major source of 

mortality in red snapper. Requiring 

circle hooks in the area of the South 

Atlantic EEZ north of 28° N. latitude 

may help reduce discard mortality of 

red snapper where they are most 

abundant, although the exact amount is 

not quantifiable at this time. However, 

the Council concluded that taking 

advantage of any reasonable method to 

reduce red snapper bycatch mortality is 

warranted considering its overfished 

condition. 

Barotrauma is also cited as a 

significant cause of bycatch mortality 

for red snapper. NMFS previously 

considered a Council-approved measure 

to use venting tools for snapper-grouper 

species to reduce bycatch mortality 

caused by barotraumas in Amendment 

16 to the FMP. The measure requiring 

the use of venting tools was 

disapproved based on data indicating 

the benefits of venting are not clear for 

all species, including red snapper, and 

venting could potentially cause harm in 

some cases. NMFS determined that 

additional guidance is needed to 

identify species that would benefit from 

venting to ensure the maximum benefit 

is provided to these species. If future 

research on the use of venting tools, 

and/or any other barotrauma mitigation 

methods, indicate red snapper would 

benefit from the required use of such 

tools or techniques, the Council has the 

option to consider the issue again in a 

future FMP amendment. 

During the development of 

Amendment 17A, some constituents 

expressed concern that circle hooks 

would preclude them from being able to 

catch some specific fish species 

including yellowtail snapper and 

mangrove snapper due to the physical 

structure of a fish’s mouth and the way 

the fish takes bait. The majority of the 

species of concern are landed south of 

28° N. latitude where red snapper are 

less abundant; therefore, the Council 

chose to limit the circle hook 

requirement to areas north of 28° N. 

latitude. 

Comment 5: The EPA supported 

fishery-independent monitoring for red 

snapper, as well as fishery-dependent 

monitoring where fishermen work 

together with researchers. 

Response: The Council chose to 

require implementation of a fisheryindependent monitoring program for red 

snapper to augment and expand the 

existing fishery-independent data 

program for snapper-grouper because 

fishery-independent data can be less 

variable and more verifiable than 

fishery-dependent data. The choice to 

utilize a fishery-independent 

monitoring program for red snapper 

does not in any way infer that fisherydependent data collection programs 

may not be used for monitoring red 

snapper in the South Atlantic. The AM 

chosen by the Council and approved by 

NMFS includes a fishery-dependent 

data gathering component that will be 

used to monitor catch per unit effort 

(CPUE) throughout the rebuilding 

process. Furthermore, it is likely that in 

the future, some research and 

monitoring efforts may be designed to 

include hybrid sampling programs that 

use both fishery-independent and 

fishery-dependent data gathering 

methods. 

Comment 6: If the approved 

rebuilding schedule is not adequate in 

minimizing socioeconomic impacts, the 

EPA recommended additional offsets be 

considered by NMFS and the Council 

for fishery participants of all 

demographics, particularly any affected 

minority and low-income fishermen. 

Response: Amendment 17A contains 

a detailed analysis of potential 

socioeconomic impacts of the actions to 

end overfishing of red snapper and 

rebuild the stock to a sustainable level. 

The Council has chosen, and NMFS has 

approved, alternatives intended to 

minimize, to the extent practicable, 

adverse socioeconomic impacts as 

required under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. A Fishery Impact Statement (FIS) 

and a Social Impact Analysis (SIA) were 

completed as part of the Amendment 

17A development process. The SIA 

included an analysis of potential 

impacts of this rule on low-income and 

minority groups. The full FIS and SIA 

can be found in Appendix U of 

Amendment 17A. The alternatives 

chosen are also projected to effectively 

end overfishing of South Atlantic red 

snapper and rebuild the population 

within the designated rebuilding 

timeframe. 

A new benchmark assessment for red 

snapper conducted through the SEDAR 

process (SEDAR 24; 2010) indicates the 

stock is undergoing overfishing and is 

overfished to lesser degrees than 

estimated in the previous SEDAR 

assessment (SEDAR 15) and in 

Amendment 17A. Therefore, additional 

action may be appropriate to further 

minimize the unavoidable adverse 

economic impacts of ending overfishing 

and rebuilding the stock. The Council 

will review the results of SEDAR 24 at 

their December 2010 meeting and may 

propose additional actions at that time, 

as appropriate. 

Comment 7: The EPA and one 

individual requested a discussion of 

potential impacts of the Deepwater 

Horizon/BP oil spill event on red 

snapper and the fishing community. 

Response: Thus far, there has been no 

indication that oil from the Deepwater 

Horizon/BP oil spill, which occurred on 

April 20, 2010, has made its way into 

South Atlantic waters. The spill 

remained concentrated in the northern 

Gulf of Mexico before it was capped and 

is no longer considered a significant 

threat for dispersing oil. Therefore, 

implementation of Amendment 17A is 

not expected to be impacted by oil spillrelated events that have transpired in 

the Gulf of Mexico over the past 7 

months. 

Comment 8: Seventeen commenters 

specifically oppose the prohibition on 

harvest and possession of red snapper in 

the South Atlantic EEZ and in State 

waters for vessels holding Federal 

snapper-grouper permits. Five 

commenters specifically support the 

prohibition on red snapper harvest. 

Response: The 2008 red snapper 

SEDAR stock assessment (SEDAR 15) 

concluded that red snapper are 

overfished and undergoing overfishing. 

When a determination is made that a 

stock is experiencing overfishing or is 

overfished, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires NMFS and the Council to 

develop a plan to end overfishing and 

rebuild the stock. The prohibition on 

red snapper harvest and possession 

implemented through Amendment 17A 

is required to meet this statutory 

mandate. SEDAR 15 indicates a harvest 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76877 

prohibition in State and Federal waters 

alone is not capable of ending 

overfishing because many red snapper 

taken incidentally when harvesting 

other snapper-grouper species do not 

survive capture and release. For this 

reason, NMFS also is approving the 

Council’s proposal to establish an area 

closure within which all harvest and 

possession of snapper-grouper is 

prohibited (except when fishing with 

black sea bass pots or spearfishing gear 

for species other than red snapper). 

These management measures are 

expected to end overfishing as required 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Comment 9: Twenty-two commenters 

specifically oppose the snapper-grouper 

area closure, and three commenters 

support it. 

Response: Based on the results of the 

SEDAR 15 benchmark assessment, 

prohibiting the harvest of red snapper 

alone will not end overfishing because 

red snapper are often incidentally 

captured and discarded while fishermen 

are targeting co-occurring species. 

Additionally, the release mortality of 

red snapper is very high. Therefore, to 

sufficiently reduce the overall mortality 

of red snapper enough to end 

overfishing and rebuild the stock, NMFS 

approved a prohibition on all harvest 

and possession of red snapper in the 

South Atlantic EEZ and also approved 

an area closure within which harvest 

and possession of all snapper-grouper 

species is prohibited except when using 

spearfishing gear or black sea bass pots 

to fish for species other than red 

snapper. 

The area closure alternative proposed 

by the Council and approved by NMFS 

encompasses an area where large 

amounts of red snapper are harvested. 

Furthermore, the preferred area closure 

minimized to the extent practicable the 

unavoidable adverse economic impacts 

of ending overfishing as required by the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 

17A also includes an action to require 

a fishery-independent monitoring 

program to track the progress of 

rebuilding efforts, in order to reduce the 

size of the area closure and allow the 

harvest of red snapper as the stock 

rebuilds. 

A new benchmark assessment just 

completed for red snapper, SEDAR 24, 

indicates the stock is undergoing 

overfishing and is overfished to a lesser 

degree than estimated in SEDAR 15. 

Therefore, additional action may be 

appropriate to further minimize the 

unavoidable adverse economic impacts 

of ending overfishing and rebuilding the 

stock. The Council will review the 

results of SEDAR 24 at their December 

2010 meeting and may propose 

additional actions at that time, as 

appropriate. 

Comment 10: Two commenters stated 

the proposed area closure could push 

effort inshore or offshore and thus 

negatively impact juvenile populations 

of red snapper and other coastal 

fisheries, and/or deepwater snappergrouper species. 

Response: The extent to which effort 

may shift as a result of the proposed 

area closure is not known so it is not 

possible to quantify the impact of such 

a shift on snapper-grouper species. 

However, any such effort shift is not 

expected to have a significant adverse 

impact on red snapper rebuilding or on 

the status of other deepwater snappergrouper species. The red snapper 

harvest prohibition is expected to 

reduce the handling time of red 

snapper, as fishermen will no longer 

need to measure fish to determine if 

they are of legal size. If fishing effort 

moves closer to shore, then it is 

expected that the survival of discarded 

red snapper and other snapper-grouper 

species would be greater than for fish 

discarded in deeper water because 

depth-related discard mortality would 

be less in shallow water. The model 

used to develop the closed area 

alternatives was designed to account for 

reduced inshore release mortality in the 

closed area as well as in all areas around 

the closure. 

Effort shifts into water deeper than 

the closed area may be mitigated by the 

deepwater snapper-grouper closure that 

is proposed in Amendment 17B to the 

FMP. (Amendment 17B and proposed 

implementing regulations are available 

for public comment through November 

22, 2010, and November 26, 2010, 

respectively.) This proposed deepwater 

closure would prohibit harvest of six 

deepwater snapper-grouper species 

beyond a depth of 240 ft (73 m), which 

is also the seaward boundary of the 

Amendment 17A area closure. These 

species include snowy grouper, blueline 

tilefish, yellowedge grouper, misty 

grouper, queen snapper, and silk 

snapper. In addition to prohibiting 

harvest and possession of the previously 

mentioned species, Amendment 17B 

also prohibits the possession and 

harvest of speckled hind and warsaw 

grouper. If Amendment 17B is approved 

and implemented, prohibiting the 

harvest and possession of these species 

beyond a depth of 240 ft (73 m) greatly 

diminishes the incentive to fish for 

deepwater snapper-grouper. 

Comment 11: One commenter 

expressed concern regarding a potential 

influx of imported seafood as a result of 

the red snapper harvest restrictions. 

Response: The prohibition on the 

harvest and possession of red snapper 

and the closure of certain areas in the 

South Atlantic to snapper-grouper 

fishing under Amendment 17A are 

estimated to result in an annual 

reduction of approximately 213,000 lb 

(96,615 kg) of commercially harvested 

snapper-grouper, of which about 

120,000 lb (54,431 kg) are red snapper, 

based on expected harvest resulting 

from regulations implemented through 

Amendment 16 to the FMP. Total 

imports of snappers and groupers into 

the U.S. have been increasing and 

averaged approximately 48,000,000 lb 

(21,772,434 kg) between 2003 and 2007. 

Within this aggregate weight of snappergrouper imports, the amount of red 

snapper imported into the U.S. cannot 

be estimated with the current available 

information. It is recognized that fish 

dealers, restaurants, and other 

establishments may substitute imports 

for snappers and groupers harvested in 

U.S. waters as a result of the prohibition 

on the harvest and possession of red 

snapper and the area closure. However, 

the reduction in the domestic landings 

of snapper-grouper is not expected to 

trigger an influx of imported snappers 

and groupers, because the amount of 

such reduction is small relative to the 

amount of imported snappers and 

groupers (about 0.44 percent of 

imports). 

Comment 12: Thirty-one commenters 

opposed the red snapper management 

measures in Amendment 17A based on 

potential adverse economic impacts. 

Several of these commenters are 

concerned there is an inadequate 

economic analysis of the impacts on the 

recreational fishing community in the 

amendment. 

Response: Amendment 17A and 

associated final environmental impact 

statement, regulatory flexibility act 

analysis, regulatory impact review, and 

social impact assessment/fishery impact 

statement thoroughly analyze the 

potential economic impacts of the 

Council’s proposed red snapper 

management measures, based on the 

best scientific information available. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the 

Council and NMFS to end the 

overfishing of red snapper. SEDAR 15 

indicates the stock is being fished at five 

times the sustainable rate, and that 

significant reductions in mortality, 76 

percent, are needed to end overfishing 

and rebuild the population. The adverse 

short-term economic impacts of such 

reductions are unavoidable. However, 

SEDAR assessments indicate the stock is 

producing only a fraction of its potential 

yield and that the long-term economic 

benefits of stock rebuilding are expected 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76878 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to be substantial. A framework 

amendment is being developed to allow 

for adjustments to the closed area, as 

appropriate, based on the results of a 

new benchmark assessment (SEDAR 

24). Additionally, draft Amendment 22 

to the FMP will explore new approaches 

for managing red snapper catch and 

bycatch as the stock rebuilds that may 

allow the Council to provide for some 

level of red snapper harvest over time. 

Comment 13: Eighty-two commenters 

stated the data used in determining the 

magnitude of red snapper overfishing, 

and general population estimates, are 

flawed. Several of the same commenters 

also questioned the adequacy and 

reliability of recreational landings data 

currently available to fishery managers. 

Response: Amendment 17A is based 

upon the SEDAR 15 assessment, and the 

assessment was completed in 2008 

using data through 2006. SEDAR 15 

found the South Atlantic red snapper 

stock is overfished and undergoing 

overfishing. 

Data used for the assessment consists 

of records of commercial catches 

provided by dealer and fishermen 

reports since the 1940s, headboat 

fishery catch records from the Southeast 

Headboat Survey since 1972, and 

recreational catch records from the 

Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics 

Survey (MRFSS) since 1981. MRFSS 

conducts telephone surveys of coastal 

households and for-hire businesses, as 

well as in-person access-point angler 

intercept surveys. These surveys are 

used to collect information on 

recreational fishery participation, 

fishing effort, and catch, in addition to 

demographic, social, and economic 

characteristics of the participants. 

NMFS recognizes that MRFSS data are 

highly uncertain for infrequently 

encountered species and is working 

with recreational and for-hire fishermen 

to explore novel approaches to address 

this issue through the Marine 

Recreational Information Program 

(MRIP). SEDAR 15 also includes U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service recreational 

fisheries survey data from 1960, 1965, 

and 1970. Landings and effort 

information are provided by dealer and 

fishermen reports and surveys. 

Information on catch lengths and ages is 

provided by fishing port sampling 

programs that support the catch 

statistics programs. Information on 

biological characteristics, such as age, 

growth, and reproduction, is provided 

by various research studies. All of the 

data used in the assessment are 

described in the SEDAR 15 red snapper 

stock assessment report available on the 

SEDAR Web site at http:// 

www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/. The SEDAR 

Web site also provides extensive 

supporting documentation that 

describes data collection programs and 

research findings. 

SEDAR is a cooperative process 

initiated in 2002 to improve the quality 

and reliability of fishery stock 

assessments in the South Atlantic, Gulf 

of Mexico, and U.S. Caribbean. SEDAR 

is managed by the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic Regional 

Fishery Management Councils in 

coordination with NMFS and the 

Atlantic and Gulf States Marine 

Fisheries Commissions. SEDAR seeks 

improvements in the scientific quality 

of stock assessments and greater 

relevance of information available to 

address existing and emerging fishery 

management issues. SEDAR emphasizes 

constituent and stakeholder 

participation in assessment 

development, transparency in the 

assessment process, and a rigorous and 

independent scientific review of 

completed stock assessments. SEDAR is 

organized around three workshops. The 

first is a data workshop where data sets 

are documented, analyzed, and 

reviewed and data for conducting 

assessment analyses are compiled. The 

second is an assessment workshop 

where quantitative population analyses 

are developed and refined and 

population parameters are estimated. 

The third is a review workshop where 

a panel of independent experts reviews 

the data and assessment and 

recommends the most appropriate 

values of critical population and 

management quantities. All SEDAR 

workshops are open to the public. 

Public testimony is accepted in 

accordance with each fishery 

management council’s standard 

operating procedures. Workshop times 

and locations are noticed in advance 

through the Federal Register. 

The findings and conclusions of each 

SEDAR workshop are documented in a 

series of reports, which are ultimately 

reviewed and discussed by the 

appropriate Council and its SSC. At its 

June 2008 meeting, the Council’s SSC 

determined that the SEDAR 15 is based 

upon the best available science. In July 

2010, NMFS’ Southeast Fisheries 

Science Center (SEFSC) certified the 

conservation and management measures 

in Amendment 17A are based upon the 

best scientific information available. 

SEDAR 15 is controversial with 

fishermen who feel the findings 

contradict their experience of 

encountering more and larger red 

snapper in recent years. Landings and 

discard data corroborate fisher reports 

that catches increased between 2007 

and 2009. A spike in 2007 discards and 

2008–2009 landings is likely due to a 

strong year class, which occurred in 

2006. Even so, the age structure of the 

red snapper population is severely 

truncated (there are not enough older 

fish). Red snapper live to at least 54 

years of age, but the SEDAR 15 indicates 

that most red snapper are less than 10 

years old. 

The SEFSC evaluated the concerns 

raised by fishermen regarding SEDAR 

15 and subsequent analyses. The SEFSC 

concluded that altering model 

assumptions based on fishermen’s 

concerns would impact the magnitude 

of required harvest reductions but 

would not change the assessment 

conclusions regarding the status of red 

snapper. Overfishing is occurring and 

must be addressed within the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act. 

A new red snapper SEDAR stock 

assessment (SEDAR 24) was completed 

in late October 2010, and evaluated 

more recent catch data than that used in 

SEDAR 15. The results of SEDAR 24 

also support the SEDAR 15 conclusion 

that red snapper is overfished and 

experiencing overfishing, although the 

rate of overfishing may be lower than 

the rate from SEDAR 15. The Council’s 

SSC reviewed SEDAR 24 and the 

Council will review SEDAR 24 and the 

SSC’s recommendations at their next 

meeting during the week of December 5, 

2010. The Council is poised to take 

action at that time to make any needed 

adjustments to the area closure as 

appropriate. 

Comment 14: Two commenters, 

including the State of Florida, felt 

actions related to limiting the harvest of 

red snapper should be postponed until 

the 2010 benchmark assessment is 

completed. 

Response: The Council is scheduled 

to receive the results of the 2010 SEDAR 

benchmark stock assessment for red 

snapper (SEDAR 24) at the December 

2010 Council meeting. However, red 

snapper continue to be overfished and 

undergoing overfishing and the 

prohibition on the harvest and 

possession of red snapper must be 

effective by December 5, 2010, to avoid 

a lapse in those prohibitions 

implemented through the interim rule. 

Additionally, implementation of 

Amendment 17A cannot be further 

delayed based on the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requirements to prepare and 

implement an FMP amendment to end 

overfishing and implement conservation 

and management measures to rebuild 

red snapper. SEDAR 24 findings support 

the current prohibitions on the harvest 

and possession of red snapper, and 

indicate a lapse in these prohibitions 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76879 

could lead to more severe harvest 

reductions for the snapper-grouper 

fishery as a whole with associated 

adverse socioeconomic impacts. The 

assessment also indicates the snappergrouper area closure included in 

Amendment 17A is larger than 

necessary to end overfishing and rebuild 

the stock, and NMFS is considering 

using the emergency action authority 

under section 305(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act to address the implications 

of the new assessment, as appropriate, 

and to provide the Council time to 

determine whether modifications 

should be made to the area closure 

based upon the new assessment. The 

Council will consider the SEDAR 24 

results at their December 2010 meeting, 

and determine whether or not a 

modification to the area closure is 

warranted. If so, adjustments to the area 

closure will be promulgated through a 

regulatory amendment. 

Comment 15: One commenter 

attributed red snapper overfishing to the 

shrimp trawl fisheries off the southeast 

United States and recommended a 2- 

year ban on shrimp trawling in the 

South Atlantic. 

Response: No evidence exists that 

shrimp trawl fleets in the South Atlantic 

EEZ capture juvenile red snapper. 

Confusion about shrimp bycatch likely 

results from evidence that the fishery for 

penaeid shrimp (pink, white, and brown 

shrimp), in the Gulf of Mexico, catches 

a high level of juvenile red snapper. 

However, no evidence exists that the 

penaeid shrimp fishery in the South 

Atlantic has the same level of red 

snapper bycatch. In fact, the Southeast 

Area Monitoring and Assessment 

Program—South Atlantic Coastal Survey 

has not documented any red snapper 

caught during shallow-water trawl 

studies since 2007, and no more than 

two red snapper in any year during 

1995–2007. 

Comment 16: Four commenters stated 

the commercial sector is responsible for 

the current overfished and overfishing 

status of red snapper and expressed 

support for banning commercial red 

snapper fishing, while allowing 

recreational red snapper fishing to 

continue. 

Response: SEDAR 15 and SEDAR 24 

indicate that red snapper is overfished 

and experiencing overfishing. The 

commercial sector is responsible for 

approximately 20 to 25 percent of the 

total red snapper landings in the South 

Atlantic based on data collected since 

2006; thus, the number of red snapper 

taken by the recreational sector far 

exceeds the amount taken by the 

commercial sector. Therefore, 

overfishing would continue if 

management measures were only 

applied to the commercial sector. The 

measures implemented through this 

final rule must apply to both the 

commercial and recreational sectors to 

effectively end the overfishing of red 

snapper. 

Comment 17: One commenter stated 

they do not typically see red snapper 

when fishing off the east coast of 

Florida. 

Response: Amendment 17A and its 

implementing regulations were 

developed based upon the SEDAR 15 

(2008) assessment, which shows that 

red snapper are overfished and 

undergoing overfishing. The stock 

assessment also indicates red snapper 

abundance is significantly lower now 

than it has been in previous decades. 

Most of the stock is currently 

concentrated in areas off of northern 

Florida and southern Georgia. 

Overfishing of the species has possibly 

diminished the range of the species and 

has led to decreased encounter rates in 

areas where red snapper once may have 

been plentiful, including the Florida 

Keys. This final rule is intended to end 

the overfishing of red snapper and 

rebuild the stock to sustainable levels. 

Comment 18: Twelve commenters 

offered several alternative management 

methods for red snapper including bag 

limits, trip limits, reduced size limits, 

slot sizes, seasonal area closures, 

spawning season closures, artificial reef 

establishment, venting tool 

requirements, circle hooks with wire 

appendages, state-by-state quotas, and a 

voluntary buy-out program. 

Response: Amendment 4 to the FMP 

(1991), implemented a 20-inch (50.8 cm) 

total length (TL) minimum size limit 

and a 2-fish red snapper bag limit 

within a 10-fish snapper-grouper 

aggregate bag limit in an effort to reduce 

harvest of red snapper. Unfortunately 

the implementation of a size limit and 

bag limit was not enough to end the 

overfishing of red snapper at the time, 

and overfishing continued despite the 

implementation of a limited access 

program for the commercial snappergrouper fishery via Amendment 8 to the 

FMP (1998). 

In developing red snapper 

management measures in Amendment 

17A, the Council considered an option 

to allow red snapper harvest based on 

a quota for the commercial sector, a 

quota for the for-hire sector (utilizing 

electronic logbooks), and a quota for the 

private recreational sector (based on a 

quota tag system administered by the 

states), with dead discards inshore of 

98 ft (73 m) to be subtracted from the 

overall allowable harvest level before 

quotas are established. The suggested 

AM for this alternative stated that once 

the catch limits are reached in Georgia, 

South Carolina, and Florida, bottom 

fishing would be prohibited beyond 98 

ft (73 m). However, based on catch rates 

of landed and discarded red snapper in 

2007 and 2008, the allowable catch for 

each sector would be estimated to be 

met in less than one month. 

Furthermore, allowing the level of 

harvest outlined above would require 

extensive observer coverage, 

implementation of electronic logbooks, 

and establishment of a tagging system. 

Not all states possess the administrative 

resources needed to implement a 

tagging program at this time. Discarded 

red snapper would require close 

tracking, and harvest and releasemortality rates would need to be applied 

to the discards to ensure total removals 

allocated to states and sectors are not 

exceeded. The SSC has strongly 

opposed tracking discards as a means of 

monitoring fishery catch levels and 

depending on self-reported discards 

may create a disincentive to report, if 

the fishery closes as a result of these 

self-reported data. However, the Council 

is exploring through draft Amendment 

22 to the Snapper-Grouper FMP, 

alternative strategies for managing red 

snapper catch and bycatch (including a 

fish tag program) that may allow the 

Council to provide for some level of red 

snapper harvest over time as the stock 

rebuilds. 

Several commenters suggested 

reducing the minimum size limit from 

20 inches (50.8 cm) TL to 16 inches 

(40.6 cm) TL, establishing a slot limit or 

eliminating the size limit altogether. 

These minimum size limit 

modifications were considered by the 

Council but were removed from detailed 

analysis and moved to the considered 

but rejected portion of the amendment 

because they would not end overfishing. 

Reduction or elimination of a minimum 

size limit could increase the magnitude 

of total removals because a greater 

number of fishermen would be able to 

fill the 2-fish bag limit with fish that 

formerly were discarded and survived 

the trauma of capture. 

Reductions in the bag limits were also 

considered by the Council and NMFS. 

Reduction in the bag limit to 1 fish per 

person (resulting in a 5-percent 

reduction in harvest with a 40-percent 

release mortality rate) or a vessel limit 

of 4 fish per vessel per day (resulting in 

a 3-percent reduction for private 

recreational vessels and a 34-percent 

reduction for headboats) would not be 

sufficient to end overfishing based on 

the results of SEDAR 15. 

Another option discussed by the 

Council was a seasonal-area closure for 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76880 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

all snapper-grouper species with a total 

prohibition on harvest and possession of 

red snapper. A seasonal area closure for 

all snapper-grouper species may be 

effective in reducing bycatch mortality 

of red snapper for the duration of the 

closure; however, bycatch mortality 

would be expected to resume during the 

open season. Based on the results from 

SEDAR 15, a very large seasonal 

snapper-grouper area closure would be 

required to end red snapper overfishing, 

and thus would incur greater negative 

socioeconomic impacts than the current 

area closure in Amendment 17A. 

Moreover, the longer the open season, 

the larger the closed area would need to 

be to account for increased bycatch 

mortality of red snapper. Because of 

these factors, the Council did not 

consider seasonal area closures a 

feasible option for ending overfishing in 

this case. This does not, however, 

preclude the future use of seasonal-area 

closures as a management measure. 

Suggestions concerning the 

establishment of more artificial reefs 

have been made several times 

throughout the amendment’s 

development process. Some studies 

suggest that artificial reefs increase 

populations of red snapper while others 

suggest artificial reefs attract fish in 

general. As artificial reefs are usually 

well marked, the stock could be 

negatively impacted by making large 

concentrations of red snapper more 

accessible to fishermen. Regardless, the 

reduction needed to end overfishing and 

rebuild red snapper would not be 

achieved by creating more artificial reefs 

as the only management measure. 

Requiring the use of venting tools was 

previously considered in Amendment 

16 to the FMP. This requirement was 

disapproved based on public comments 

and new information opposing the use 

of venting tools, along with scientific 

studies that suggest the use of venting 

tools may actually increase mortality of 

some species depending on capture 

depth. Furthermore, the requirement for 

the possession and use of venting tools 

was determined to be overly broad and 

not in accordance with the 

administrative record developed for 

Amendment 16. Required use of venting 

tools in the snapper-grouper fishery may 

be considered again in the future if 

guidance is provided on the tools that 

should be used, the appropriate 

techniques for venting, and the species 

that benefit most from venting. NOAA is 

funding a collaborative workshop to be 

hosted by the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission in spring 2011 to 

examine how best to reduce barotrauma 

in recreational fisheries. 

One commenter recommended the 

use of circle hooks with a wire 

appendage be required for the snappergrouper fishery. Appendaged circle 

hooks were discussed in the biological 

analysis for the circle hook action in 

Amendment 17A. The analysis cites one 

study that compared circle hooks and Jhooks with and without wire 

appendages and their effects on 

reducing the catch of small and guthooked snapper by recreational fishers 

in the Hauraki Gulf of New Zealand. 

However, the Council and NMFS did 

not choose to pursue a requirement for 

appendaged hooks until additional 

information on their use and 

effectiveness becomes available. A circle 

hook workshop will be held May 4–6, 

2011, in Miami, Florida, and more 

information on this workshop may be 

found at: http:// 

www.circlehooksymposium.org/. NMFS’ 

approval of the requirement to use nonstainless steel circle hooks north of 28° 

N. latitude does not preclude the 

Council or NMFS from considering the 

use of appendaged circle hooks in the 

future. 

The Council discussed the 

establishment of a buy-out program for 

commercial snapper-grouper fishermen 

in Georgia. A buy-out program for the 

commercial sector would require a great 

deal of planning, time, funds, and 

acceptance from fishery participants. 

Because of these limiting factors and the 

need to act to end overfishing promptly, 

a buy-out program was not pursued by 

the Council or NMFS during the 

Amendment 17A development process. 

The Council considered alternatives that 

would allocate the red snapper ACL by 

state and sector. The Council moved 

these alternatives to the considered but 

rejected section of the amendment 

because the Council determined that 

both a harvest prohibition and an area 

closure for snapper-grouper species was 

needed to end red snapper overfishing. 

The Council may consider alternatives 

for allocating red snapper harvest 

among states and sectors when the stock 

rebuilds to a biomass level that would 

support some level of harvest. 

Comment 19: One fishing association 

submitted a comment, endorsed by 12 

commenters, stating the comment 

period on the proposed rule 

intentionally ended 2 days before the 

SEDAR 24 assessment results became 

public. This comment also stated 

NMFS’ scientific position changed 

when the decision was made to conduct 

a full benchmark assessment instead of 

an update to the SEDAR 15 (2008) 

assessment, implying an admission that 

SEDAR 15 (2008) was not based upon 

the best scientific information available. 

The same commenter stated that SEDAR 

15 did not use a ‘‘continuity run.’’ 

Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

required the Council to develop a plan 

to end overfishing within one year, if 

notified of a stock’s overfished status 

prior to July 12, 2009. Therefore, 

waiting to implement Amendment 17A 

until after the new stock assessment 

(SEDAR 24) is completed would further 

delay this required action. NMFS is 

aware of the coincidental timelines 

associated with the completion of 

SEDAR 24 and the implementation of 

Amendment 17A. The Council and 

NMFS are prepared to act expeditiously 

to modify management measures if the 

Council concludes that the results of 

SEDAR 24 indicate such an adjustment 

is appropriate. 

SEDAR 15 (2008) concluded that red 

snapper is overfished and undergoing 

overfishing, requiring the Council to 

prepare a plan amendment to end 

overfishing and rebuild the stock. 

During the amendment’s development, 

fishermen expressed concern that 

SEDAR 15 did not capture the spike in 

discards and landings that occurred 

during 2007–2009 because the 

assessment considered data only 

through 2006. In order to include these 

landings and apply additional statistical 

methods to the analysis, the SEDAR 

steering committee requested SEDAR 

replace the scheduled red snapper 

assessment update with a new 

benchmark assessment (SEDAR 24). 

SEDAR 15 (2008) was subjected to an 

external review by the Center for 

Independent Experts (CIE) and was also 

reviewed by the Council’s SSC, both of 

which approved the assessment report. 

Furthermore, in a memorandum dated 

July 22, 2010, the SEFSC certified that 

Amendment 17A is based upon the best 

scientific information available. 

Continuity runs of SEDAR 15 with the 

red snapper assessment conducted in 

1997 were not performed because such 

runs would have been based upon prior 

research that used several assumptions, 

such as a 15-year life span for red 

snapper, which are now known to be 

inaccurate. 

The results of the new SEDAR 24 

benchmark assessment support the 

SEDAR 15 conclusion that red snapper 

is overfished and experiencing 

overfishing, although the rate of 

overfishing appears to be lower than 

estimated in the SEDAR 15 assessment. 

Although the SEDAR 24 assessment 

shows some signs of stock 

improvement, overfishing is still 

occurring and must be addressed within 

the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act. The SEDAR 24 findings 

support the current red snapper harvest 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76881 

prohibitions and indicate a lapse in 

these prohibitions could lead to more 

severe harvest reductions for the 

snapper-grouper fishery as a whole, 

with associated adverse socioeconomic 

impacts. NMFS and the Council are 

prepared to act expeditiously to modify 

management measures if the results of 

SEDAR 24 indicate such an adjustment 

is appropriate. 

Comment 20: One commenter stated 

that closing an area will open the same 

area to fishing by foreign fleets. 

Response: Closing an area to snappergrouper fishing under Amendment 17A 

will not open up that area to fishing by 

foreign fleets. The Magnuson-Stevens 

Act authorizes the Federal Government 

to regulate fishing in the exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) (3 to 200 nautical 

miles offshore), and it prohibits foreign 

fishing in the EEZ unless specifically 

conducted pursuant to an international 

fishery agreement and permit. 

Comment 21: Two commenters stated 

the fishing mortality at maximum 

sustainable yield (FMSY) proxy approved 

by NMFS is inadequate and does not 

follow the SSC’s FMSY proxy 

recommendation. 

Response: Stock assessments have not 

been able to reliably estimate the MSY 

of South Atlantic red snapper. In such 

cases, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

National Standard 1 Guidelines direct 

regional fishery management councils to 

adopt other measures of reproductive 

capacity as reasonable MSY proxies. In 

1998, through Amendment 11 to the 

Snapper-Grouper FMP, the Council 

defined the MSY of red snapper to equal 

the yield associated with fishing at FMSY

or F30%SPR. 

At its December 2008 meeting, the 

Council’s SSC discussed the positive 

and negative effects of maintaining the 

current proxy for FMSY (F30%SPR) versus 

establishing a new proxy for FMSY at 

F40%SPR. Some SSC members supported 

the CIE’s recommendation, based on 

SEDAR 15, to use F40%SPR and cited 

literature and examples that showed 

that F40%SPR is a more appropriate proxy 

for FMSY. Other SSC members stated 

F30%SPR should be maintained because it 

was approved by the Council for red 

snapper and other species in 

Amendment 11 to the FMP, and its 

corresponding steepness value (the 

magnitude of recruitment) is 

approximately 0.90, which was close to 

the estimated value of 0.95 in the base 

model. 

The Council was very concerned 

about the implications of establishing a 

proxy that has not been previously used 

for red snapper. Specifying F40%SPR as a 

new proxy could set a precedent that is 

not appropriate for all species in the 

snapper-grouper fishery management 

unit. After thoroughly considering the 

implications associated with the more 

conservative alternative FMSY proxy of 

F40%SPR, as well as input from their SSC 

and NMFS, the Council elected to take 

no action to change the current 

definition of the FMSY proxy. 

Amendment 17A specifies the 

numerical value for MSY associated 

with this definition as 2,431,000 lb 

(1,102,683 kg), whole weight, based on 

the most recent, completed, red snapper 

stock assessment at the time of final 

Council action (SEDAR 15 2008). 

The more conservative FMSY proxy of 

F40%SPR recommended by the SSC 

would have resulted in a lower MSY 

value equal to 2,304,000 lb (1,102,683 

kg), whole weight, and would have 

required greater harvest reductions to 

end overfishing and rebuild the stock on 

schedule. Choosing that proxy would 

have resulted in increased adverse 

economic impacts from ending 

overfishing on fishing communities. 

Therefore, the Council recommended 

that the SEFSC conduct a 

comprehensive review of how FMSY

proxies should be applied across all 

southeastern fisheries, and that the 

decision to apply a specific FMSY proxy 

be made at the regional level rather than 

on a species-by-species basis. 

Comment 22: Three commenters state 

Amendment 17A fails to specify an 

acceptable biological catch (ABC) or 

ABC control rule for red snapper. 

Response: The SSC provided an 

overfishing limit (OFL) and ABC 

recommendations in terms of pounds of 

fish at its June 2008 meeting, but the 

SSC did not have an ABC control rule 

to assist them with estimating ABC and 

indicated that they considered the 

values to be ‘‘interim’’ until more robust 

methods for estimating these parameters 

could be made available. At its 

December 2008 SSC meeting, the SSC 

considered the guidance given in the 

proposed Magnuson-Stevens Act 

National Standard 1 Guidelines and 

rescinded all estimates of ABC from its 

June 2008 meeting (except for an ABC 

of zero for speckled hind and warsaw 

grouper). The SSC also recommended at 

its December 2008 meeting that the ABC 

levels for snowy grouper, black sea bass, 

and red snapper be set consistent with 

the rebuilding plans for those species 

until they can be further amended on 

better scientific information. The SSC 

met in March and June of 2009 to 

determine ABC control rules for data 

rich species, and met in April and 

August of 2010 to identify the protocol 

for determining the ABC for data poor 

species. The SSC recommended that 

current ABC levels for red snapper be 

set consistent with the rebuilding plan 

until they can be further amended. 

Comment 23: Two commenters stated 

that by choosing to rely on an OFL 

based on the FMSY proxy of F30%SPR, 

which is equivalent to 146,939 lb 

(66,650 kg), and then setting the ABC at 

97 percent of the Council’s OFL, or 

144,000 lb (65,317 kg), the Council set 

the ABC for red snapper well above the 

SSC-recommended OFL of 104,124 lb 

(47,230 kg). Furthermore, the 

commenter states the Council’s ABC of 

144,000 lb (65,317 kg) is also well above 

the 101,000 lb (45, 813 kg) catch level 

that is based on the rebuilding plan 

under the SSC’s recommended FMSY

proxy. 

Response: Section 1.4.2 of 

Amendment 17A discusses the SSC’s 

recommendation of ABC and OFL. 

Initially, the SSC recommended an 

interim OFL and ABC for red snapper 

equal to the yield at 75 percent FMSY. At 

its December 2008 meeting, the SSC 

withdrew its OFL and ABC 

recommendations, and instead 

recommended the ABC level be set 

consistent with the rebuilding plan in 

Amendment 17A, which specifies an 

FOY equal to 98 percent FMSY (98 

percent F30%SPR) and rebuilds the stock 

in 35 years. Therefore, ABC is consistent 

with the rebuilding plan outlined in 

Amendment 17A. 

Comment 24: One commenter stated 

that Amendment 17A violates the 

requirement for the Council to set ACLs 

that do not exceed the ABC 

recommendation of the SSC. 

Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires the Council to develop ACLs 

that may not exceed the fishing level 

recommendation of its SSC. The 

National Standard 1 Guidelines state 

that the SSC recommendation most 

relevant to ACLs is ABC, as both are 

levels of annual catch. The SSC’s ABC 

recommendation for red snapper is that 

the ABC should be consistent with the 

rebuilding plan. Therefore, the ABC is 

specified as an FOY equal to 98 percent 

FMSY (98 percent F30%SPR) and rebuilds 

in 35 years. This allows a total red 

snapper mortality (in the form of dead 

discards) of 144,000 lb (65,317 kg) 

whole weight in year one of rebuilding. 

Total mortality is calculated from 

rebuilding projections of spawning 

stock biomass, recruitment, allowable 

removals from the population, and 

probability of stock recovery, under 

different fishing mortality rates 

developed by the SEFSC. This 

rebuilding plan is consistent with the 

current FMSY proxy (F30%SPR), which 

requires a 76 percent reduction in 

harvest of red snapper. The Council’s 

preferred alternative in Amendment 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76882 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

17A establishes an ACL of 0 lb (0 kg) 

based on landed catch. 

The Council considered including 

both landed catch and discards in the 

specification of the red snapper ACL; 

however, the SSC concluded that 

existing data collection and reporting 

systems are not adequate to support 

monitoring discarded red snapper in the 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

and expressed concern that doing so 

may create an incentive for fishermen to 

under-report red snapper discards. 

Comment 25: Two commenters stated 

the AMs specified in Amendment 17A 

are based on the ACL, which includes 

landings only (all red snapper landings 

would be prohibited under this final 

rule), and therefore are not adequate 

because they do not correspond to total 

mortality. Additionally, the amendment 

does not include AMs that will be 

triggered annually if the total mortality 

exceeds the ABC. 

Response: Through this final rule, 

NMFS establishes an ACL of zero for red 

snapper, which is applied to directed 

harvest. Therefore, a year-round closure 

is created for commercial and 

recreational harvest of red snapper 

throughout the entire South Atlantic 

EEZ. Additionally, the results of SEDAR 

15 required the Council to reduce the 

bycatch mortality of red snapper in 

order to end overfishing. The Council 

thus imposed a 4,827 square mile (7,763 

square km) closed area from Cape 

Canaveral, Florida, to southern Georgia 

to all snapper-grouper fishing (except 

when using black sea bass pots or 

spearfishing gear) to achieve the fishing 

mortality reduction required by SEDAR 

15. 

The Council considered including 

both landed catch and discards in the 

specification of the red snapper ACL; 

however, the SSC concluded that 

existing data collection and reporting 

systems are not adequate to support 

monitoring discarded red snapper in the 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

and expressed concern that doing so 

may create an incentive for fishermen to 

under-report red snapper discards. 

Prohibiting all directed harvest of red 

snapper is the most stringent AM that 

could be implemented for the species. 

The preferred red snapper AM 

alternative includes a provision for 

tracking catch per unit effort (CPUE) via 

fishery-dependent and fisheryindependent monitoring programs, and 

periodically evaluating the CPUE data to 

determine if adjustments to the ACL and 

management measures are appropriate. 

If the data indicate an adjustment is 

warranted, action could be taken 

expeditiously through a framework 

amendment. The Council did consider 

establishing annual catch targets (ACTs) 

as part of the accountability mechanism 

for red snapper. However, the 

commercial and recreational harvest of 

red snapper is prohibited, therefore, it 

was determined that ACTs are not 

necessary at this time. It is anticipated 

that red snapper harvest will be allowed 

in the future, at which time the Council 

may consider establishing ACTs. 

Comment 26: One commenter stated 

Amendment 17A violates the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act because it does 

not clearly specify an OFL for red 

snapper. 

Response: According to the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act National 

Standard 1 Guidelines, OFL is an 

annual amount of catch that 

corresponds to the estimate of 

maximum fishing mortality threshold 

(MFMT) applied to a stock or complex’s 

abundance. Amendment 11 to the FMP 

defines MFMT as the yield at FMSY

where F30%SPR is the default FMSY

proxy. Amendment 17A retains the 

status quo proxy for FMSY at F30%SPR, 

which when applied to the red snapper 

stock would be the equivalent to the 

OFL. The numerical value of this 

parameter will change annually as stock 

biomass increases in response to the 

rebuilding plan, and is estimated as 

2,431,000 lb (1,102,683 kg), whole 

weight, when the stock is at equilibrium 

based on the SEDAR 15 assessment. 

Comment 27: Two commenters stated 

Amendment 17A management measures 

are based on unsubstantiated discard 

mortality assumptions, and unrealistic 

compliance rates. 

Response: The discard mortality rates 

used in Amendment 17A are provided 

by the SEDAR 15 (2008) assessment. 

The stock assessment evaluated findings 

from numerous studies to estimate 

release mortality of red snapper. SEDAR 

15 (2008) panel participants considered 

a previous assessment of the red 

snapper population along the Atlantic 

coast that used point estimates of 10 

percent and 25 percent for release 

mortality based on observations by 

NMFS personnel. These estimates are 

low when compared to data in the 2009 

Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Assessment 

Update to SEDAR 7 (2004). Panel 

members also considered recent 

observer data collected from the 

headboat sector on the Atlantic coast 

and commercial sectors on the Atlantic 

coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. After 

examining the results from the many 

different release mortality studies, 

SEDAR 15 (2008) recommended the 

release mortality be set at 40 percent (30 

to 50 percent selectivity range) for the 

recreational sector and 90 percent (80 to 

100 percent selectivity range) for the 

commercial sector. Discard mortality 

was evaluated through sensitivity runs 

and was not a significant factor in the 

fishing mortality or abundance 

estimates. 

Varying degrees of compliance were 

discussed by the Council and NMFS, 

and were included in the model 

estimates of harvest reductions needed 

to end overfishing. The model used 

compliance assumptions ranging from 

100 percent to 80 percent. Data on 

compliance rates as they relate to closed 

areas in the snapper-grouper fishery are 

limited. The fishery does not require 

vessel monitoring systems, and 

therefore does not have a highly 

accurate method to predict compliance 

for the subject closure. The Council 

determined it was reasonable to assume 

a compliance rate of 90 percent or less 

at this time, and adjust rebuilding 

measures as appropriate in response to 

new information. Therefore, the model 

scenarios incorporating less than 90 

percent compliance were used to inform 

their selection of the preferred closed 

area alternative. NMFS agrees with this 

determination and concluded the 

conservation and management measures 

proposed in Amendment 17A are based 

on the best scientific information 

available. 

Comment 28: One commenter stated 

the SEFSC disagreed with the Council’s 

decision to base its selected catch limits 

necessary to end overfishing on a ‘‘very 

high recruitment’’ scenario. 

Response: The Council and SEFSC 

considered projections with very high 

recruitment to be a reasonable approach 

as the 2008 and 2009 red snapper 

landings in the U.S. South Atlantic were 

much higher than have been observed in 

recent years, and high landings followed 

a spike in discards, which occurred in 

2007. As the majority of fish being 

landed are near the legal limit of 20 

inches (50.8 cm) TL and age information 

from red snapper collected in 2009 

indicated approximately 80 percent of 

the fish were age 3 and 4, there was 

evidence that the high landings are 

being driven by a particularly strong 

year-class entering the fishery. At its 

September 2009 meeting, the Council 

expressed concern that rebuilding 

projections in Amendment 17A did not 

consider recent high recruitment since 

the SEDAR 15 assessment only included 

landings data through 2006. As a result, 

the Council stated the projections could 

underestimate the magnitude of 

expected discards, and the yield at 

target fishing mortality could be higher. 

In response, the Council requested new 

projections, which incorporate the high 

recruitment that appears to have 

occurred in 2006. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76883 

To examine the effects of such a pulse 

of recruitment on projections, the 

SEFSC produced projections where the 

2006 year-class was inflated to one of 

three levels, corresponding to 50 

percent, 100 percent, and 150 percent of 

the maximum recruitment event 

observed in the SEDAR 15 assessment 

over the years 1974–2006. The three 

levels were labeled as ‘‘high’’, ‘‘very 

high’’, and ‘‘extremely high.’’ 

At the September 2009 Council 

meeting, the SEFSC advised the Council 

the use of ‘‘very high’’ recruitment 

estimates were most appropriate for red 

snapper in the South Atlantic. While the 

SSC expressed concern in its Consensus 

Statements and Report from the 

December 2009 Meeting that adoption of 

the ‘‘very high’’ recruitment estimate 

was overly optimistic, they 

acknowledged that assumptions 

regarding recent recruitment pulses 

would be tested in SEDAR 24. That 

assessment, which was completed in 

late October 2010, confirms that notably 

strong year classes occurred in 2006 and 

2007. 

Comment 29: Three commenters 

stated that Amendment 17A fails to take 

into account management uncertainty 

when establishing management 

measures to end overfishing. 

Response: The Council and NMFS 

considered management uncertainty 

during the deliberative process of 

choosing management measures 

intended to end overfishing of red 

snapper and rebuild the stock within 

the specified timeframe. The Council 

and NMFS utilized a specialized model 

to estimate the percentage reductions 

gained in total red snapper mortality 

under various scenarios. Each scenario 

took into account the effects of 

management uncertainty that could 

result from impacts of recently 

implemented regulations, estimated 

compliance rates, and variations in 

offshore and inshore release mortality 

rates. These assumptions are discussed 

in detail in Appendix E of Amendment 

17A. 

Comment 30: Two commenters stated 

that Amendment 17A actions prioritize 

the minimization of socioeconomic 

harm over conservation. 

Response: Amendment 17A was 

developed by the Council and NMFS 

pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements to end overfishing of red 

snapper and rebuild the overfished 

stock within the specified rebuilding 

schedule. NMFS must also minimize, to 

the extent practicable, the unavoidable 

negative socioeconomic impacts of 

achieving these conservation objectives. 

The Council chose, and NMFS 

approved, the management measures 

that best minimized these 

socioeconomic impacts without 

compromising conservation objectives. 

Because red snapper is part of a 

multispecies fishery, the SEDAR 15 

assessment indicated that bycatch 

mortality is high, and that an area 

closure for all snapper-grouper fishing 

was necessary to end overfishing. The 

size of the area closure was the subject 

of extensive deliberation. The Council 

determined, and NMFS agrees, that the 

preferred area closure, based on SEDAR 

15 assessment results, is the best 

balance between ending overfishing and 

minimizing economic harm. 

Data uncertainty surrounding SEDAR 

15 made the Council’s task of 

designating appropriate rebuilding goals 

and management measures for red 

snapper very difficult. Subsequently, 

the Council has been criticized for 

choosing reference points and 

management measures that are either 

not conservative enough, or too 

conservative. Amendment 17A has been 

cited as being overly optimistic in its 

assumptions and capacity to rebuild the 

stock. However, the recently completed 

SEDAR assessment (SEDAR 24) affirms 

that red snapper are overfished and are 

undergoing overfishing. The results of 

SEDAR 24 will be presented to the 

Council at their December 2010 

meeting. At that time, they may choose 

to adjust the management measures, 

which may be done through a regulatory 

amendment according to the SnapperGrouper FMP Framework Procedures. 

Comment 31: One commenter stated 

that Amendment 17A fails to include 

bycatch in the ACL. 

Response: Establishing an ACL of 

zero, based on landed catch, would not 

require monitoring dead discards in 

order to monitor the ACL. The SSC has 

opposed on several occasions including 

dead discards as part of the ACL since 

discard data are self-reported and there 

is greater uncertainty with discard data 

than with estimates of landings. The 

alternative ACL specification was also 

zero, but it included landings and dead 

discards. This option would require 

NMFS to monitor discarded red snapper 

in the commercial and recreational 

sectors for the purposes of tracking the 

ACL; though discard data will be 

recorded and monitored via the fisheryindependent monitoring program 

intended to track rebuilding progress. At 

its March 2009 meeting, the SSC 

indicated their recommendation of 

acceptable biological catch of zero for 

speckled hind and warsaw grouper was 

based on landed catch only due to 

concern about monitoring discards. The 

SSC expressed concerns when 

discussing ACLs based on dead discards 

for speckled hind and warsaw grouper 

at its March 2009 meeting. The SSC was 

not only concerned about the accuracy 

of discard data from the recreational and 

commercial sectors but also the 

possibility that some members of the 

fishing community might under-report 

discarded fish if they believed further 

restrictions might be imposed if levels 

of dead discards became elevated. Based 

on this recommendation from the SSC, 

the Council and NMFS determined an 

ACL equal to zero, based on landed 

catch only, would be the most 

appropriate ACL value for red snapper 

in the South Atlantic. Estimates of dead 

discards are incorporated in a model to 

determine reductions in mortality 

needed to end red snapper overfishing. 

The model was used by Council to 

reduce bycatch and end overfishing of 

red snapper through the establishment 

of a closed area where the harvest of all 

snapper-grouper species would be 

prohibited with all gear types except 

black sea bass pots and spearfishing 

gear. 

Comment 32: Two commenters stated 

that several of the options chosen by the 

Council as preferred alternatives were 

not included in the DEIS. As a result, 

the alternatives did not receive adequate 

review and analysis, and were not 

subject to appropriate public notice, 

review and comment, as required by 

law. 

Response: One alternative contained 

in the FEIS was not identified as a 

separate alternative in the DEIS, but it 

was included in the range of alternatives 

considered and analyzed in the DEIS. 

This red snapper management measure, 

Alternative 3E, was identified by the 

Council as its preferred snapper-grouper 

area closure alternative at its June 2010 

meeting after reviewing public 

comments on the DEIS, as well as new 

information on the reduction in total 

mortality needed to end overfishing as 

defined by the status quo FMSY proxy of 

F30%SPR. As this reduction was slightly 

less than that required by the formerly 

preferred F40%SPR proxy, the Council 

included a new, preferred area closure 

alternative that encompassed a smaller 

area reflective of the reduced harvest 

reductions needed under the status quo 

FMSY proxy. The environmental impacts 

of Alternative 3E fell within the scope 

of those evaluated in the DEIS for the 

closure alternatives considered, and 

thus did not necessitate the publication 

of a supplemental DEIS. 

Comment 33: Two commenters stated 

that NMFS chose to move forward with 

approval of the rebuilding plan and 

management measures in Amendment 

17A despite a statement from the SSC 

that the proposed management 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76884 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

measures may not be sufficient to end 

overfishing of red snapper. One 

commenter stated the FEIS does not 

address the SSC’s concerns with 

whether or not Amendment 17A would 

end overfishing. 

Response: In its Consensus Statement 

and Report for the December 2009 

Council meeting, the SSC stated that 

none of the management options in draft 

Amendment 17A appear to prevent 

overfishing because the analyses and 

alternatives are based on overly 

optimistic assumptions regarding the 

steepness of the stock-recruit curve, a 

‘‘very high recruitment’’ pulse in 2006, 

as well as expected rates of compliance 

and effort shifting. However, SSC 

representatives speaking to these issues 

during the Council’s December 2009 

Snapper-Grouper Committee meeting 

acknowledged the SSC’s conclusion 

assumed that the rate of overfishing was 

defined using a more conservative FMSY

proxy (F40%SPR) than the status quo 

proxy of F30%SPR, that steepness was 

defined based on their recommendation 

for short-term projections but it has 

relatively little impact on the 

effectiveness of management measures 

in ending overfishing, and that 

assumptions regarding recent 

recruitment pulses were not overly risky 

because they would be tested in the new 

benchmark assessment SEDAR 24. 

SEDAR 24, which was completed in late 

October 2010, confirms that notably 

strong year classes occurred in 2006 and 

2007. 

While rates of compliance and effort 

shifting remain difficult to predict, the 

Council determined it was reasonable to 

assume a compliance rate of 90 percent 

or less at this time, and adjust 

rebuilding measures as appropriate in 

response to new information. Therefore, 

the model scenarios incorporating less 

than 90 percent compliance were used 

to inform the Council’s selection of the 

preferred closed area alternative. The 

Council also determined any effort 

shifting would not be expected to have 

a significant adverse impact on the red 

snapper rebuilding plan because the 

management measures proposed in 

Amendment 17B, if approved, would 

greatly diminish the incentive to target 

snapper-grouper species in deep water 

and discard mortality would be reduced 

if effort shifted to inshore waters. NMFS 

agrees with these assumptions and 

certified that the conservation and 

management measures in Amendment 

17A are based on the best available 

scientific information. 

The new SEDAR assessment (SEDAR 

24) also supports these assumptions, 

indicating the rate of overfishing is 

likely lower than that estimated by the 

base run in SEDAR 15 and that the red 

snapper stock is in better shape than 

portrayed by SEDAR 15. The Council 

will review the results of SEDAR 24 at 

their December 2010 meeting and may 

propose additional action at that time, 

as appropriate. 

Comment 34: One commenter stated 

the FEIS fails to disclose and analyze 

the fundamental flaws in the scenarios 

relied upon to determine that the 

management measures will reduce 

fishing mortality below the OFL, 

especially with regard to bycatch 

mortality estimates and projected 

compliance rates. 

Response: The biological analysis for 

management actions in Amendment 

17A and its associated FEIS, specifically 

Appendix E of the document, provides 

details regarding the analytical model 

used to develop the area closure 

alternatives. Appendix E also provides 

information on the limitations 

associated with the model’s 

assumptions, which were used in 

determining reductions in total 

mortality provided by the proposed area 

closures. The report accompanying the 

model compares projected removal rates 

under the following scenarios with or 

without: (1) Elimination of directed 

and/or targeted trips due to regulations; 

(2) changes in overall release mortality; 

(3) distinct inshore release mortality; 

and (4) varying compliance rates. 

Projected reductions in total removals 

were computed from baseline 2005– 

2007 data compiled from commercial 

logbook, MRFSS, and headboat logbook 

data for the U.S. South Atlantic. In 

various scenarios, baseline removals 

were reduced as a function of trip 

elimination, spatial and bathymetric 

closures, and changes in release 

mortality. As with most projections, 

certain assumptions must be made to 

produce meaningful results. The 

assumptions made in the model analysis 

used to determine what level of harvest 

reduction could be achieved under the 

various area closure alternatives, are 

based upon the best available 

information from SEDAR 15, and 

recommendations by the Council’s SSC. 

Any assumptions used to operate the 

model, which predicted overall harvest 

reductions possible under various red 

snapper management measure 

alternatives, were disclosed and 

subjected to public, SSC, and SEFSC 

review. 

Comment 35: One commenter stated 

that the FEIS fails to consider: The 

impacts of not selecting an explicit OFL 

that is derived from the SSCrecommended MSY proxy; the impacts 

of setting the ABC above the OFL that 

is derived from the SSC-recommended 

FMSY proxy; the impacts of basing the 

ABC on the rebuilding plan as opposed 

to basing it on an ABC control rule that 

incorporates scientific uncertainty 

contained within the overfishing level; 

and the impacts on bycatch and 

stopping overfishing with using an ACL 

that is based on landings only. 

Response: Amendment 17A and its 

associated FEIS include analyses of the 

potential impacts of all alternatives on 

the biological, economic, social, and 

administrative environments, including 

the ‘‘No Action’’ alternatives as required 

by the National Environmental Policy 

Act. Analyses include the impacts of 

adopting a new definition for the FMSY

proxy versus retaining the status quo 

FMSY proxy. The FEIS for Amendment 

17A satisfies all NEPA requirements. 

Section 1.4.2 of Amendment 17A 

discusses the SSC’s recommendation of 

ABC and OFL. At its December 2008 

meeting, the SSC recommended the 

ABC level be set consistent with the 

rebuilding plan in Amendment 17A. 

Therefore, the ABC is specified to equal 

FOY, which is defined as 98 percent 

FMSY (98 percent F30%SPR), during the 

rebuilding schedule. This allows a total 

red snapper mortality of 144,000 lb 

(65,317 kg) whole weight in year one of 

rebuilding based on the status quo FMSY

proxy of F30%SPR, which requires a 76 

percent reduction in red snapper 

harvest. 

According to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act National Standard 1 Guidelines, 

OFL is an annual amount of catch that 

corresponds to the estimate of MFMT 

applied to a stock or complex’s 

abundance. Amendment 11 to the FMP 

defines MFMT as the yield at FMSY

where F30%SPR is the default FMSY proxy. 

Amendment 17A retains the status quo 

proxy for FMSY at F30%SPR, which when 

applied to the red snapper stock would 

be the equivalent to OFL. The numerical 

value of this parameter will change 

annually as stock biomass increases in 

response to the rebuilding plan, and is 

estimated as 2,431,000 lbs (ww) when 

the stock is at equilibrium based on the 

SEDAR 15 assessment. Therefore, ABC 

is less that OFL, since OFL is based on 

the status quo proxy for FMSY and ABC 

is specified to equal FOY, which is 

defined as 98 percent of the status quo 

proxy for FMSY. 

The Council considered including 

both landed catch and discards in the 

specification of the red snapper ACL; 

however, the SSC concluded that 

existing data collection and reporting 

systems are not adequate to support 

monitoring discarded red snapper in the 

commercial and recreational fisheries 

and expressed concern that doing so 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76885 

may create an incentive for fishermen to 

under-report red snapper discards. 

Classification 

The Regional Administrator, 

Southeast Region, NMFS, determined 

that Amendment 17A is necessary for 

the conservation and management of the 

snapper-grouper fishery and is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared an FEIS for this 

amendment. A notice of availability for 

the FEIS was published on August 20, 

2010 (75 FR 51458). A copy of the ROD 

is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). 

NMFS prepared a FRFA, as required 

by 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 

for this final rule. The FRFA 

incorporates by reference the initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a 

summary of the significant issues raised 

by public comments, NMFS responses 

to those comments, and a summary of 

the analyses completed to support the 

action. A copy of the analysis is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

The FRFA follows. 

No comments specific to the IRFA 

were received. However, several 

comments were submitted on the 

economic effects of the proposed rule. 

Most comments stated the proposed rule 

would have devastating economic 

effects on the fishing industry. Some 

comments noted that the proposed rule 

would create undue hardships on forhire crew, support industries, and 

associated communities. Other 

comments stated that the economic 

analysis underestimated the adverse 

economic effects of the proposed rule on 

the for-hire sector in particular and the 

recreational sector in general. 

The economic analysis conducted for 

the proposed rule estimated the 

expected quantitative effects of each 

alternative to the extent possible. 

Qualitative discussions of expected 

effects were provided where data or 

analytical techniques were not 

available. The analysis focused on the 

expected change in economic value, 

where economic value was measured by 

net operating revenues for commercial 

and for-hire vessels and consumer 

surplus for recreational anglers. An 

expenditure analysis was also 

conducted to provide some insights into 

the distributional effects of the proposed 

rule. This analysis examined the direct 

and indirect effects (sales/output, 

income/value-added, and full-time 

employment) of revenue reductions on 

the commercial sector and of target trip 

reductions on the recreational sector 

due to the proposed rule. The economic 

analysis concluded that, with the 

exception of the no action alternatives, 

practically all alternatives would result 

in short-run adverse economic effects on 

fishers, support industries, and 

associated communities. The adverse 

economic effects would be borne mostly 

by commercial and for-hire operations 

in northeast Florida and Georgia. Some 

alternatives to the proposed rule would 

be expected to result in lower adverse 

economic effects but would not achieve 

the Council’s objective for that 

particular action. Other alternatives to 

the proposed rule would achieve the 

Council’s objectives but were projected 

to result in larger adverse economic 

effects. 

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. 

No changes in the final rule were 

made in response to public comments. 

The final rule, which consists of 

several actions, would introduce 

changes to the management of the South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. This 

rule would prohibit all commercial and 

recreational harvest and possession of 

red snapper year-round in the South 

Atlantic EEZ. Prohibition of the harvest 

and possession of red snapper applies in 

the South Atlantic on board a vessel for 

which a valid Federal charter vessel/ 

headboat or commercial permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper has 

been issued, without regard to where 

such species are harvested, i.e., in State 

or Federal waters. Furthermore, this rule 

would prohibit commercial and 

recreational harvest and possession of 

all snapper-grouper species year-round 

in an area that includes commercial 

logbook grids 2880, 2980, and 3080 

between 98 ft (16 fathoms; 30 m) and 

240 ft (40 fathoms; 73 m), except when 

snapper-grouper (other than red 

snapper) are harvested with (a) black sea 

bass pots that have a valid identification 

tag attached, or (b) spearfishing gear. 

The prohibition on possession does not 

apply to a person aboard a vessel that 

is in transit with other snapper-grouper 

species on board and with fishing gear 

appropriately stowed. Finally, this rule 

would require the use of non-stainless 

steel circle hooks when fishing for 

snapper-grouper with snapper-grouper 

hook-and-line gear and natural baits 

north of 28° N. latitude. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides 

the statutory basis for the final rule. 

No duplicative, overlapping, or 

conflicting Federal rules have been 

identified. The final rule would not alter 

existing reporting, record keeping, or 

other compliance requirements, except 

when the vessel is in transit across the 

closed area, during which, fishing gear 

must be appropriately stowed, or when 

the vessel is selected for the fisheryindependent monitoring program to 

track the progress of red snapper. 

This final rule is expected to directly 

affect commercial harvesting and forhire fishing operations. 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, the other qualifiers apply and 

the annual receipts threshold is $7.0 

million (NAICS code 713990, 

recreational industries). 

In 2003–2007, an average of 944 

vessels per year was permitted to 

operate in the commercial snappergrouper sector. Of these vessels, 749 

held transferable permits and 195 held 

non-transferable permits. On average, 

890 vessels landed 6.43 million lb (2.92 

million kg) of snapper-grouper and 1.95 

million lb (0.88 million kg) of other 

species on snapper-grouper trips. Total 

dockside revenues from snappergrouper species stood at $13.81 million 

(2007 dollars) and from other species, at 

$2.30 million (2007 dollars). 

Considering revenues from both 

snapper-grouper and other species, the 

average revenues per vessel were 

$18,101. An average of 27 vessels per 

year harvested more than 50,000 lb 

(22,680 kg) of snapper-grouper species 

per year, generating at least, at an 

average price of $2.15 (2007 dollars) per 

pound, dockside revenues of $107,500. 

Vessels that operate in the snappergrouper fishery may also operate in 

other fisheries, the revenues of which 

cannot be determined with available 

data and are not reflected in these totals. 

Although a vessel that possesses a 

commercial snapper-grouper permit can 

harvest various snapper-grouper 

species, not all permitted vessels landed 

all of the snapper-grouper species most 

affected by this amendment, i.e. red 

snapper, gag, vermilion snapper, black 

sea bass, black grouper, and red grouper. 

The following average number of vessels 

landed the subject species in 2003– 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2007: 292 vessels landed gag, 253 

vessels landed vermilion snapper, 220 

vessels landed red snapper, 237 vessels 

landed black sea bass, 323 vessels 

landed black grouper, and 402 vessels 

landed red grouper. Combining 

revenues from snapper-grouper and 

other species on the same trip, the 

average revenue (2007 dollars) per 

vessel for vessels landing the subject 

species were $20,551 for gag, $28,454 

for vermilion snapper, $22,168 for red 

snapper, $19,034 for black sea bass, 

$7,186 for black grouper, and $17,164 

for red grouper. 

Based on revenue information, all 

commercial vessels directly affected by 

the final rule are considered small 

entities. 

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 2003–2007, an average 

of 1,635 vessels was permitted to 

operate in the snapper-grouper for-hire 

sector, of which 82 are estimated to 

have operated as headboats. Within the 

total number of vessels, 227 also 

possessed a commercial snappergrouper permit and are included in the 

summary information provided on the 

commercial sector. The charterboat 

annual average gross revenue is 

estimated to range from approximately 

$62,000–$84,000 for Florida vessels, 

$73,000–$89,000 for North Carolina 

vessels, $68,000–$83,000 for Georgia 

vessels, and $32,000–$39,000 for South 

Carolina vessels. For headboats, the 

corresponding estimates are $170,000– 

$362,000 for Florida vessels, and 

$149,000–$317,000 for vessels in the 

other States. 

Based on these average revenue 

figures, all for-hire operations directly 

affected by the final rule are considered 

small entities. 

Some fleet activity may exist in both 

the commercial and for-hire snappergrouper sectors but its extent is 

unknown, and all vessels are treated as 

independent entities in this analysis. 

All entities that are expected to be 

directly affected by the final rule are 

considered small entities. 

The final rule is expected to reduce 

short-run harvests and fishing 

opportunities of commercial and forhire vessels that, in turn, would reduce 

their short-run revenues and profits. In 

the following discussion, net operating 

revenue is considered equivalent to 

profit. 

Prohibiting all commercial and 

recreational harvest and possession of 

red snapper year-round in the South 

Atlantic EEZ and prohibiting all 

commercial and recreational harvest 

and possession of other species (except 

when caught with spearfishing gear or 

black sea bass pots that have a valid 

identification tag issued by the RA 

attached) in the snapper-grouper fishery 

year-round in the area that includes 

commercial logbook grids 2880, 2980, 

and 3080 between 98 ft (16 fathoms; 30 

m) and 240 ft (40 fathoms; 73 m) is 

expected to reduce net operating 

revenues of commercial vessels 

operating in the South Atlantic by an 

average of approximately $430,000 (4.8 

percent), assuming the no action 

alternatives in Amendment 17B to the 

FMP, or $931,000 (10.3 percent) when 

combined with the preferred 

alternatives in Amendment 17B to the 

FMP. This measure is also expected to 

reduce the net operating revenues of forhire vessels operating in the South 

Atlantic by approximately $5.04 

million. Most of the effects would be 

borne by commercial and for-hire 

vessels operating in northeast Florida 

and Georgia, and would comprise a 

significant portion of these vessels’ net 

operating revenues. Moreover, most of 

the effects would fall on commercial 

vessels using vertical lines and on 

headboats. However, it is highly 

probable that the effects on headboats 

are overestimated due to overestimation 

of affected target trips by headboats. 

Exempting from the closed area 

prohibition the harvests of snappergrouper species, except red snapper, 

caught with spearfishing gear or black 

sea bass pots that have valid 

identification tags would mitigate the 

effects of the area closures on 

commercial vessels. These effects are 

already incorporated in the estimated 

effects of the fishing prohibition on red 

snapper and fishing prohibition on 

snapper-grouper in the closed area. 

Requiring the use of non-stainless 

steel circle hooks when fishing for 

snapper-grouper species with snappergrouper hook-and-line gear north of 28° 

N. latitude is expected to increase the 

fishing costs of some commercial and 

for-hire vessels. Depending on the 

physical structure of a fish’s mouth and 

the way that the fish takes bait, the 

circle hook requirement may reduce the 

harvest of some desired species. The 

potential cost increase and harvest 

reduction cannot be estimated, although 

they are deemed to be relatively small 

considering that circle hooks are already 

used on some vessels. 

The estimated short-run reductions in 

the net operating revenues of the 

directly affected small entities, 

particularly for-hire vessels, may be 

considered substantial. Small entities 

operating off of northeast Florida and 

Georgia are expected to bear most of the 

short-run adverse economic effects, with 

these effects comprising a significant 

portion of their net operating revenues. 

For the various red snapper 

management measures, there were 15 

alternatives, and three sub-alternatives 

considered. Four of the alternatives and 

one of the sub-alternatives including: 

(1) The red snapper prohibition; (2) the 

snapper-grouper area closure; (3) the red 

snapper ACL; and (4) the red snapper 

AM, comprise the final action. 

The first alternative for each of the 

elements of the final action was the no 

action alternative, which would not 

conform to the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements to end the overfished and 

overfishing conditions of red snapper. 

The second alternative to the final 

action would prohibit all commercial 

and recreational harvest and possession 

of red snapper year-round in the South 

Atlantic EEZ. This alternative has been 

determined to be insufficient to rebuild 

the red snapper stock within the 

specified timeframe due to discard 

mortalities when fishing for cooccurring snapper-grouper species. The 

third alternative to the final action 

would close four logbook grids and 

would close all water depths in the four 

subject areas. This alternative would 

result in larger short-run adverse 

economic effects than the final action. 

The fourth alternative to the final action 

would close four logbook grids and 

would close more water depths in the 

shallower parts of the four subject areas. 

This alternative would result in larger 

short-run adverse economic effects than 

the final action. The fifth alternative to 

the final action is similar to the final 

action, except that it would close four, 

instead of three, logbook grids. This 

alternative would result in slightly 

larger short-run adverse economic 

effects than the final action. The sixth 

alternative to the final action would 

close four logbook grids and would 

close more water depths in the deeper 

parts of the four subject areas. This 

alternative would result in larger shortrun adverse economic effects than the 

final action. The seventh alternative to 

the final action differs from the final 

action by closing four additional areas 

and all water depths in the subject 

seven areas. This alternative would 

result in substantially larger short-run 

adverse economic effects than the final 

action. The eighth alternative to the 

final action differs from the final action 

by closing four additional areas and 

more water depths in the shallower 

parts of the subject seven areas. This 

alternative would result in substantially 

larger short-run adverse economic 

effects than the final action. The ninth 

alternative to the final action differs 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76887 

from the final action by closing four 

additional areas. This alternative would 

result in substantially larger short-run 

adverse economic effects than the final 

action. The tenth alternative to the final 

action differs from the final action by 

closing four additional areas and more 

water depths in the deeper parts of the 

subject seven areas. This alternative 

would result in substantially larger 

short-run adverse economic effects than 

the final action. The eleventh alternative 

to the final action would, in 

combination with any of the alternatives 

that would prohibit harvest and 

possession of red snapper and close four 

or seven areas to snapper-grouper 

fishing, allow harvest and possession of 

snapper-grouper species (except red 

snapper) with bottom longline gear in 

the closed areas deeper than 50 fathoms 

(91 m). Relative to the final action, this 

alternative would have smaller adverse 

effects on commercial vessels and no 

effects on for-hire vessels. Three subalternatives, including the final action, 

were considered for vessels transiting 

through the closed areas. The first subalternative would be less restrictive than 

the final action by not requiring that 

fishing gear be appropriately stowed 

when vessels transit through the closed 

areas. This alternative would slightly 

mitigate the adverse economic effects of 

the closed areas, but it could 

compromise the effectiveness of 

enforcing regulations in the closed 

areas. The second sub-alternative to the 

final action would be less restrictive 

than the final action for vessels with 

wreckfish on board. This alternative 

would particularly avoid the potential 

unintended adverse effects on vessels 

fishing for wreckfish, but it could also 

compromise the effectiveness of 

enforcing regulations in the closed 

areas. 

Three alternatives, including the final 

action, were considered for requiring 

the use of circle hooks. The first 

alternative to the final action, the no 

action alternative, would not require the 

use of circle hooks, and so would not 

entail any additional fishing cost. On 

the other hand, it would not take 

advantage of the potential afforded by 

circle hooks in reducing discard and 

bycatch mortality of red snapper, 

particularly in the center of the red 

snapper fishing area. The second 

alternative to the final action would 

require the use of circle hooks 

throughout the South Atlantic EEZ and 

not just north of 28° N. latitude, as in 

the final action. This alternative could 

entail higher fishing costs than the final 

action. It could also lower vessel 

revenues when some species cannot be 

effectively caught with circle hooks, 

particularly in the southern areas where 

red snapper harvest is relatively low. 

In addition to the foregoing actions, 

Amendment 17A also considered 

various alternatives for modifying the 

MSY proxy and establishing a 

rebuilding schedule, a rebuilding 

strategy, and a monitoring program for 

red snapper. 

The Council elected to take no action 

to modify the status quo FMSY proxy for 

red snapper, which is F30%SPR. The final 

action on rebuilding strategy for red 

snapper would define a rebuilding 

strategy that sets the rebuilding goal 

equal to SSBMSY and sets the catch rate 

equal to FOY, which is 98 percent FMSY

(98%F30%SPR), and specify an ACL based 

on landings, equal to zero in 2010 and 

beyond 2010 until modified. OY at 

equilibrium would be 2,425,000 lb 

(1,099,961 kg) whole weight. The final 

action on monitoring programs is to 

establish a fishery-independent 

monitoring program to track the 

progress of red snapper. Sampling 

would include deployment of chevron 

traps, cameras, and snapper-grouper 

hook-and-line at randomly selected 

stations. 

The Council considered modifying 

the status quo FMSY proxy for red 

snapper at the advice of their SSC. 

Specifically, they evaluated the impacts 

of adopting a more conservative proxy 

of F40%SPR, which would provide more 

assurance that overfishing would be 

ended and the stock rebuilt within the 

specified timeframe. However, after 

thoroughly considering the implications 

associated with this more conservative 

proxy, as well as input from their SSC 

and NMFS, they elected to take no 

action to change the status quo 

definition of MSY. Amendment 17A 

specifies the numerical value associated 

with this definition as 2,431,000 lbs 

(ww) based on the most recent, 

completed, red snapper stock 

assessment at the time of final Council 

action (SEDAR 15 2008). Instead, the 

Council recommended that the SEFSC 

conduct a comprehensive review of how 

FMSY proxies should be applied across 

all southeastern fisheries and are 

considering developing a more generic 

amendment to evaluate changing the 

MSY/MSY proxy for red snapper and 

other species, because it would allow 

the Council to achieve some level of 

consistency, where applicable, in 

defining MSY/MSY proxies across many 

species. Four alternatives, including the 

final action, were considered for the red 

snapper rebuilding schedule. The first 

alternative to the final action, the no 

action alternative, would not define a 

rebuilding schedule for red snapper. 

Considering that a previous rebuilding 

schedule expired in 2006 and the stock 

is overfished, this alternative would not 

meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements. The second alternative to 

the final action would define a 

rebuilding schedule equal to 15 years, 

which is the shortest possible period to 

rebuild in the absence of fishing 

mortality. Even if retention of red 

snapper is prohibited, red snapper 

would still be caught since they have 

temporal and spatial coincidence with 

other species fishermen target. Because 

release mortality is estimated to be very 

high for red snapper, a 15-year 

rebuilding time period would require 

most of the EEZ to be closed to fishing 

for a majority of the snapper-grouper 

species to eliminate all incidental 

mortality of red snapper. The significant 

and irreversible socioeconomic impacts 

of such an action, which may or may 

not be recouped in the long run, make 

a 15-year schedule impracticable. The 

third alternative to the final action 

would define a rebuilding schedule 

equal to 25 years, which is the midpoint between the shortest possible (15 

years) and maximum recommended (35 

years) timeframe to rebuild the stock. 

This alternative would require more 

stringent regulations in the short run 

and thus more short-run adverse 

economic effects than the final action. 

Economic analyses indicate there is a 

fairly low level of likelihood that the 

future benefits of recovering the red 

snapper stock more quickly would 

outweigh the short-term costs to the red 

snapper fleet and the larger snappergrouper fleet associated with the more 

restrictive regulations required by 

shorter rebuilding schedules. 

Nine alternatives, including the final 

action, were considered for the 

rebuilding strategy, including the ACL 

and AM. With the exception of the no 

action alternative, each alternative 

includes two sub-alternatives for the 

ACL, and each ACL in turn includes 

three alternatives for the AM. The three 

AM alternatives, which all include 

monitoring programs, are identical for 

all alternatives and sub-alternatives, so 

they do not merit additional discussions 

here. 

The rebuilding strategy is closely 

linked to the proxy for FMSY since the 

goal is to rebuild the stock to its 

reproductive capacity at MSY (SSBMSY). 

The current MSY definition requires a 

76 percent reduction in total mortality 

of red snapper in order to end 

overfishing and rebuild the stock. 

Because the Council used a tiered 

approach in the development of 

Amendment 17A, maintaining the status 

quo FMSY proxy influenced the suite of 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

rebuilding strategy alternatives from 

which the Council could choose a 

preferred. Thus, the range of applicable 

alternatives was ultimately narrowed to 

those based on the status quo FMSY

proxy of F30%SPR (rebuilding strategy 

Alternatives 6–9). Rebuilding strategy 

Alternatives 2–5 are based on an FMSY

proxy of F40%SPR, and therefore, became 

technically inconsistent with red 

snapper management reference points 

after the Council decided to take no 

action to modify the FMSY proxy. The 

Council chose a rebuilding strategy that 

sets the rebuilding goal equal to SSBMSY

and sets the catch rate equal to FOY, 

which is 98%FMSY (98%F30%SPR), with 

an ACL equal to zero based on landings 

only. Under this rebuilding strategy, the 

fishery would have a 53 percent chance 

of rebuilding to SSBMSY on schedule. 

The first alternative to the final 

action, the no action alternative, would 

not specify an ACL and so would not 

meet the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requirements. In addition, it would set 

the rebuilding catch rate equal to FOY at 

a level equivalent to 85 percent F40%SPR

such that OY at equilibrium equals 

2,196,000 lb (996,089 kg) whole weight, 

which is technically inconsistent with 

the Council’s decision to maintain the 

status quo FMSY proxy of F30%SPR. The 

second alternative to the final action 

would define a red snapper rebuilding 

strategy that sets FOY at a level 

equivalent to 85 percent F40%SPR such 

that OY at equilibrium equals 2,199,000 

lb (997,450 kg) whole weight, which is 

technically inconsistent with the 

Council’s decision to maintain the 

status quo FMSY proxy of F30%SPR. The 

first sub-alternative would base the ACL 

on landings, with the ACL equal to zero 

in 2010. This is identical to the final 

action. The second sub-alternative 

would base the ACL on total removal, 

with the ACL equal to 89,000 lb (40,370 

kg) whole weight in 2010. This would 

still require prohibition of red snapper 

harvest by both the commercial and 

recreational sectors. In addition, this 

would require monitoring of dead 

discards so that total removal would not 

exceed the ACL. The difficulty of 

monitoring dead discards, together with 

the likelihood that self-reported 

discards would be understated, raises 

concerns regarding the eventual 

effectiveness of the rebuilding strategy. 

The third alternative to the final action 

would define a red snapper rebuilding 

strategy that sets FOY at a level 

equivalent to 75 percent F40%SPR such 

that OY at equilibrium equals 2,104,000 

lb (954,358 kg) whole weight, which is 

technically inconsistent with the 

Council’s decision to maintain the 

status quo FMSY proxy of F30%SPR. The 

second sub-alternative would base the 

ACL on total removal, with the ACL 

equal to 79,000 lb (35,834 kg) whole 

weight in 2010. This sub-alternative 

raises similar issues of concern 

associated with the monitoring of dead 

discards. The fourth alternative to the 

final action would define a red snapper 

rebuilding strategy that sets FOY at a 

level equivalent to 65 percent F40%SPR

such that OY at equilibrium equals 

1,984,000 lb (899,927 kg) whole weight, 

which is technically inconsistent with 

the Council’s decision to maintain the 

status quo FMSY proxy of F30%SPR. The 

first sub-alternative is identical to the 

final action. The second sub-alternative 

would base the ACL on total removal, 

with the ACL equal to 68,000 lb (30,844 

kg) whole weight in 2010. This subalternative raises similar issues of 

concern associated with the monitoring 

of dead discards. The fifth alternative to 

the final action would define a red 

snapper rebuilding strategy that sets FOY

at a level equivalent to 97 percent 

F40%SPR such that OY at equilibrium 

equals 2,287,000 lb (1,037,366 kg) whole 

weight, which is technically 

inconsistent with the Council’s decision 

to maintain the status quo FMSY proxy 

of F30%SPR. The first sub-alternative is 

identical to the final action. The second 

sub-alternative would base the ACL on 

total removal, with the ACL equal to 

68,000 lb (30,844 kg) whole weight in 

2010. This sub-alternative raises similar 

issues of concern associated with the 

monitoring of dead discards. The sixth 

alternative to the final action would 

define a red snapper rebuilding strategy 

that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 85 

percent F30%SPR such that OY at 

equilibrium equals 2,392,000 lb 

(1,084,993 kg) whole weight. This 

alternative would imply more restrictive 

measures than the final action in the 

short run, resulting in larger short-run 

adverse economic effects and 

potentially lower long-run benefits 

because of a lower OY. The first subalternative is identical to the final 

action. The second sub-alternative 

would base the ACL on total removal, 

with the ACL equal to 125,000 lb 

(56,699 kg) whole weight in 2010. This 

sub-alternative raises similar issues of 

concern associated with the monitoring 

of dead discards, although the higher 

ACL than that of previous subalternatives would tend to mitigate but 

not erase such concerns. The seventh 

alternative to the final action would 

define a red snapper rebuilding strategy 

that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 75 

percent F30%SPR such that OY at 

equilibrium equals 2,338,000 lb 

(1,060,499 kg) whole weight. This 

alternative would imply more restrictive 

measures in the short run, resulting in 

lower short-run adverse economic 

effects and potentially higher long-run 

benefits because of a lower OY. The first 

sub-alternative is identical to the final 

action. The second sub-alternative 

would base the ACL on total removal, 

with the ACL equal to 111,000 lb 

(50,349 kg) whole weight in 2010. This 

sub-alternative raises similar issues of 

concern associated with the monitoring 

of dead discards, although the higher 

ACL than that of some previous subalternatives would tend to mitigate but 

not erase such concerns. The eighth 

alternative to the final action would 

define a red snapper rebuilding strategy 

that sets FOY at a level equivalent to 65 

percent F30%SPR such that OY at 

equilibrium equals 2,257,000 lb 

(1,023,758 kg) whole weight. This 

alternative would imply more restrictive 

measures than the final action in the 

short run, resulting in lower short-run 

adverse economic effects and 

potentially lower long-run benefits 

because of a lower OY. The first subalternative is identical to the final 

action. The second sub-alternative 

would base the ACL on total removal, 

with the ACL equal to 97,000 lb (43,998 

kg) whole weight in 2010. This subalternative raises similar issues of 

concern associated with the monitoring 

of dead discards, particularly that the 

ACL is lower than that of some previous 

sub-alternatives. 

Three alternatives, including the final 

action, were considered for the red 

snapper monitoring program. The first 

alternative, the no action alternative, 

would not entail any additional cost by 

utilizing existing data collection 

programs. However, existing data 

collection programs may not be 

adequate to collect vital information on 

red snapper during the time harvest of 

the species is prohibited. The second 

alternative to the final action would 

establish a red snapper fisherydependent monitoring program 

involving for-hire vessels. This 

alternative offers some potential as does 

the final action in collecting the needed 

information on red snapper, especially 

during the period when harvest of the 

species is prohibited. Although the near 

ideal approach is to combine this 

alternative with the final action, funding 

for both may not be available on a 

continuing basis. 

Section 212 of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 states that, for each rule or group 

of related rules for which an agency is 

required to prepare an FRFA, the agency 

shall publish one or more guides to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 76889 

assist small entities in complying with 

the rule, and shall designate such 

publications as ‘‘small entity compliance 

guides.’’ As part of this rulemaking 

process, NMFS prepared a fishery 

bulletin, which also serves as a small 

entity compliance guide. The fishery 

bulletin will be sent to all vessel permit 

holders and permitted dealers in the 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there 

is good cause to waive the 30-day delay 

in effective date for the management 

measures that implement the 

prohibitions on harvest and possession 

of red snapper in the South Atlantic. 

Red snapper are overfished and 

undergoing overfishing. An interim rule 

implementing these measures was 

promulgated on January 4, 2010 (74 FR 

63673, December 4, 2009), extended on 

June 3, 2010 (75 FR 27658, May 18, 

2010), and will expire on December 5, 

2010. The persons affected by these 

management measures have been 

provided with notice and the 

opportunity to comment on these 

measures via the public comment 

period for the proposed interim rule, 

Amendment 17A, and the proposed rule 

for Amendment 17A, and they are aware 

of the intent of the Council and NMFS 

to continue the existing prohibitions 

immediately upon expiration of the 

interim rule. To prevent a lapse in these 

prohibitions, amendments to § 622.32, 

§ 622.37, § 622.39, and § 622.45 must 

become effective on or before December 

5, 2010. 

A red snapper benchmark assessment 

(SEDAR 24) was completed in late 

October 2010, which provides 

additional information on the 

effectiveness of these prohibitions. The 

assessment indicates that red snapper 

are overfished and undergoing 

overfishing and that the current harvest 

prohibition for red snapper is providing 

substantial protection to the stock. 

Furthermore, the new assessment 

indicates a strong year class entered the 

fishery in 2006, and fishermen are 

aware that there are more young red 

snapper available than in previous 

years. Therefore, should a lapse occur in 

these prohibitions, it is expected that 

there would be very high fishing 

pressure on an unusually strong year 

class, which needs to be protected to 

help rebuild the stock. A lapse could 

also lead to more severe harvest 

reductions for the snapper-grouper 

fishery as a whole with associated 

adverse socioeconomic impacts. For all 

of these reasons, a waiver of the 30-day 

delay of effective date for these 

measures is necessary. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: November 30, 2010. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 622 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 622.32, paragraph (b)(3)(vi) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 622.32 Prohibited and limited-harvest 

species. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vi) Red snapper may not be harvested 

or possessed in or from the South 

Atlantic EEZ. Such fish caught in the 

South Atlantic EEZ must be released 

immediately with a minimum of harm. 

In addition, for a person on board a 

vessel for which a valid Federal 

commercial or charter vessel/headboat 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, the provisions 

of this closure apply in the South 

Atlantic, regardless of where such fish 

are harvested, i.e., in State or Federal 

waters. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 622.35, paragraph (l) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.35 Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area 

closures. 

* * * * * 

(l) Area closure for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper. (1) No person may 

harvest or possess a South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper in or from the South 

Atlantic EEZ in the closed area defined 

in paragraph (l)(2) of this section, except 

a person harvesting South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper (see § 622.32(b)(3) for 

the current prohibitions on the harvest 

and possession of red snapper and other 

snapper-grouper species) with 

spearfishing gear or with a sea bass pot 

that has a valid identification tag issued 

by the RA attached, as specified in 

§ 622.6(b)(1)(i)(B). This prohibition on 

possession does not apply to a person 

aboard a vessel that is transiting through 

the closed area with fishing gear 

appropriately stowed as specified in 

paragraph (l)(3) of this section. 

(2) The area closure for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper is bounded by rhumb 

lines connecting, in order, the following 

points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A ........................ 28°00′00′′ 80°00′00′′ 

B ........................ 28°00′00′′ 80°10′57′′ 

C ........................ 29°31′40′′ 80°30′34′′ 

D ........................ 30°02′03′′ 80°50′45′′ 

E ........................ 31°00′00′′ 80°35′19′′ 

F ........................ 31°00′00′′ 80°00′00′′ 

G ....................... 30°52′54′′ 80°00′00′′ 

H ........................ 30°27′19′′ 80°11′41′′ 

I ......................... 29°54′31′′ 80°15′51′′ 

J ........................ 29°24′24′′ 80°13′32′′ 

K ........................ 28°27′20′′ 80°00′00′′ 

A ........................ 28°00′00′′ 80°00′00′′ 

(3) For the purpose of paragraph (l)(1) 

of this section, continuous transiting or 

transit through means that a fishing 

vessel crosses the area closure on a 

constant heading, along a continuous 

straight line course, while underway, 

making way, not anchored, and by 

means of a source of power at all times 

(not including drifting by means of the 

prevailing water current or weather 

conditions). Fishing gear appropriately 

stowed means— 

(i) A longline may be left on the drum 

if all gangions and hooks are 

disconnected and stowed below deck. 

Hooks cannot be baited. All buoys must 

be disconnected from the gear; however, 

buoys may remain on deck. 

(ii) A trawl or try net may remain on 

deck, but trawl doors must be 

disconnected from such net and must be 

secured. 

(iii) A gillnet, stab net, or trammel net 

must be left on the drum. Any 

additional such nets not attached to the 

drum must be stowed below deck. 

(iv) Terminal gear (i.e., hook, leader, 

sinker, flasher, or bait) used with an 

automatic reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, 

trolling gear, handline, or rod and reel 

must be disconnected and stowed 

separately from such fishing gear. A rod 

and reel must be removed from the rod 

holder and stowed securely on or below 

deck. 

(v) A crustacean trap or golden crab 

trap cannot be baited. All buoys must be 

disconnected from the gear; however, 

buoys may remain on deck. 

(vi) Other stowage methods may be 

authorized by the Regional 

Administrator in the future. These 

would be published in the Federal 

Register and become effective at that 

time. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 622.37, paragraph (e)(1)(v) is 

revised to read as follows: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4
76890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 236 / Thursday, December 9, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 622.37 Size limits. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) Red snapper—20 inches (50.8 cm), 

TL, however, see ’ 622.32(b)(3)(vii) for 

the current prohibition on the harvest 

and possession of red snapper. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 622.39, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) and 

(d)(1)(viii) are revised and paragraph 

(d)(1)(ix) is added to read as follows: 

§ 622.39 Bag and possession limits. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) Snappers, combined—10. 

However, excluded from this 10-fish bag 

limit are cubera snapper, measuring 30 

inches (76.2 cm), TL, or larger, in the 

South Atlantic off Florida, and red 

snapper and vermilion snapper. (See 

§ 622.32(b)(3)(vii) for the prohibition on 

harvest and possession of red snapper 

and § 622.32(c)(2) for limitations on 

cubera snapper measuring 30 inches 

(76.2 cm), TL, or larger, in or from the 

South Atlantic EEZ off Florida.) 

* * * * * 

(viii) South Atlantic snapper-grouper, 

combined—20. However, excluded from 

this 20-fish bag limit are tomtate, blue 

runner, and those specified in 

paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (vii), and 

(ix) of this section. 

(ix) No red snapper may be retained. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 622.41, the introductory text in 

paragraph (n) is revised and paragraph 

(n)(2) is added to read as follows: 

§ 622.41 Species specific limitations. 

* * * * * 

(n) Required gear in the South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. For a 

person on board a vessel to harvest or 

possess South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

in or from the South Atlantic EEZ, the 

vessel must possess on board and such 

person must use the gear as specified in 

paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(2) Non-stainless steel circle hooks. 

Non-stainless steel circle hooks are 

required to be used when fishing with 

hook-and-line gear and natural baits 

north of 28E N. lat. 

■ 7. In § 622.45, paragraph (d)(10) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 622.45 Restrictions on sale and 

purchase. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(10) No person may sell or purchase 

a red snapper harvested from or 

possessed in the South Atlantic, i.e., 

State or Federal waters, by a vessel for 

which a Federal commercial permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper has 

been issued. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–30394 Filed 12–3–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 101124587–0586–01] 

RIN 0648–BA47 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery Off the South Atlantic 

States; Emergency Rule To Delay 

Effectiveness of the Snapper-Grouper 

Area Closure 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency 

action. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this temporary 

rule to delay the effective date of the 

area closure for snapper-grouper 

specified in Amendment 17A to the 

Fishery Management Plan for the 

Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 

Atlantic Region (FMP). The area closure 

will become effective on January 3, 

2011, through the final rule that 

implements Amendment 17A. A 

Southeast Data Assessment and Review 

(SEDAR) benchmark stock assessment 

for red snapper (SEDAR 24) was just 

completed on October 25, 2010, and was 

reviewed by the South Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council’s) 

Scientific and Statistical Committee 

(SSC) during its meeting from November 

9–11, 2010. The new stock assessment 

still shows red snapper to be overfished 

and undergoing overfishing, however, 

the rate of overfishing found in SEDAR 

24 is less than the rate of overfishing 

found in the previous stock assessment 

(SEDAR 15). The SSC concluded that, 

based on SEDAR 24, the snappergrouper area closure approved in 

Amendment 17A is more conservative 

that what is needed to end overfishing 

of red snapper. Temporarily delaying 

the effective date of the snapper-grouper 

area closure specified in Amendment 

17A will allow the Council time to 

respond to the new stock assessment 

information through a regulatory 

amendment, which will be discussed at 

the Council’s December meeting. This 

emergency action is necessary to 

mitigate negative socioeconomic 

impacts associated with the snappergrouper area closure on South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper fishermen and to 

ensure the area closure is based upon 

the best scientific information available. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 

2010 through June 1, 2011, unless 

NMFS publishes a superseding 

document in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ‘‘0648–BA47’’, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 727–824–5308. Attn: Kate 

Michie. 

• Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue S., St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

Instructions: No comments will be 

posted for public viewing until after the 

comment period has closed. All 

comments received are a part of the 

public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulation.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (for example, name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter may be publicly 

accessible. Do not submit Confidential 

Business Information or otherwise 

sensitive or protected information. 

To submit comments through the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov, enter ANOAA– 

NMFS–2010–0243’’ in the keyword 

search, then check the box labeled 

‘‘Select to find documents accepting 

comments or submissions’’, then select 

‘‘Send a Comment or Submission.’’ 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter N/A in the required 

fields, if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Copies of the supporting 

documentation for this emergency rule, 

as well as Amendment 17A and its 

accompanying analyses, may be 

obtained from Kate Michie, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue S., St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Michie, telephone 727–824–5305; 

e-mail Kate.Michie@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery is 

managed under the FMP. The FMP was 

prepared by the Council and is 

implemented by NMFS under the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES4