[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76874-76890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30394]



[[Page 76873]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 622



Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 
17A; Emergency Rule To Delay Effectiveness of the Snapper-Grouper Area 
Closure; Final Rule and Temporary Rule

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

[[Page 76874]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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; 
Snapper-Grouper 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 snapper-grouper species with hook and line gear north of 28[deg] 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 Sec.  622.35, which are effective January 3, 2011, and 
the amendments to Sec.  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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3e755f4a5b1073575d56575b7e50515f5f10595148"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2a9839687ccaf8b818a8b87a28c8d8383cc858d94">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 Sec.  622.41(n) to use non-
stainless steel circle hooks when fishing for South Atlantic snapper-
grouper with hook-and-line gear and natural baits north of 28[deg] 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 non-
governmental organizations, one of which was endorsed by 30,388

[[Page 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 non-
governmental 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 co-occurring 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 
Magnuson-Stevens 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 for-
hire trips, etc.) will likely have negative economic and social effects 
on snapper-grouper 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 
snapper-grouper 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

[[Page 76876]]

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[deg] 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[deg] 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[deg] N. latitude where red snapper are less 
abundant; therefore, the Council chose to limit the circle hook 
requirement to areas north of 28[deg] 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 fishery-
independent 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 fishery-dependent 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 spill-related 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

[[Page 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 snapper-grouper 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 snapper-
grouper 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 snapper-grouper 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

[[Page 76878]]

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

[[Page 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 snapper-grouper 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 snapper-grouper 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 release-mortality 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

[[Page 76880]]

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 snapper-grouper 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 J-hooks with and without wire appendages and 
their effects on reducing the catch of small and gut-hooked 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 non-stainless steel circle hooks north of 28[deg] 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 Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. The SEDAR 24 findings support the current red snapper harvest

[[Page 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 snapper-grouper 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 (F<INF>MSY</INF>) proxy approved by NMFS is 
inadequate and does not follow the SSC's F<INF>MSY</INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> or 
F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>.
    At its December 2008 meeting, the Council's SSC discussed the 
positive and negative effects of maintaining the current proxy for 
F<INF>MSY</INF> (F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>) 
versus establishing a new proxy for F<INF>MSY</INF> at 
F<INF>40</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>. Some SSC members 
supported the CIE's recommendation, based on SEDAR 15, to use 
F<INF>40</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF> and cited literature 
and examples that showed that F<INF>40</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF> 
is a more appropriate proxy for F<INF>MSY</INF>. Other SSC members 
stated F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF> 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 F<INF>40</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>40</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>, as well as input from 
their SSC and NMFS, the Council elected to take no action to change the 
current definition of the F<INF>MSY</INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>40</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxies should be applied across all southeastern 
fisheries, and that the decision to apply a specific F<INF>MSY</INF> 
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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>, 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF>. 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 F<INF>OY</INF> equal to 98 percent F<INF>MSY</INF> (98 percent 
F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>) 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 F<INF>OY</INF> equal to 98 percent F<INF>MSY</INF> (98 percent 
F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>) 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy 
(F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>), which requires a 76 
percent reduction in harvest of red snapper. The Council's preferred 
alternative in Amendment

[[Page 76882]]

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 fishery-independent 
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 F<INF>MSY</INF> where 
F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF> is the default 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy. Amendment 17A retains the status quo proxy for 
F<INF>MSY</INF> at F<INF>30</INF><INF>[percnt]<INF>SPR</INF></INF>, 
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.

[[Page 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 Snapper-Grouper 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 fishery-independent 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>. As this reduction was slightly 
less than that required by the formerly preferred 
F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> 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

[[Page 76884]]

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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy (F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>) than the 
status quo proxy of F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>, 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 
SSC-recommended MSY proxy; the impacts of setting the ABC above the OFL 
that is derived from the SSC-recommended F<INF>MSY</INF> 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy versus retaining the status quo F<INF>MSY</INF> 
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 F<INF>OY</INF>, which is 
defined as 98 percent F<INF>MSY</INF> (98 percent 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>), 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>, 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> where 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> is the default F<INF>MSY</INF> 
proxy. Amendment 17A retains the status quo proxy for F<INF>MSY</INF> 
at F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>, 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> and ABC is specified to equal F<INF>OY</INF>, 
which is defined as 98 percent of the status quo proxy for 
F<INF>MSY</INF>.
    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

[[Page 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 for-hire 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[deg] 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 fishery-
independent monitoring program to track the progress of red snapper.
    This final rule is expected to directly affect commercial 
harvesting and for-hire 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 snapper-grouper 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 snapper-grouper 
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 snapper-grouper 
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-

[[Page 76886]]

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 snapper-grouper 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 
snapper-grouper 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 for-hire 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 for-hire 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 snapper-
grouper 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 snapper-grouper hook-and-line gear 
north of 28[deg] 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 co-occurring 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 short-run 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

[[Page 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 sub-alternatives, including the final action, were 
considered for vessels transiting through the closed areas. The first 
sub-alternative 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[deg] 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy for red snapper, which is 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>. The final action on rebuilding 
strategy for red snapper would define a rebuilding strategy that sets 
the rebuilding goal equal to SSB<INF>MSY</INF> and sets the catch rate 
equal to F<INF>OY</INF>, which is 98 percent F<INF>MSY</INF> 
(98%F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>), 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> 
proxy for red snapper at the advice of their SSC. Specifically, they 
evaluated the impacts of adopting a more conservative proxy of 
F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>, 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> 
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 mid-point 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 snapper-grouper 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> since the goal is to rebuild the stock to its 
reproductive capacity at MSY (SSB<INF>MSY</INF>). 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy influenced the suite 
of

[[Page 76888]]

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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> (rebuilding strategy Alternatives 
6-9). Rebuilding strategy Alternatives 2-5 are based on an 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>, and 
therefore, became technically inconsistent with red snapper management 
reference points after the Council decided to take no action to modify 
the F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy. The Council chose a rebuilding strategy that 
sets the rebuilding goal equal to SSB<INF>MSY</INF> and sets the catch 
rate equal to F<INF>OY</INF>, which is 98%F<INF>MSY</INF> 
(98%F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>), 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 SSB<INF>MSY</INF> 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 F<INF>OY</INF> at a level equivalent to 
85 percent F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>. The second alternative to the 
final action would define a red snapper rebuilding strategy that sets 
F<INF>OY</INF> at a level equivalent to 85 percent 
F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>. 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 F<INF>OY</INF> at a level equivalent to 
75 percent F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>. 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 F<INF>OY</INF> at a level equivalent to 65 percent 
F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 
F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>. 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 fifth alternative to the final action would define a red 
snapper rebuilding strategy that sets F<INF>OY</INF> at a level 
equivalent to 97 percent F<INF>40</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 F<INF>MSY</INF> proxy of 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF>. 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 F<INF>OY</INF> at a level equivalent to 85 percent 
F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 sub-
alternative 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 sub-
alternatives 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 F<INF>OY</INF> at a level equivalent to 
75 percent F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 sub-
alternatives 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 F<INF>OY</INF> at a level equivalent to 
65 percent F<INF>30</INF><not-eq><INF>SPR</INF> 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 sub-alternative 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 sub-alternative 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 
fishery-dependent 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

[[Page 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 Sec.  622.32, 
Sec.  622.37, Sec.  622.39, and Sec.  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.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as 
follows:

PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC

0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  622.32, paragraph (b)(3)(vi) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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 snapper-grouper 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.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  622.35, paragraph (l) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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[deg]00'00''      80[deg]00'00''
B...............................  28[deg]00'00''      80[deg]10'57''
C...............................  29[deg]31'40''      80[deg]30'34''
D...............................  30[deg]02'03''      80[deg]50'45''
E...............................  31[deg]00'00''      80[deg]35'19''
F...............................  31[deg]00'00''      80[deg]00'00''
G...............................  30[deg]52'54''      80[deg]00'00''
H...............................  30[deg]27'19''      80[deg]11'41''
I...............................  29[deg]54'31''      80[deg]15'51''
J...............................  29[deg]24'24''      80[deg]13'32''
K...............................  28[deg]27'20''      80[deg]00'00''
A...............................  28[deg]00'00''      80[deg]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.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  622.37, paragraph (e)(1)(v) is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 76890]]

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  622.39, paragraph (d)(1)(iv) and (d)(1)(viii) are revised 
and paragraph (d)(1)(ix) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  622.32(b)(3)(vii) for the prohibition on 
harvest and possession of red snapper and Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  622.41, the introductory text in paragraph (n) is revised 
and paragraph (n)(2) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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.

0
7. In Sec.  622.45, paragraph (d)(10) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>