Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31225 

requirements; a requirement for 

Councils to have procedures for 

proposed regulations; designation of an 

alternate for the Indian tribal 

representative of the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council; requirements for 

nominating individuals to the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council; 

revisions to the process and deadline for 

governors to submit Council member 

nominations to the Secretary; 

restrictions on direct or indirect 

lobbying by Council members, Council 

staff, and contractors; addition of 

lobbying and advocacy as types of 

financial interest activities that must be 

reported by affected individuals; and 

the requirement for new Council 

members to attend a training course. 

Additionally, this proposed rule would 

implement several minor changes in 

Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302, as 

well as a number of technical changes 

and minor corrections, unrelated to the 

reauthorization of the Act. Many of the 

key aspects of this proposed rule 

reiterate statutory requirements of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS is 

including this statutory text in 

regulations so that relevant Council 

process provisions both statutory and 

regulatory are presented together for 

ease of reference. 

On March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13386), 

NMFS published this proposed rule 

with a comment period ending July 6, 

2009. Because this proposed rule 

primarily affects the Councils, their 

input is critical in ensuring that 

questions regarding the requirements of 

this proposed rule are raised and 

responded to prior to a final rule being 

published. The original comment period 

allowed enough time for almost all 

Councils to have a meeting and discuss 

this proposed rule during the comment 

period. The Councils have now 

requested that the comment period be 

extended to allow all Councils to have 

two meetings during the comment 

period. NMFS agrees with this request 

and extends the comment period until 

November 2, 2009 to allow the Councils 

and the public adequate time to 

understand this proposed rule, discuss 

its effects on their circumstances, and 

provide their comments. 

Dated: June 24, 2009. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15466 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 080226312–9085–01] 

RIN 0648–AW12 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; SnapperGrouper Fishery off the Southern 

Atlantic States; Amendment 15B; Reef 

Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule to implement Amendment 15B 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 

proposed rule would, for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper, require a private 

recreational vessel that fishes in the 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ), if 

selected by NMFS, to maintain and 

submit fishing records; require a vessel 

that fishes in the EEZ, if selected by 

NMFS, to carry an observer and install 

an electronic logbook (ELB) and/or 

video monitor provided by NMFS; 

prohibit the sale of snapper-grouper 

harvested or possessed in the EEZ under 

the bag limits and prohibit the sale of 

snapper-grouper harvested or possessed 

under the bag limits by vessels with a 

Federal charter vessel/headboat permit 

for South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

regardless of where the snapper-grouper 

were harvested; require an owner and 

operator of a vessel for which a 

commercial or charter vessel/headboat 

permit has been issued and that has on 

board any hook-and-line gear to comply 

with sea turtle and smalltooth sawfish 

release protocols, possess on board 

specific gear to ensure proper release of 

such species, and comply with 

guidelines for proper care and release of 

such species that are incidentally 

caught; and expand the allowable 

transfer of a commercial vessel permit 

under the limited access program and 

extend the allowable period for renewal 

of such a permit. Amendment 15B also 

proposes to revise the stock status 

determination criteria for golden tilefish 

and specify commercial/recreational 

allocations for snowy grouper and red 

porgy. In addition, NMFS proposes to 

remove language specifying commercial 

quotas for snowy grouper that are no 

longer in effect and proposes to revise 

sea turtle bycatch mitigation 

requirements applicable to the Gulf reef 

fish fishery to add two devices that were 

inadvertently omitted from a prior rule. 

The intended effects of this rule are to 

provide additional information for, and 

otherwise improve the effective 

management of, the South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper fishery; minimize the 

impacts on incidentally caught 

threatened and endangered sea turtles 

and smalltooth sawfish; and remove 

outdated language. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

proposed rule must be received no later 

than 5:00 p.m., eastern time, on August 

4, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 0648–AW12, by any 

one of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov 

• Fax: 727–824–5308, Attn: Kate 

Michie 

• Mail: Kate Michie, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in the required 

fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

Copies of Amendment 15B may be 

obtained from the South Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council, 4055 

Faber Place, Suite 201, North 

Charleston, SC 29405; phone: 843–571– 

4366 or 866–SAFMC–10 (toll free); fax: 

843–769–4520; e-mail: 

safmc@safmc.net. Amendment 15B 

includes a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS), an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a Regulatory 

Impact Review, and a Social Impact 

Assessment/Fishery Impact Statement. 

Comments regarding the burden-hour 

estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements 

contained in this proposed rule may be 

submitted in writing to Jason Rueter, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31226 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, and 

to David Rostker, OMB, by e-mail at 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or by fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

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

727–824–5308, e-mail: 

Kate.Michie@noaa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

snapper-grouper fishery off the southern 

Atlantic states is managed under the 

FMP. The FMP was prepared by the 

Council and is implemented under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Amendment 15B 

Monitor and Assess Bycatch 

Current data collection methods do 

not adequately capture the true 

magnitude of bycatch in the fishery for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper. An 

improved ability to monitor and assess 

bycatch in the fishery would provide 

better estimates of interactions with 

protected species and improve the 

quality of stock assessments so that 

management measures may be 

implemented in a timely manner to 

prevent stock collapse and/or speed 

recovery of overfished stocks. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule 

would expand the existing requirement 

for fishing reports to include such 

private recreational vessels as are 

selected by the Science and Research 

Director, Southeast Fisheries Science 

Center, NMFS (SRD). 

Similarly, this proposed rule would 

require an owner and operator of a 

vessel with a commercial vessel or 

charter vessel/headboat permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper and an 

owner and operator of a private 

recreational vessel in that fishery, if 

selected by the SRD, to carry a NMFSapproved observer on trips selected by 

the SRD and/or participate in a NMFSsponsored ELB or video monitoring 

reporting program as directed by the 

SRD. 

To initiate an ELB or video 

monitoring program, NMFS would send 

a letter to an owner or operator of a 

selected vessel advising of his or her 

obligation to participate in the program. 

In cooperation with the owner or 

operator, NMFS staff or an authorized 

representative would meet at the 

selected vessel to install the NMFSfurnished ELB and/or video monitor on 

the vessel and to collect basic vessel and 

gear information that would later be 

correlated with the ELB or video 

monitoring information. Using the 

Global Positioning System, an ELB 

would automatically record vessel 

position information over time from 

which conclusions could be drawn 

regarding vessel activity, e.g., the vessel 

is fishing or transiting. At intervals 

determined by NMFS, the ELB memory 

unit or video monitor tape would be 

removed and provided to the SRD. The 

owner or operator could either mail the 

memory unit or tape to the SRD or 

arrange for a NMFS or state port agent 

to collect the unit or tape. The ELB 

program would supplement existing 

post-trip interview data and is intended 

to provide better estimates of the 

amount and location of effort occurring 

during a trip. 

With an ELB, bycatch in the fishery 

would be estimated from a second 

sampling program based on observer 

data. NMFS would use total effort 

estimates based on best available 

scientific information to extrapolate 

observer-collected data into overall 

estimates of total finfish and 

invertebrate bycatch. A pilot program 

using ELBs started in 1999, with 

increasing coverage each year. The units 

have proved to be reliable and the data 

retrieved have provided substantial new 

information regarding the effort of the 

fishery in which it was used. 

Video monitoring hardware and 

software could provide a cost-effective 

and reliable system of monitoring 

bycatch, release mortality, handling of 

fishes, and other shipboard practices. 

These systems have been shown to be 

useful in monitoring bycatch in other 

parts of the country. Pertinent data 

collected by a video electronic 

monitoring system would include 

species caught, number of hooks, 

location, depth, date, time, and 

disposition of released organisms. These 

data would provide information needed 

to help rebuild and maintain sustainable 

fisheries and determine what impact the 

fishery has on the survival of species. 

Data collected could be used to assess 

the fish species composition associated 

with the habitat affected by fishing gear, 

allowing for a better understanding of 

the ecosystem. Information would also 

be collected on protected resources 

encountered by fishing gear. The use of 

technology to record species, capture 

position, and disposition of released 

fishes has the potential to augment the 

collection of bycatch information and 

lessen the need for observers. Video 

technology could be used on vessels 

that cannot take a human observer for 

safety reasons or vessel limitations or 

other reasons. Previous experience 

indicates video monitoring is very 

effective for monitoring catches from 

longline gear due to the size and types 

of species collected. It is also 

substantially less expensive than 

observer coverage for comparable data 

collection. 

These additional information sources 

combined with existing requirements 

would comprise part of the program to 

monitor and assess bycatch in the South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. NMFS 

would also rely on state cooperation, 

specifically funded projects, and the 

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics 

Program’s Release, Discard and 

Protected Species Module, as that 

module is implemented. 

Modification of the Sales Provisions 

Current regulations allow the sale of 

snapper-grouper taken from the South 

Atlantic EEZ, up to the allowed bag 

limit, to be sold to a licensed dealer if 

the seller possesses a state-issued 

license to sell fish, whether or not the 

seller has a commercial vessel permit. 

Fish harvested and marketed in this 

manner, whether harvested by for-hire 

vessels or private anglers, are counted 

against the commercial quotas, resulting 

in accelerated quota closures and 

reducing the amount and value of 

harvests allocated to the commercial 

sector. Accelerated closures impose 

additional economic losses through 

market disruption and forced alteration 

of fishing practices, including 

transference of effort to other resources 

that may be less valuable and/or more 

expensive to catch. The effects of this 

situation are exacerbated by the current 

reduced commercial quotas. In addition, 

such fish are also counted against the 

recreational allocations, thus 

complicating fishery assessments. 

Accordingly, this rule would prohibit 

the sale of South Atlantic snappergrouper harvested or possessed in the 

EEZ and possessed under the bag limits. 

This prohibition would apply not only 

to a person fishing from a private 

recreational vessel but also to a person 

fishing from a vessel operating as a 

charter vessel or headboat even if such 

charter vessel/headboat has a 

commercial vessel permit. In addition, 

this rule would prohibit the sale of 

snapper-grouper harvested or possessed 

under the bag limits by a vessel for 

which a Federal charter vessel/headboat 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, regardless of 

where the snapper-grouper were 

harvested, i.e., in state or Federal 

waters. 

Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish 

Bycatch 

NMFS concluded in a biological 

opinion that reasonable and prudent 

measures are necessary and appropriate 

to minimize the impacts on incidentally 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31227 

caught threatened and endangered sea 

turtles and smalltooth sawfish taken in 

the South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

fishery. Therefore, measures are needed 

to comply with the biological opinion 

and to enhance the protection of 

threatened and endangered sea turtles 

and smalltooth sawfish. 

This proposed rule would require a 

vessel for which a commercial or charter 

vessel/headboat permit has been issued 

for South Atlantic snapper-grouper and 

has any hook-and-line gear on board to 

possess a document provided by NMFS 

titled, ‘‘Careful Release Protocols for Sea 

Turtle Release With Minimal Injury;’’ 

post the sea turtle handling and release 

guidelines provided by NMFS on the 

vessel; and, as specified in § 622.10(c) of 

this rule, have 12 types of sea turtle 

bycatch mitigation gear on board and 

follow specified release handling 

measures for a sea turtle or smalltooth 

sawfish that is caught incidentally. 

Limited Access Permits for South 

Atlantic Snapper-Grouper 

Currently, a transferable commercial 

vessel permit issued under the limited 

access program may be transferred only 

to an immediate family member of the 

holder. An ‘‘immediate family member’’ 

is specified as a husband, wife, son, 

daughter, brother, sister, mother, or 

father. This restriction has made it 

difficult for owners of individually 

owned vessels to change to corporate 

ownership and realize the associated 

benefits. Accordingly, the Council 

proposes and this rule would allow 

transfer to a corporation, provided the 

shareholders of the corporation are 

limited to the original permit holder at 

the time of the transfer and his or her 

immediate family members. Subsequent 

additional shareholders would be 

limited to immediate family members. 

These requirements would also apply to 

renewal of permits. 

Currently, a limited access permit 

must be renewed not later than 60 days 

after its expiration. The Council finds 

that this limitation is overly 

burdensome and has limited 

management benefits. Accordingly this 

rule would extend the permit renewal 

period to one year. 

Commercial/Recreational Allocations 

for Snowy Grouper and Red Porgy 

The FMP currently does not specify 

commercial and recreational allocations 

for snowy grouper or red porgy. While 

commercial quotas are established for 

these species, lack of recreational 

allocations precludes specifications of 

allowable recreational catch and 

appropriate measures to prevent 

overfishing by that sector. Accordingly, 

the Council proposes to establish such 

commercial and recreational allocations. 

For snowy grouper, the Council 

proposes allocations of 95 percent for 

commercial catch and 5 percent for 

recreational catch, which are based on 

the percentage of commercial and 

recreational landings during 1986–2005. 

Beginning in 2009, the commercial 

quota would be 82,900 lb (37,603 kg), 

gutted weight, and the recreational 

allocation would be 523 fish, which is 

the equivalent of 4,400 lb (1,996 kg), 

gutted weight. 

For red porgy, the Council proposes 

allocations of 50 percent for commercial 

catch and 50 percent for recreational 

catch based on the percentage of 

commercial and recreational landings 

during 2001–2005. Beginning in 2009, 

the commercial quota would be 190,050 

lb (86,205 kg), gutted weight, and the 

recreational allocation would be 

190,050 lb (86,205 kg), gutted weight. 

Accordingly, this rule would establish 

the commercial quotas indicated above. 

Approved recreational and commercial 

allocations would be considered 

legitimate measures of the FMP, but 

would not appear in codified text. 

Stock Status Determination Criteria for 

Golden Tilefish 

Section 303 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires that the regional fishery 

management councils: (1) assess the 

condition of managed stocks, (2) specify 

within their fishery management plans 

objective and measurable criteria for 

identifying when the stocks are 

overfished and when overfishing is 

occurring (referred to by NMFS as stock 

status determination criteria), and (3) 

amend their fishery management plans 

to include measures to rebuild 

overfished stocks and maintain them at 

healthy levels capable of producing 

maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 

NMFS’ national standard guidelines 

direct the councils to meet these 

statutory requirements by incorporating 

into each FMP estimates of certain 

biomass-based stock status 

determination criteria for each stock, 

including a designation of the stock 

biomass that will produce MSY. By 

evaluating the current stock biomass 

and fishing mortality rate in relation to 

these criteria, fishery managers can 

determine whether a fishery is 

overfished or undergoing overfishing, 

and whether current management 

measures are sufficient to prevent 

overfishing and achieve the optimum 

yield (OY). 

The required criteria include MSY, 

OY, minimum stock size threshold 

(MSST), and maximum fishing mortality 

threshold (MFMT). MSST is the biomass 

level below which a stock is considered 

overfished. MFMT is the maximum 

level of fishing mortality that a stock 

can withstand while still producing 

MSY on a continuing basis and above 

which overfishing is considered to be 

occurring. 

In the past for snapper-grouper 

species, the Council has specified either 

numeric values, proxies, or nothing at 

all for the criteria described above. A 

recent stock assessment of golden 

tilefish has provided numerical values 

for MSY, OY, and MSST for that 

species. (Currently, MFMT is defined as 

the level of fishing mortality that will 

produce MSY and would remain 

unchanged.) The Council proposes the 

following changes based on the golden 

tilefish assessment: 

Current Value Proposed 

Value 

MSY Not specified 336,425 lb 

(152.60 mt), 

whole 

weight 

OY Not specified 326,554 lb 

(148.12 mt), 

whole 

weight 

MSST 1,783,650 lb 

(809.05 mt), 

whole weight 

1,454,063 lb 

(659.55 mt), 

whole 

weight 

Approved stock status criteria, as with 

the proposed recreational allocations for 

snowy grouper and red porgy, would be 

considered legitimate measures of the 

FMP, but would not appear in codified 

text. 

Availability of Amendment 15B 

Additional background and rationale 

for the measures discussed above are 

contained in Amendment 15B. The 

availability of Amendment 15B was 

announced in the Federal Register on 

June 4, 2009, (74 FR 26827). Written 

comments on Amendment 15B must be 

received by August 3, 2009. All 

comments received on Amendment 15B 

or on this proposed rule during their 

respective comment periods will be 

addressed in the preamble to the final 

rule. 

Additional Measures Proposed by 

NMFS 

As general housekeeping changes, 

NMFS proposes to--(1) remove the 

outdated 2006 and 2007 commercial 

quotas and commercial trip limits for 

snowy grouper at § 622.42(e)(1) and 

§ 622.44(c)(3), respectively; and (2) 

rearrange and consolidate the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31228 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

restrictions on sale/purchase of South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper at § 622.45(d). 

In addition, NMFS proposes to revise 

§ 622.10(b)(1) to add two devices to the 

list of required sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation gear for commercial and 

charter vessel/headboats in the Gulf reef 

fish fishery that were inadvertently 

omitted in the final rule published 

August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45428). For 

vessels with a freeboard height of 4 ft 

(1.2 m) or less, a tire is added to the list. 

For vessels with a freeboard height of 

greater than 4 ft (1.2 m), a tire and a 

long-handled device to pull an 

‘‘inverted V’’ in the fishing line are 

added to the list. 

Classification 

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS 

Assistant Administrator has determined 

that this proposed rule is consistent 

with Amendment 15B, other provisions 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

The Council prepared an FEIS for 

Amendment 15B; a notice of availability 

was published on June 4, 2009, (74 FR 

26827). 

An IRFA was prepared, as required by 

section 603 of the RFA (RFA). The IRFA 

describes the economic impact this 

proposed rule, if adopted, would have 

on small entities. A description of the 

action, why it is being considered, and 

the legal basis for this action are 

contained at the beginning of this 

section in the preamble and in the 

SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 

summary of the analysis follows. A copy 

of this analysis is available from the 

Council (see ADDRESSES). 

The purpose of this rule is to specify 

quotas for snowy grouper and red porgy; 

modify the sales provisions of snappergrouper caught or possessed under the 

bag limit; implement a plan to monitor 

and assess bycatch; implement 

measures to minimize the impacts of 

incidental sea turtle and smalltooth 

sawfish take; and ease the requirements 

of snapper-grouper permit renewal and 

transfer. These measures are expected to 

provide additional information for, and 

otherwise improve the effective 

management of, the South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper fishery, and minimize 

the impacts on incidentally caught 

threatened and endangered sea turtles 

and smalltooth sawfish. The MagnusonStevens Act provides the statutory basis 

for the proposed rule. In addition to 

these actions, Amendment 15B 

established allocation ratios for snowy 

grouper and red porgy, and management 

reference points and stock status criteria 

for golden tilefish. 

No duplicative, overlapping, or 

conflicting Federal rules have been 

identified. 

This proposed action is expected to 

directly impact commercial fishers and 

for-hire operators. The SBA 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 $6.5 

million (NAICS code 713990, 

recreational industries). 

From 2001–2005, an average of 1,127 

vessels per year were permitted to 

operate in the commercial snappergrouper fishery. However, over the 

2004–2006 fishing years, an average of 

717 vessels per year that were permitted 

to operate in the commercial snappergrouper fishery recorded snappergrouper sales. The average annual 

dockside value of snapper-grouper sold 

by these vessels was approximately 

$12.96 million (nominal dollars), while 

the value of all other species sold by 

these vessels was approximately $14.33 

million (nominal dollars), or total 

average annual revenues of 

approximately $27.29 million. The 

average annual dockside revenue per 

vessel from sales of all marine species 

for this period was approximately 

$38,000. 

In 2005, 1,328 vessels were permitted 

to operate in the Federal snappergrouper for-hire fishery, of which 82 are 

estimated to have operated as 

headboats, and 1246 are charter vessels. 

Within these 1,328 vessels, 201 vessels 

also possessed a commercial snappergrouper permit and would be included 

in the summary information provided 

on the commercial sector. The charter 

vessels charge a fee on a vessel basis, 

and headboats charge a fee on an 

individual angler (head) basis. The 

charter vessel annual average gross 

revenue is estimated to range from 

approximately $62,000-$84,000 (2005 

dollars) 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 appropriate 

estimates are $170,000-$362,000 for 

Florida vessels, and $149,000-$317,000 

for vessels in the other states. From 

2004–2006, an average of 159 vessels 

per year with the for-hire snappergrouper permit had recorded sales of 

snapper-grouper species. The total 

average annual revenues from snappergrouper species were approximately 

$316,000 (nominal dollars), while 

average annual revenues for all other 

species was approximately $1.52 

million (nominal dollars), for total 

average annual revenues from fish sales 

of approximately $1.84 million. The 

average annual revenue per for-hire 

vessel from fish sales of all marine 

species for this period was 

approximately $11,600. It should be 

noted that these revenues are not 

included in the average gross for-hire 

revenues listed above, which only 

reflect revenues from charter fees. 

The proposed prohibition of bag-limit 

sales would affect vessels that have 

historically sold snapper-grouper but do 

not possess or fish under a Federal 

commercial snapper-grouper permit. 

From 2004–2006, an average of 1,439 

fishing vessels per year that could not 

be associated with either a Federal 

commercial or Federal for-hire snappergrouper permit had recorded snappergrouper sales. Total average annual 

revenues from snapper-grouper species 

for these vessels were approximately 

$2.09 million (nominal dollars), while 

average revenues from all other species 

were approximately $28.59 million 

(nominal dollars), for total average 

annual revenues of approximately 

$30.67 million. The average annual 

revenue per vessel from sales of all 

marine species for this period was 

approximately $21,000. 

Some fleet activity may exist in both 

the commercial and for-hire snappergrouper sectors, but the extent of such 

is unknown, and all vessels are treated 

as independent entities in this analysis. 

Based on the average revenue figures 

described above, it is determined, for 

the purpose of this assessment, that all 

fishing operations that would be 

affected by this action are small entities. 

This action does not explicitly impose 

any new reporting, record-keeping or 

other compliance requirements because 

the action simply specifies the types of 

requirements that could be imposed to 

improve bycatch monitoring and 

assessment and any individual vessel 

would only be subject to any new 

requirements if selected. However, the 

proposed bycatch and monitoring 

assessment action could result in a 

requirement for the use of paper 

logbooks, electronic logbooks, or video 

cameras, or the carrying of observers to 

aid in the monitoring of bycatch. All 

commercial snapper-grouper trips are 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31229 

currently required to complete logbook 

records, with each report estimated to 

take 10 minutes to complete. Over the 

years 2001–2005, commercial vessels 

operating in the snapper-grouper fishery 

took almost 16,000 trips, or 

approximately 14 trips per vessel. 

Assuming modification to the current 

logbook to include bycatch increased 

the time required to complete the form 

by 25 percent, then the additional 

annual time burden to complete the 

form fishery-wide would be 

approximately 667 hours or 0.6 hours 

per vessel. 

The headboat sector is also currently 

required to complete logbook reports for 

all trips, estimated to take 18 minutes 

per report. Assuming an average of 322 

trips per vessel (note that many vessels 

take multiple trips per day, so the 

average number of trips does not equal 

days fished), 82 headboats, and a 25– 

percent increase in the amount of time 

required to complete the form to 

account for bycatch, the resultant 

increased annual time burden to the 

industry would be approximately 1,980 

hours, or 24 hours per vessel. 

Although charter vessels currently are 

required to complete logbooks if 

selected, no vessels in the charter-vessel 

sector are currently selected and 

required to submit logbooks. Assuming 

it took a charter vessel the same amount 

of time required for a commercial vessel 

to complete a bycatch-augmented 

logbook, 12.5 minutes, 1,246 charter 

vessels and 146 trips per charter vessels 

per year, if all vessels were required to 

complete logbooks, the total annual time 

burden to the industry would be 

approximately 37,900 hours or 30.4 

hours per vessel. 

There would be no anticipated costs 

of logbook reporting beyond the 

opportunity cost of completing the 

logbook forms. Current logbook 

programs provide fishermen with 

addressed, pre-paid envelopes for 

returning completed forms. Completing 

the logbooks would not be expected to 

require special skills. 

Similar burden estimates are not 

available for the use of electronic 

logbooks. Electronic logbooks would be 

expected to take less time to complete 

because certain response variables could 

be preprogrammed and transmission 

would be simplified. Logbooks are 

estimated to cost $500 per unit, but 

responsibility for this expense is 

undetermined at this time. Considering 

the widespread familiarity with and 

usage of computers throughout today’s 

society, special skills to use an 

electronic logbook would not be 

expected, though some initial training 

or demonstration and a short learning 

curve would be logical. 

The use of video cameras to monitor 

and record bycatch is likely a method 

that would, if used, be imposed on only 

a small portion of participants in the 

snapper-grouper fishery due to its cost 

and complexity. Purchase, installation, 

and maintenance costs of video systems 

would likely be borne by the 

government, though some cost-sharing 

with fishermen may occur. Additional 

details are unavailable at this time, so 

concrete determinations on fishermen 

burden or skill requirements cannot be 

made. 

The proposed rule would be expected 

to directly affect all vessels that operate 

in the commercial snapper-grouper 

fishery, all vessels that have a Federal 

snapper-grouper for-hire permit, and all 

vessels that harvest snapper-grouper 

from the EEZ and sell their catch to 

federally permitted dealers. All affected 

entities have been determined, for the 

purpose of this analysis, to be small 

entities. Therefore, it is determined that 

the proposed action would affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Since all entities that would be expected 

to be affected by the proposed rule are 

considered small entities, no 

disproportionate effects on small 

entities relative to large entities would 

be expected. 

Only four of the proposed actions, the 

two proposed changes in quota, the 

proposed prohibition on bag-limit sales, 

and the proposed gear requirements to 

minimize the incidental take of sea 

turtles and smalltooth sawfish, are 

expected to have direct economic 

impacts on fishing entities. The 

proposed snowy grouper quota of 

82,900 lb (37,603 kg) gutted weight 

would result in a loss of 1,100 lb (499 

kg) of snowy grouper to the commercial 

sector. Assuming an average ex-vessel 

price of $2.31 per pound (2006 dollars), 

this reduction would be valued at 

approximately $2,500, or a loss of 

approximately $13 per vessel active in 

the fishery (190 vessels; 2001–2005 

average number of commercial vessels 

per year with snowy grouper landings). 

The proposed red porgy quota of 

190,050 lbs (86,205 kg) gutted weight 

would result in a gain of 63,050 lb 

(28,599 kg) gutted weight of red porgy 

to the commercial sector. This gain is 

comprised of approximately 59,000 lbs 

(26,762 kg) gutted weight resulting from 

the increase in red porgy TAC as a result 

of the rebuilding strategy implemented 

through Amendment 15A and the 

remaining increase resulting from a one 

percent increase in the commercial 

allocation established by Amendment 

15B. Assuming an average ex-vessel 

price of $1.40 per pound (2006 dollars), 

the total gain in commercial quota 

would be valued at approximately 

$88,300, or a gain of approximately 

$493 per vessel active in the fishery 

(179 vessels; 2001–2005 average number 

of commercial vessels per year with red 

porgy landings). 

Assuming the implementation of 

compatible regulations in all states, thus 

encompassing snapper-grouper 

harvested in both state and Federal 

waters as well as marketed through all 

state and federally permitted dealers, 

the proposed elimination of bag-limit 

sales is projected to result in the transfer 

of approximately $2.4 million in 

nominal ex-vessel revenues (2004–2006 

average) from for-hire and commercial 

fishing vessels that do not have a 

Federal commercial snapper-grouper 

permit to the federally permitted 

commercial snapper-grouper sector. 

This would constitute a total reduction 

of approximately $316,000 per year for 

fish sales by vessels in the federally 

permitted for-hire fishery, or a 17– 

percent reduction in average annual 

gross revenues from fish sales per 

vessel, and approximately $2.085 

million per year in sales for commercial 

vessels that do not posses a Federal 

commercial snapper-grouper permit, or 

a 7–percent reduction in average annual 

gross revenues per vessel. It should be 

noted that snapper-grouper fish sales by 

federally permitted for-hire vessels, 

estimated at approximately $2,000 per 

vessel on average, constitute a minor 

portion of total average annual 

revenues, with the majority of revenues 

coming from charter fees. As discussed 

above, South Atlantic charter vessels are 

estimated to have average gross annual 

revenues of approximately $32,000- 

$89,000, across all states, while 

headboat average annual revenues are 

estimated to range from $149,000- 

$362,000. 

If compatible regulations are not 

adopted in any state, the estimated 

reduction in bag-limit sales revenues 

would be limited to those harvests that 

originate from the EEZ by all vessels, 

bag limit harvests from state waters by 

vessels with the Federal charter vessel/ 

headboat permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper, and harvests that are 

marketed through dealers with a Federal 

permit. This would lower the reduction 

in bag-limit sales to approximately 

$1.562-$1.799 million, accounting for 

the estimated portion of bag-limit sales 

that originate in state waters 

(approximately 9 percent) and the 

estimated portion of bag-limit sales that 

are marketed through dealers without 

Federal licenses (approximately 21–35 

percent). For the Federal for-hire sector, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31230 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

using the average EEZ bag-limit sales 

(approximately $267,000) and dealer 

proportions (approximately 11 percent 

state dealer sales if the North Carolina 

and South Carolina proportion is 

applied throughout and 34 percent 

otherwise), the reduction in bag limit 

sales would be approximately $175,000- 

$238,000. For the non-Federal sector, 

using the average EEZ bag-limit sales 

(approximately $1.921 million) and 

dealer proportions (approximately 23 

percent state dealer sales if the North 

Carolina and South Carolina proportion 

is applied throughout and 35 percent 

otherwise), the reduction would be 

approximately $1.246 million to $1.483 

million. These values equate to 

approximately a 10–13 percent 

reduction in average annual for-hire 

fish-sales revenues ($175,000-$238,000/ 

159 vessels/$11,568 total average annual 

revenues) and approximately a 4–5 

percent reduction in average annual 

revenues to non-federally permitted 

vessels ($1.246-$1.483 million/1,439 

vessels/$21,317 total average revenues). 

The transference of these revenues to 

the Federal commercial snapper-grouper 

sector would result in an estimated 

increase of approximately 9 percent in 

nominal ex-vessel revenues per year 

($2.4 million/717 vessels/$38,000 

average annual revenues) if compatible 

regulations are adopted by all states, 

and from 5 percent to 6 percent if no 

states adopt compatible regulations 

($1.422-$1.729 million/717 vessels/ 

$38,000 average annual revenues). 

The proposed gear requirements to 

minimize the incidental take impact on 

sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish are 

estimated to increase vessel gear costs 

by $617-$1,115, based on low and high 

estimated costs, respectively, for each of 

the 12 different pieces of required gear 

and assuming the vessel does not 

already possess any of the required gear. 

Few actual vessels would be expected to 

have to incur the maximum cost, 

however, since most vessels are 

expected to already possess and use 

most of this gear or allowable 

substitutes. For-hire vessels that 

exclusively harvest fish through 

snorkeling or diving activities and do 

not possess hook-and-line gear on-board 

would not have to carry the required 

gear. For those vessels that needed to 

carry the gear, any costs would be onetime expenditures, subject to breakage 

or loss replacement. 

Three alternatives, including the 

status quo, were considered for the 

action to address the sale of snappergrouper harvested under the bag limit. 

The proposed rule would prohibit the 

purchase and sale of bag-limit fish 

harvested from or possessed in the EEZ 

by vessels that did not possess the 

Federal commercial snapper-grouper 

permit, and bag-limit fish harvested in 

either state or EEZ waters by vessels that 

possess the Federal charter vessel/ 

headboat permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper. The first alternative, 

the status quo, would continue to allow 

the sale of snapper-grouper harvested 

under the bag limit, continue to allow 

the Federal commercial snapper-grouper 

quota to be harvested and sold by 

vessels that did not possess the Federal 

commercial snapper-grouper permit, 

continue increased commercial quota 

pressure and accelerated quota closures, 

result in continued adverse economic 

effects on the Federal commercial 

snapper-grouper sector, and not achieve 

the Council’s objectives. 

The second alternative to the 

proposed prohibition of sales of 

snapper-grouper harvested under the 

bag limit would allow continued sales 

by vessels with a Federal for-hire 

snapper-grouper permit. While this 

would reduce the adverse economic 

effects on the Federal commercial 

snapper-grouper sector associated with 

the status quo, these effects would not 

be eliminated, thereby generating less 

net economic benefits for this sector and 

associated businesses than the proposed 

action. 

Four alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

establish a program to monitor and 

assess bycatch. The proposed rule 

would require the use of a variety of 

bycatch monitoring methods, which 

include observers and use of an ELB or 

video monitoring program, until the 

Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics 

Program (ACCSP) bycatch monitoring 

program can be implemented. The first 

alternative to the proposed program, the 

status quo, would only utilize existing 

information, would not improve current 

capabilities to monitor and assess 

bycatch, and would not achieve the 

Council’s objectives. The second 

alternative to the proposed bycatch 

monitoring and assessment program 

would require the implementation of 

the ACCSP bycatch monitoring program. 

The ACCSP is a cooperative statefederal program whose mission is to 

design, implement, and conduct marine 

fisheries statistics data collection 

programs and to integrate those data 

into a single data management system 

that will meet the needs of fishery 

managers, scientists, and fishermen. The 

ACCSP design includes data modules 

for catch and effort data, permit and 

vessel registration, biological data, 

bycatch data, quota monitoring data, 

economic data, and sociological data. 

These modules are being implemented 

on a priority basis consistent with 

available funding. At this time, funding 

is not available for implementation of 

the bycatch data module. While this 

program would generate the best data in 

the shortest period of time, with 

accompanying social and economic 

benefits, the program lacks the 

flexibility of allowing interim methods 

until such time as the preferred methods 

can be funded and adopted. As a result, 

this alternative would not meet the 

Council’s objectives. The overall cost to 

implement the ACCSP bycatch 

monitoring program has not been 

identified. 

The third alternative to the proposed 

bycatch monitoring and assessment 

program would implement a program 

that is less comprehensive than the 

proposed program. This program would 

require a variety of reporting and 

monitoring tools, including observers, 

logbooks, and video monitoring, among 

other methods, but would be less 

structured and systematic than the 

ACCSP program or the proposed 

program. The cost of this program is 

unknown. As a result of being less 

structured and systematic, however, this 

program would be expected to be less 

costly than the proposed program, but 

would also be expected to result in 

poorer data and generate fewer longterm benefits than the proposed 

program. 

Three alternatives, including the 

status quo, were considered for the 

action to establish sea turtle and 

smalltooth sawfish take impact 

minimization measures. The proposed 

rule would require a number of impact 

minimization measures, including the 

carrying of release equipment. The first 

alternative to the proposed equipment 

requirements, the status quo, would not 

achieve the desired take-impact 

minimization and would not meet the 

Council’s objectives. 

The second alternative to the 

proposed equipment requirements 

would require the acquisition of less 

costly equipment (vessels with less than 

four feet of freeboard would be required 

to carry less release gear and vessels 

with more than four feet of freeboard 

would have more gear substitution 

options). However, these requirements 

would not be expected to result in the 

same reduction in bycatch impact 

minimization for these species and, as a 

result, would not be expected to result 

in as much protection for the species 

and net economic and social benefits for 

society. 

Three alternatives, including the 

status quo, were considered for the 

action to establish the permit renewal 

period. The proposed rule would allow 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31231 

1 year after permit expiration for permit 

renewal. The first alternative to the 

proposed renewal period, the status 

quo, would retain the current 60-day 

renewal requirement and would not 

achieve the Council’s objective of 

increasing permit renewal flexibility. 

The second alternative to the 

proposed renewal period would allow 6 

months after permit expiration for 

permit renewal. While this would add 

greater flexibility for permit renewal 

relative to the status quo, thereby 

reducing the likelihood of unintended 

permit loss and associated economic 

losses, this alternative would not be 

consistent with the permit renewal 

period of most other permits and would 

not be as flexible as the proposed action. 

Having common renewal periods makes 

it possible to renew all permits at the 

same time, decreases the burden 

associated with permit renewal, and 

decreases the possibility of unintended 

permit loss due to non-renewal. 

Seven alternatives, including the 

status quo, were considered for the 

action to establish options for transfer 

provisions for permits owned by 

corporations comprised of family 

members. The proposed rule would 

allow the transfer of the permit to a 

corporation comprised solely of 

immediate family members. Five of the 

alternatives are variations of the 

proposed action and vary by differences 

in required action if the proposed 

requirement for the submission of the 

annual corporate report includes 

shareholders not listed on the original 

permit application. The first alternative 

to the proposed transferability option, 

the status quo, would continue to 

require a two-for-one permit exchange 

in order for a permit holder to 

incorporate their business operation and 

change the ownership of the permit to 

the corporation. Current permit holders 

would be prevented from receiving the 

tax and other financial benefits of 

incorporation without incurring the 

added expense of purchasing a second 

snapper-grouper permit. Because this 

restriction was outside the scope of the 

Council’s original intent for the two-forone permit transfer requirement, 

maintaining the status quo would not 

achieve the Council’s objectives. 

The second alternative to the 

proposed permit transferability option 

would treat the addition of family 

members as corporate shareholders the 

same as non-family members. Thus, 

once a permit is transferred to a 

corporation, renewal of the permit 

would not be restricted by change in 

shareholders. This alternative would 

allow the most liberal transfer flexibility 

but would not preserve the Council’s 

intent to promote family-owned fishing 

businesses. 

The third alternative to the proposed 

permit transferability option would not 

allow a permit to be renewed and 

transferred if the annual corporate 

report showed a shareholder not listed 

on the original corporate 

documentation. This alternative would 

be the most restrictive of the sub-set of 

alternatives that allow family 

incorporation. Because this alternative 

would eliminate the flexibility to 

change corporate shareholders even 

among family members, this alternative 

would result in less economic benefits 

than the proposed action. 

The fourth alternative to the proposed 

permit transferability option would 

require a two-for-one transfer if the 

annual corporate report showed a 

shareholder not listed on the original 

corporate documentation. This 

requirement would increase the cost of 

transfer because of the cost of a second 

permit, estimated to cost between 

$9,000 and $21,000, and generate less 

net economic benefits than the proposed 

action. 

The fifth alternative to the proposed 

permit transferability option would 

require either a two-for-one transfer or 

a transfer back to person who is an 

immediate family member of the permit 

holder who originally transferred the 

permit to the family corporation if the 

annual corporate report showed a 

shareholder not listed on the original 

corporate documentation. This 

requirement would either increase the 

cost of transfer or eliminate the tax and 

financial benefits of incorporation and, 

thus, generate less net economic 

benefits than the proposed action. 

The sixth alternative to the proposed 

permit transferability option would 

eliminate the two-for-one permit 

transfer requirement. Permit holders 

would be able to transfer their permit to 

corporations, family owned or 

otherwise, and freely change 

shareholders without incurring the cost 

of obtaining an additional permit. While 

this would create the most flexible 

transfer conditions, it would eliminate 

the ability to reduce the size of the 

commercial snapper-grouper fleet 

through permit renewal requirements. 

While the optimal fleet size to maximize 

social and economic benefits to the 

nation has not been identified, the 

fishery is believed by the Council to still 

be overcapitalized and further 

contraction is necessary. Thus, this 

alternative would generate less net 

economic benefits than the proposed 

action. 

In addition to the actions discussed 

above, Amendment 15B considered 

alternatives to establish allocation ratios 

for snowy grouper and red porgy, and 

management reference points and stock 

status criteria for golden tilefish. These 

alternatives are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. 

Four alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

set the snowy grouper allocation, which 

was necessary to establish the 

commercial quota and recreational 

allocation. The proposed action would 

set the allocation to the recreational 

sector equal to 5 percent, resulting in a 

commercial allocation of 95 percent and 

a recreational allocation of 5 percent. 

The first alternative to the proposed 

action, the status quo, would not 

establish commercial and recreational 

allocations. Because allocations are 

necessary to quantify the commercial 

quota, this alternative would not 

achieve the Council’s objective. 

The second alternative to the 

proposed snowy grouper allocation 

would set the recreational allocation to 

7 percent, while the third alternative 

would set the recreational allocation to 

12 percent. Both alternatives would be 

expected to increase the economic 

benefits to the recreational sector while 

reducing the economic benefits to the 

commercial sector. Net economic 

benefits to the nation cannot be 

determined with available data. These 

alternatives were not selected as the 

proposed snowy grouper allocation 

because they were derived from shorter 

time periods than the proposed action, 

1992–2005 and just 2005, respectively, 

compared to 1986–2005 for the 

proposed action, resulting in excessive 

influence of unrealistic spikes in 

recreational landings. 

Four alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

set the red porgy allocation. The 

proposed action would set both the 

commercial and recreational allocations 

equal at 50 percent. The status quo 

would not establish commercial and 

recreational allocations. Because 

allocations are necessary to quantify the 

commercial quota, this alternative 

would not achieve the Council’s 

objective. 

The second alternative to the 

proposed red porgy allocation would set 

the recreational sector allocation to 32 

percent, while the third alternative 

would set the recreational allocation to 

56 percent. Each sector would be 

expected to receive increased or 

decreased economic benefits relative to 

the status quo as their allocation 

increased or decreased. Net benefits to 

the nation under any alternative cannot 

be quantified with available data. 

Neither of these alternatives were 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31232 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

selected as the preferred action since 

each would involve substantial changes 

from what the Council believes, based 

on advisory panel comment, is the most 

equitable allocation which is the 

average sector harvest from 1999–2003, 

or 49 percent commercial and 51 

percent recreational. The proposed 

action varies from this allocation by 

only one percentage point, allocating 50 

percent of the TAC to each sector. While 

not precisely matching the average 

1999–2003 harvest, the Council believes 

that the proposed allocation equitably 

accounts for the increased value of red 

porgy to the recreational sector while 

reversing declines in commercial 

harvests due to previous regulatory 

action. 

Two alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

specify MSY for golden tilefish. The 

proposed MSY is approximately 

336,000 lb (152,407 kg) whole weight. 

The first alternative to the proposed 

MSY, the status quo, is likely an 

overestimate since the associated yield 

is approximately 736,000 lb (333,844 kg) 

whole weight and a harvest level this 

high has not been recorded since 1995, 

suggesting that the MSY is 

inappropriate for this resource. 

Allowing harvest at this level may lead 

to excessive exploitation, precipitating 

the imposition of restrictive 

management measures and reductions 

in economic and social benefits relative 

to the proposed action. 

Four alternatives, including the status 

quo, were considered for the action to 

specify OY for golden tilefish. The 

proposed OY is estimated at 

approximately 327,000 lb (148,325 kg) 

whole weight. Similar to the status quo 

MSY, the first alternative to the 

proposed OY, the status quo, is likely an 

overestimate and inappropriate for this 

resource since it is estimated at 

approximately 364,000 lb (165,108 kg) 

whole weight, which is greater than the 

proposed MSY. The second and third 

alternatives would establish OYs of 

approximately 315,000 lb (142,882 kg) 

whole weight and approximately 

333,000 lb (151,046 kg) whole weight, 

respectively and are, respectively, more 

and less conservative than the proposed 

action. The second alternative to the 

proposed OY is believed to be more 

conservative than necessary to protect 

the resource and would be expected to 

result in greater foregone economic 

benefits than the proposed action. 

Conversely, the third alternative to the 

proposed OY is believed to be 

insufficiently conservative to protect the 

resource. The proposed OY is believed 

to be the appropriate choice to minimize 

foregone economic benefits while 

protecting the resource. 

Three alternatives, including the 

status quo, were considered for the 

action to specify the MSST for golden 

tilefish. The proposed MSST would 

establish a value of approximately 1.454 

million lb (0.660 million kg) whole 

weight. The first alternative to the 

proposed MSST, the status quo, would 

establish an MSST of approximately 

1.784 million lb (0.809 million kg) 

whole weight, would require the largest 

minimum stock size, and would 

increase the likelihood that the resource 

be declared overfished, necessitating 

harvest reductions and imposing short 

term adverse economic impacts. The 

second alternative to the proposed 

MSST would require the smallest 

minimum stock size of approximately 

969,000 lb (439,531 kg) whole weight. 

While this specification would 

minimize, among the three alternatives, 

the likelihood of the stock being 

declared overfished, this stock level is 

believed to be insufficiently 

conservative to provide adequate 

protection to the resource. The proposed 

MSST specifies a minimum stock size 

intermediate to the other alternatives 

and is believed to be the appropriate 

choice to minimize the likelihood of 

triggering restrictive management while 

protecting the resource. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to, nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with, a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

This proposed rule contains 

collection-of-information requirements 

subject to the PRA applicable to vessels 

in the South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

fishery--namely, requirements for: (1) 

submission of logbooks by private 

recreational vessels; (2) notification of 

vessel trips related to vessel observers; 

(3) preparation of vessel and gear 

characterization forms for vessels 

selected to participate in the ELB and 

video monitoring program; (4) 

installation of ELBs and data 

downloads; (5) installation of video 

monitors and data downloads; and (6) 

change of ownership of a vessel with a 

transferable commercial vessel permit. 

These requirements have been 

submitted to OMB for approval. The 

public reporting burdens for these 

collections of information are estimated 

to average--(1) 10 minutes for each 

logbook submission, (2) 4 minutes for 

each notification of a vessel trip, (3) 20 

minutes for each vessel and gear 

characterization form, (4) 31 minutes for 

each ELB installation and data 

download, (5) 8 hours for each video 

monitor installation and data download, 

and (6) 20 minutes for each change of 

ownership. These estimates of the 

public reporting burdens include the 

time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing 

the collections of information. Public 

comment is sought regarding: whether 

these proposed collections of 

information are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimates; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collections of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

regarding the burden estimates or any 

other aspect of the collection-ofinformation requirements, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

NMFS and to OMB (see ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: June 24, 2009. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE 

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH 

ATLANTIC 

1. The authority citation for part 622 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. In § 622.2, the definition of 

‘‘Smalltooth sawfish’’ is added in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. 

* * * * * 

Smalltooth sawfish means the species 

Pristis pectinata, or a part thereof. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 622.5, paragraphs (a)(1)(iv), 

(b)(1), and (b)(2) are revised and 

paragraph (g) is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 622.5 Recordkeeping and reporting. 

* * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31233 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) South Atlantic snapper-grouper— 

(A) General reporting requirements. The 

owner or operator of a vessel for which 

a commercial permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper has been issued, as 

required under § 622.4(a)(2)(vi), or 

whose vessel fishes for or lands South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper in or from 

state waters adjoining the South 

Atlantic EEZ, who is selected to report 

by the SRD must maintain a fishing 

record on a form available from the SRD 

and must submit such record as 

specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. 

(B) Electronic logbook/video 

monitoring reporting. The owner or 

operator of a vessel for which a 

commercial permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper has been issued, as 

required under § 622.4(a)(2)(vi), who is 

selected to report by the SRD must 

participate in the NMFS-sponsored 

electronic logbook and/or video 

monitoring reporting program as 

directed by the SRD. Compliance with 

the reporting requirements of this 

paragraph (a)(1)(iv)(B) is required for 

permit renewal. 

(C) Wreckfish reporting. The 

wreckfish shareholder under § 622.15, 

or operator of a vessel for which a 

commercial permit for wreckfish has 

been issued, as required under 

§ 622.4(a)(2)(vii), must-- 

(1) Maintain a fishing record on a 

form available from the SRD and must 

submit such record as specified in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(2) Make available to an authorized 

officer upon request all records of 

offloadings, purchases, or sales of 

wreckfish. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Coastal migratory pelagic fish, reef 

fish, snapper-grouper, and Atlantic 

dolphin and wahoo—(i) General 

reporting requirement. The owner or 

operator of a vessel for which a charter 

vessel/headboat permit for Gulf coastal 

migratory pelagic fish, South Atlantic 

coastal migratory pelagic fish, Gulf reef 

fish, South Atlantic snapper-grouper, or 

Atlantic dolphin and wahoo has been 

issued, as required under § 622.4(a)(1), 

or whose vessel fishes for or lands such 

coastal migratory pelagic fish, reef fish, 

snapper-grouper, or Atlantic dolphin or 

wahoo in or from state waters adjoining 

the applicable Gulf, South Atlantic, or 

Atlantic EEZ, who is selected to report 

by the SRD must maintain a fishing 

record for each trip, or a portion of such 

trips as specified by the SRD, on forms 

provided by the SRD and must submit 

such record as specified in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section. 

(ii) Electronic logbook/video 

monitoring reporting. The owner or 

operator of a vessel for which a charter 

vessel/headboat permit for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper has been 

issued, as required under § 622.4(a)(1), 

who is selected to report by the SRD 

must participate in the NMFSsponsored electronic logbook and/or 

video monitoring reporting program as 

directed by the SRD. Compliance with 

the reporting requirements of this 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is required for 

permit renewal. 

(2) Reporting deadlines—(i) Charter 

vessels. Completed fishing records 

required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section for charter vessels must be 

submitted to the SRD weekly, 

postmarked not later than 7 days after 

the end of each week (Sunday). 

Information to be reported is indicated 

on the form and its accompanying 

instructions. 

(ii) Headboats. Completed fishing 

records required by paragraph (b)(1)(i) 

of this section for headboats must be 

submitted to the SRD monthly and must 

either be made available to an 

authorized statistical reporting agent or 

be postmarked not later than 7 days 

after the end of each month. Information 

to be reported is indicated on the form 

and its accompanying instructions. 

* * * * * 

(g) Private recreational vessels in the 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper fishery. 

The owner or operator of a vessel that 

fishes for or lands South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper in or from the South 

Atlantic EEZ who is selected to report 

by the SRD must— 

(1) Maintain a fishing record for each 

trip, or a portion of such trips as 

specified by the SRD, on forms provided 

by the SRD. Completed fishing records 

must be submitted to the SRD monthly 

and must either be made available to an 

authorized statistical reporting agent or 

be postmarked not later than 7 days 

after the end of each month. Information 

to be reported is indicated on the form 

and its accompanying instructions. 

(2) Participate in the NMFS-sponsored 

electronic logbook and/or video 

monitoring reporting program as 

directed by the SRD. 

4. In § 622.7, paragraph (d) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Falsify or fail to maintain, submit, 

or provide information or fail to comply 

with inspection requirements or 

restrictions, as specified in § 622.5. 

* * * * * 

5. In § 622.8, paragraph (a)(6) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.8 At-sea observer coverage. 

(a) * * * 

(6) South Atlantic snapper-grouper. (i) 

A vessel for which a Federal 

commercial vessel permit for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper or a charter 

vessel/headboat permit for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper has been 

issued must carry a NMFS-approved 

observer, if the vessel’s trip is selected 

by the SRD for observer coverage. Vessel 

permit renewal is contingent upon 

compliance with this paragraph (a)(6)(i). 

(ii) Any other vessel that fishes for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper in the 

South Atlantic EEZ must carry a NMFSapproved observer, if the vessel’s trip is 

selected by the SRD for observer 

coverage. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 622.10, paragraph (b)(1) is 

revised and paragraph (c) is added to 

read as follows: 

§ 622.10 Conservation measures for 

protected resources. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Sea turtle conservation measures. 

(i) The owner or operator of a vessel for 

which a commercial vessel permit for 

Gulf reef fish or a charter vessel/ 

headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has 

been issued, as required under 

§§ 622.4(a)(2)(v) and 622.4(a)(1)(i), 

respectively, must post inside the 

wheelhouse, or within a waterproof case 

if no wheelhouse, a copy of the 

document provided by NMFS titled, 

‘‘Careful Release Protocols for Sea 

Turtle Release With Minimal Injury,’’ 

and must post inside the wheelhouse, or 

in an easily viewable area if no 

wheelhouse, the sea turtle handling and 

release guidelines provided by NMFS. 

(ii) Such owner or operator must also 

comply with the sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation measures, including gear 

requirements and sea turtle handling 

requirements, specified in 

§§ 635.21(c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this chapter, 

respectively. 

(iii) Those permitted vessels with a 

freeboard height of 4 ft (1.2 m) or less 

must have on board a dipnet, tire, shorthandled dehooker, long-nose or needlenose pliers, bolt cutters, monofilament 

line cutters, and at least two types of 

mouth openers/mouth gags. This 

equipment must meet the specifications 

described in §§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(E) 

through (L) of this chapter with the 

following modifications: the dipnet 

handle can be of variable length, only 

one NMFS-approved short-handled 

dehooker is required (i.e., 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
31234 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G) or (H) of this 

chapter); and life rings, seat cushions, 

life jackets, and life vests or any other 

comparable, cushioned, elevated surface 

that allows boated sea turtles to be 

immobilized, may be used as 

alternatives to tires for cushioned 

surfaces as specified in 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) of this chapter. Those 

permitted vessels with a freeboard 

height of greater than 4 ft (1.2 m) must 

have on board a dipnet, tire, longhandled line clipper, a short-handled 

and a long-handled dehooker, a longhandled device to pull an inverted ‘‘V’’, 

long-nose or needle-nose pliers, bolt 

cutters, monofilament line cutters, and 

at least two types of mouth openers/ 

mouth gags. This equipment must meet 

the specifications described in 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(A) through (L) of this 

chapter with the following 

modifications: only one NMFSapproved long-handled dehooker 

(§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(B) or (C)) of this 

chapter and one NMFS-approved shorthandled dehooker (§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G) 

or (H) of this chapter) are required; and 

life rings, seat cushions, life jackets, and 

life vests, or any other comparable, 

cushioned, elevated surface that allows 

boated sea turtles to be immobilized, 

may be used as alternatives for 

cushioned surfaces as specified in 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

(c) South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

commercial vessels and charter vessels/ 

headboats—(1) Sea turtle conservation 

measures. (i) The owner or operator of 

a vessel for which a commercial vessel 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper or a charter vessel/headboat 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, as required 

under §§ 622.4(a)(2)(vi) and 

622.4(a)(1)(i), respectively, and whose 

vessel has on board any hook-and-line 

gear, must post inside the wheelhouse, 

or within a waterproof case if no 

wheelhouse, a copy of the document 

provided by NMFS titled, ‘‘Careful 

Release Protocols for Sea Turtle Release 

With Minimal Injury,’’ and must post 

inside the wheelhouse, or in an easily 

viewable area if no wheelhouse, the sea 

turtle handling and release guidelines 

provided by NMFS. 

(ii) Such owner or operator must also 

comply with the sea turtle bycatch 

mitigation measures, including gear 

requirements and sea turtle handling 

requirements, specified in 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this chapter, 

respectively. 

(iii) The required gear must meet the 

specifications described in 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(A) through (L) of this 

chapter with the following 

modifications: only one NMFSapproved long-handled dehooker 

(§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(B) or (C) of this 

chapter) and one NMFS-approved shorthandled dehooker (§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(G) 

or (H) of this chapter) are required; and 

life rings, seat cushions, life jackets, life 

vests, or any other comparable, 

cushioned, elevated surface that allows 

boated sea turtles to be immobilized, 

may be used as alternatives to tires for 

cushioned surfaces as specified in 

§ 635.21(c)(5)(i)(F) of this chapter. 

(2) Smalltooth sawfish conservation 

measures. The owner or operator of a 

vessel for which a commercial vessel 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper or a charter vessel/headboat 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued, as required 

under §§ 622.4(a)(2)(vi) and 

622.4(a)(1)(i), respectively, that 

incidentally catches a smalltooth 

sawfish must— 

(i) Keep the sawfish in the water at all 

times; 

(ii) If it can be done safely, untangle 

the line if it is wrapped around the saw; 

(iii) Cut the line as close to the hook 

as possible; and 

(iv) Not handle the animal or attempt 

to remove any hooks on the saw, except 

with a long-handled dehooker. 

§ 622.15 [Amended] 

7. In § 622.15, in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii) 

and (c)(5) remove cross references to 

‘‘§ 622.5(a)(1)(iv)(B)’’ and add in its 

place the cross reference 

‘‘§ 622.5(a)(1)(iv)(C)(1)’’. 

8. In § 622.18, paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) 

and (c) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.18 South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

limited access. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) A transferable permit may be 

transferred upon a change of ownership 

of a permitted vessel with such permit— 

(A) From one to another of the 

following: husband, wife, son, daughter, 

brother, sister, mother, or father; or 

(B) From an individual to a 

corporation whose shares are all held by 

the individual or by the individual and 

one or more of the following: husband, 

wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, 

mother, or father. The application for 

transfer of a permit under this paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii)(B) and each application for 

renewal of such permit must be 

accompanied by a current annual report 

of the corporation that specifies all 

shareholders of the corporation. A 

permit will not be renewed if the annual 

report shows a new shareholder other 

than a husband, wife, son, daughter, 

brother, sister, mother, or father. 

* * * * * 

(c) Renewal. NMFS will not reissue a 

commercial vessel permit for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper if the permit is 

revoked or if the RA does not receive an 

application for renewal within one year 

of the permit’s expiration date. 

9. In § 622.42, paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(e)(6) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.42 Quotas. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Snowy grouper. (i) For the fishing 

year that commences January 1, 2008— 

84,000 lb (38,102 kg). 

(ii) For the fishing year that 

commences January 1, 2009, and for 

subsequent fishing years—82,900 lb 

(37,603 kg). 

* * * * * 

(6) Red porgy. (i) For the fishing year 

that commences January 1, 2008— 

127,000 lb (57,606 kg). 

(ii) For the fishing year that 

commences January 1, 2009, and for 

subsequent fishing years–190,050 lb 

(86,205 kg). 

* * * * * 

10. In § 622.44, paragraph (c)(3) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.44 Commercial trip limits. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Snowy grouper. (i) Until the quota 

specified in § 622.42(e)(1) is reached— 

100 lb (45 kg). 

(ii) See § 622.43(a)(5) for the 

limitations regarding snowy grouper 

after the fishing year quota is reached. 

* * * * * 

11. In § 622.45, paragraph (d) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.45 Restrictions on sale/purchase. 

* * * * * 

(d) South Atlantic snapper-grouper. 

(1) A South Atlantic snapper-grouper 

harvested or possessed in the EEZ on 

board a vessel that does not have a valid 

commercial permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper, as required under 

§ 622.4(a)(2)(vi), or a South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper harvested in the EEZ 

and possessed under the bag limits 

specified in § 622.39(d), may not be sold 

or purchased. In addition, a South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper harvested or 

possessed by a vessel that is operating 

as a charter vessel or headboat with a 

Federal charter vessel/headboat permit 

for South Atlantic snapper-grouper may 

not be sold or purchased regardless of 

where harvested, i.e., in state or Federal 

waters. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Proposed Rules 31235 

(2) A person may sell South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper harvested in the EEZ 

only to a dealer who has a valid permit 

for South Atlantic snapper-grouper, as 

required under § 622.4(a)(4). 

(3) A person may purchase South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper harvested in 

the EEZ only from a vessel that has a 

valid commercial permit for South 

Atlantic snapper-grouper, as required 

under § 622.4(a)(2)(vi). 

(4) A warsaw grouper or speckled 

hind in or from the South Atlantic EEZ 

may not be sold or purchased. 

(5) No person may sell or purchase a 

snowy grouper, golden tilefish, greater 

amberjack, vermilion snapper, black sea 

bass, or red porgy harvested from or 

possessed in the South Atlantic, i.e., in 

state or Federal waters, by a vessel for 

which a valid Federal commercial 

permit for South Atlantic snappergrouper has been issued for the 

remainder of the fishing year after the 

applicable commercial quota for that 

species specified in § 622.42(e) has been 

reached. The prohibition on sale/ 

purchase during these periods does not 

apply to such of the applicable species 

that were harvested, landed ashore, and 

sold prior to the applicable commercial 

quota being reached and were held in 

cold storage by a dealer or processor. 

(6) During January, February, March, 

and April, no person may sell or 

purchase a red porgy harvested from the 

South Atlantic EEZ or, if harvested by 

a vessel for which a valid Federal 

commercial permit for South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper has been issued, 

harvested from the South Atlantic, i.e., 

in state or Federal waters. The 

prohibition on sale/purchase during 

January through April does not apply to 

red porgy that were harvested, landed 

ashore, and sold prior to January 1 and 

were held in cold storage by a dealer or 

processor. This prohibition also does 

not apply to a dealer’s purchase or sale 

of red porgy harvested from an area 

other than the South Atlantic, provided 

such fish is accompanied by 

documentation of harvest outside the 

South Atlantic. The requirements for 

such documentation are specified in 

paragraph (d)(9) of this section. 

(7) During April, no person may sell 

or purchase a greater amberjack 

harvested from the South Atlantic EEZ 

or, if harvested by a vessel for which a 

valid Federal commercial permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper has 

been issued, harvested from the South 

Atlantic, i.e., in state or Federal waters. 

The prohibition on sale/purchase during 

April does not apply to greater 

amberjack that were harvested, landed 

ashore, and sold prior to April 1 and 

were held in cold storage by a dealer or 

processor. This prohibition also does 

not apply to a dealer’s purchase or sale 

of greater amberjack harvested from an 

area other than the South Atlantic, 

provided such fish is accompanied by 

documentation of harvest outside the 

South Atlantic. The requirements for 

such documentation are specified in 

paragraph (d)(9) of this section. 

(8) During January through April, no 

person may sell or purchase a gag, black 

grouper, red grouper, scamp, red hind, 

rock hind, yellowmouth grouper, tiger 

grouper, yellowfin grouper, graysby, or 

coney harvested from or possessed in 

the South Atlantic EEZ or, if harvested 

or possessed by a vessel for which a 

valid Federal commercial permit for 

South Atlantic snapper-grouper has 

been issued, harvested from the South 

Atlantic, i.e., in state or Federal waters. 

The prohibition on sale/purchase during 

January through April does not apply to 

such species that were harvested, 

landed ashore, and sold prior to January 

1 and were held in cold storage by a 

dealer or processor. This prohibition 

also does not apply to a dealer’s 

purchase or sale of such species 

harvested from an area other than the 

South Atlantic, provided such fish is 

accompanied by documentation of 

harvest outside the South Atlantic. The 

requirements for such documentation 

are specified in paragraph (d)(9) of this 

section. 

(9) The documentation supporting a 

dealer’s purchase or sale of applicable 

species during the times specified in 

paragraphs (d)(6) through (d)(8) of this 

section must contain: 

(i) The information specified in part 

300, subpart K, of this title for marking 

containers or packages of fish or wildlife 

that are imported, exported, or 

transported in interstate commerce; 

(ii) The official number, name, and 

home port of the vessel harvesting the 

applicable species; 

(iii) The port and date of offloading 

from the vessel harvesting the 

applicable species; and 

(iv) A statement signed by the dealer 

attesting that the applicable species was 

harvested from an area other than the 

South Atlantic. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–15465 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS