[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13983-13988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7528]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 902
50 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. 961108316-7051-02; I.D. 101796C]
RIN 0648-AI47
Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic;
Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 14
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 14 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of
Mexico (FMP). This final rule prohibits the use or possession of fish
traps in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf)
beginning February 8, 2007; prohibits the use or possession of fish
traps west of 85 deg.30' W. long.; modifies the procedure for retrieval
of fish traps when a breakdown prevents a vessel with a trap
endorsement from retrieving its traps; modifies the restrictions on
transfer of fish trap endorsements and reef fish permits; prohibits the
harvest or possession of Nassau grouper in or from the EEZ of the Gulf;
and clarifies the authority of the Regional Administrator, Southeast
Region, NMFS (RA), to reopen a prematurely closed fishery. In addition,
NMFS extends the current prohibition on the possession of dynamite on
board a permitted vessel to those vessels permitted in the South
Atlantic golden crab fishery. The intended effects of this rule are to
conserve and manage the reef fish resources of the Gulf and enhance
enforceability of the regulations. This rule also informs the public of
the approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of a new
collection-of-information requirement contained in this rule.
EFFECTIVE DATES: April 24, 1997, except that the amendments to
Sec. 622.4 are effective March 25, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the final regulatory flexibility
analysis (FRFA) should be sent to Robert Sadler, Southeast Regional
Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Dr. N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirement
contained in this rule should be sent to Edward E. Burgess, Southeast
Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg,
FL 33702, and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attention:
NOAA Desk Officer).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Sadler, 813-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico
is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council (Council) and is implemented through
regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Council developed Amendment 14 to address various problems in
the reef fish fishery, primarily those associated with the fish trap
fishery and the expiration of a moratorium on the issuance of
additional fish trap endorsements to reef fish permits on February 7,
1997. The rationale for the management measures in Amendment 14, and
the additional regulatory changes proposed by NMFS, are contained in
the preamble of the proposed rule (61 FR 59852, November
[[Page 13984]]
25, 1996) and are not repeated here. After considering the public
comment received on the amendment and the proposed rule, NMFS approved
all of the amendment measures on January 22, 1997. NMFS is issuing this
final rule to implement those approved measures.
Comments and Responses
The notice of availability for Amendment 14 was published on
October 23, 1996 (61 FR 55128) and written public comments on the
amendment were requested through December 23, 1996. The proposed rule
requested written public comments on the rule through January 9, 1997.
Comments were received from five entities on Amendment 14 and/or the
proposed rule, summarized as follows.
Comments: An individual, the Florida Marine Fisheries Commission
(FMFC), and a coral reef conservation organization provided substantive
and detailed comments on various issues associated with the fish trap
ban. These comments suggest that the current fish trap regulations
cannot be effectively enforced and thereby contribute to continuing and
undesirable fishing mortality of reef fish (i.e., through illegal and
undetected use of fish traps, as well as through ghost-fishing by lost
traps). The FMFC and the conservation organization commented that
continued use of fish traps in Federal waters off Florida during the
10-year ``phaseout'' period will contribute to bycatch problems, user
group conflicts, and illegal trap use in State waters. The FMFC
preferred a ban on the use of traps after 2 years, but supported the
10-year phaseout compared to the status quo (i.e., unlimited
availability of fish trap endorsements for permitted reef fish vessels
after expiration of the current moratorium on trap endorsements on
February 7, 1997). The conservation organization also supported
Amendment 14, but recommended a 10-percent reduction in the number of
fish traps each year during the 10-year phaseout period. The individual
also commented that fish traps should be immediately banned off
Florida.
Another individual (the fourth commenter) commented that a phaseout
of fish traps in less than 10 years would be more logical, but did not
provide additional rationale in support of the comment. A seafood
company owner (the fifth commenter) provided editorial comments on the
text of the proposed rule.
Response: NMFS acknowledges the support for Amendment 14 indicated
by comments by the FMFC and the conservation organization. NMFS
supports the 10-year phaseout leading to a prohibition of fish traps.
This support is based on concerns that the current fish trap
regulations cannot be effectively enforced and thereby contribute to
continued fishing mortality by illegal and undetected fish traps, as
well as by lost traps (i.e., through ghost-fishing). NMFS approved the
10-year phaseout leading to a prohibition of fish traps as a fair and
satisfactory means of addressing the fishery problems of enforcement
and biological impacts associated with using trap gear for reef fish.
Enforcement of regulations regarding the use of fish traps during
the 10-year phaseout period should be improved by implementation of the
prohibition on the use or possession of fish traps west of Cape San
Blas, FL, and by the revised procedure for fish trap retrieval in the
event of a vessel breakdown. These two measures should significantly
address the commenters' concerns about the continuing illegal use of
traps in State waters.
After considering alternative time periods for elimination of trap
gear in the reef fish fishery, including an immediate ban, as well as
time periods longer and shorter than 10 years, the Council selected the
10-year phaseout period as the most reasonable compromise between
persons who supported an indefinite continuation of fish trapping and
fish trap opponents who supported an immediate ban on the gear. NMFS
concurs with the Council's selection.
A 10-percent reduction in the number of fish traps each year, as
suggested by the conservation organization, was not one of the
alternatives explicitly considered and evaluated by the Council in
Amendment 14. To undertake this approach in phasing out trap gear would
require that the Council propose the appropriate management measure
under another FMP amendment and that such measure be reviewed,
approved, and implemented by NMFS under provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
NMFS is adding to this final rule corrections of the scientific
names for red porgy in Tables 3 and 4 and saucereye porgy in Table 4 of
Appendix A to part 622. Otherwise, the proposed rule is adopted as
final without substantive change.
Under NOAA Administrative Order 205-11, 7.01, dated December 17,
1990, the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, Department of
Commerce, has delegated authority to sign material for publication in
the Federal Register to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,
NOAA.
Classification
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
The Council prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA), pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), that described the expected significant economic effects on a
substantial number of the small business entities engaged in harvesting
the reef fish resources in the Gulf of Mexico. During the public
comment periods on the amendment and the proposed rule, no public
comments were received that addressed specifically the analysis or
conclusions of the IRFA; no additional information was received that
would change the analysis or conclusions of the IRFA regarding the
impacts on small business entities. Accordingly, the FRFA is based on
the IRFA without substantive change. Copies of the FRFA are available
(see ADDRESSES). A summary of the FRFA follows.
Amendment 14 and this final rule are needed to address five
problems in the fishery. The first problem resulted from the expiration
of a 3-year moratorium on the issuance of new fish trap endorsements on
February 7, 1997. New regulatory action following this moratorium
expiration is required to ensure that the fish trap fishery continues
to be managed and that specific restrictions are established regarding
the transfer of fish trap endorsements within the fishery. A continuing
management program is essential for addressing the concerns of the
Council and NMFS regarding the effects of the serious enforcement
problems within the trap fishery for reef fish. A second problem is the
potential for an uncontrolled expansion of the use of fish traps.
Geographical limitations on the gear are needed to prevent an
uncontrolled expansion of the range of the fishery and associated
enforcement problems. A third problem is that, prior to Amendment 14,
the FMP did not provide the NMFS Regional Administrator, Southeast
Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) with the authority to reopen and
subsequently close a prematurely closed commercial fishery (i.e., a
fishery that has not actually filled its quota on the initial closure
date); this resulted in the loss of harvestable fish to commercial
fishermen. A fourth problem is that the FMP allowed a reef fish permit
transfer only when the owner of the vessel whose permit is being
transferred had met the income qualification for the
[[Page 13985]]
permit. This prevented an operator, whose earned income qualified for
the permit, from acquiring the permit for which he/she has qualified
when he/she buys the vessel. A fifth problem is the reported decline in
the abundance of the Nassau grouper resource in the EEZ of the Gulf of
Mexico. This species is overutilized, is a candidate for protection
under the Endangered Species Act, and its harvest and possession is
prohibited in Florida's waters and in the South Atlantic and Caribbean
EEZ. Allowing continuing harvest of Nassau grouper in the Gulf of
Mexico EEZ could contribute to a further decline of this species. The
objectives of Amendment 14 and this final rule are to: (1) Provide for
control of the fish trap fishery after termination of the moratorium on
trap fishery participants that expired on February 7, 1997; (2) provide
the management flexibility to reopen and subsequently close a fishery
that has been prematurely closed; (3) provide some flexibility in the
transfer of fish trap endorsements during the trap fishery phaseout
period; and (4) provide for protection of Nassau grouper throughout its
range.
Limited public comments were received by NMFS on Amendment 14 and
its proposed rule. These comments generally supported the phaseout or
elimination of the trap fishery for reef fish in the EEZ because of
enforcement problems, potential adverse biological impacts of the
fishery, and possible effects of encouraging illegal trap fishing in
State waters. Commenters advocated different time periods for the
elimination of traps ranging from an immediate ban to an incremental
reduction in the number of traps each year over the 10-year period. No
changes were made in this final rule over the proposed rule as a result
of these public comments. A summary of the comments and NMFS' responses
is provided in the supplementary information for this rule (see
``Comments and Responses'' ).
Approximately 1,400 reef fish harvesting firms have reef fish
permits. The average fishing firm operates with a vessel that is 38 ft
(11.6 m) long, has a current estimated resale value of $52,817,
provides $52,000 in annual gross sales of reef fish and other species,
and produces an annual net income of $12,000. All of the harvesting
firms affected by the rule are classified as small business entities.
The following measures directly apply to all of the firms holding a
reef fish permit (including fish trappers): Modification of the
restrictions on transfer of reef fish permits; allowance for transfer
of fish trap endorsements during the first 2 years of the phaseout
period; prohibition on the harvest or possession of Nassau grouper in
or from the EEZ; and provision of authority for the Regional
Administrator to reopen a prematurely closed fishery. The predicted
socioeconomic effects of these measures are not considered significant
under the RFA (i.e., as a result of these measures, no more than 20
percent of affected entities will incur revenue decreases greater than
5 percent; compliance costs will not increase total costs of production
by more than 5 percent, nor will they represent a significant portion
of capital available to small entities; disproportionate effects on
capital costs of compliance should not occur since all participants in
the reef fish fishery, including the 92 in the fish trap sector, are
small business entities; and no entity will be forced to cease business
operations).
The following management measures apply directly only to the 92
firms that comprise the fish trap component of the reef fish fishery
(i.e., those that hold fish trap endorsements): A prohibition on the
use or possession of fish traps in the EEZ beginning February 8, 2007;
a prohibition of the use or possession of fish traps west of Cape San
Blas, FL; and a modified procedure for retrieval of fish traps. These
measures are projected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. All of the 92 firms within this
sector should experience more than a 5-percent reduction in annual
gross income when fish trapping is prohibited. With such prohibition,
all current value of traps will be lost because the traps have no value
for other purposes. Available data indicate that the average fish
trapper fishes 53 traps. Given an estimated cost of $48.50 per trap
(adjusted for depreciation), the average fish trapper would lose an
estimated minimum of $2,570.50, or 12.7 percent, of the annual cost of
fish trapping (salvage value) in the year when the traps are
prohibited. It is estimated that 11 to 13 of the 92 firms, or 12 to 14
percent of the firms, would be forced out of business by the fish trap
phaseout.
This rule contains a new collection-of-information requirement.
When a permitted vessel with a trap endorsement is unable to retrieve
its own traps, the owner or operator must notify the nearest NMFS
Office of Enforcement and obtain authorization for another vessel to
retrieve the traps. This rule continues in effect previously approved
collection-of-information requirements associated with the fish trap
permit endorsement system.
The Council considered numerous management alternatives that would
address the enforcement problems with and biological impacts of the
fish trap fishery. These alternatives included periods for the phaseout
or elimination of trap gear in the reef fish fishery both shorter and
longer than its proposed 10-year period. Also, the Council considered a
permanent fish trap license limitation system involving varying numbers
of participants. The Council proposed the 10-year phaseout approach for
eliminating trap gear, and NMFS approved it, as an effective means of
resolving the issues of enforcement and biological effects in the
fishery while spreading out the adverse economic impacts on trap
fishermen over a reasonable time period. The 10-year period should
minimize short-term costs to trap fishermen by allowing continuing use
of the gear while still providing ample time for them to switch to
other gear, fisheries, or activities.
The Council proposed the additional provision that fish trap
endorsements be fully transferable for the first 2 years of the
phaseout period as a means of minimizing adverse economic impacts on
current trap fishery participants who could receive economic benefits
by selling their fish trap endorsements. The Council considered various
alternatives regarding liberalized transfer provisions for trap
endorsements for the remaining 8 years of the phaseout period, but
concluded that such measures would undermine its objective of reducing
the number of trap fishery participants.
The Council considered several options regarding area restrictions
on trap use (in addition to the current prohibition on traps within a
Gulf-wide ``stressed area'' in the nearshore waters of the Gulf EEZ).
The Council concluded that expansion of the fish trap fishery beyond
its current geographical scope is inconsistent with the intent of its
proposed phaseout of trap gear in the reef fish fishery. The Council's
proposed prohibition on the use of traps west of Cape San Blas, FL,
would limit the trap fishery to that area where the fishery currently
occurs and thereby prevent any increase in enforcement problems. The
Council rejected alternatives regarding area restrictions (except for
the status quo) as eliminating traps from some areas where they are
currently used. This would have differentially impacted certain trap
fishermen who would have to travel farther to reach areas open to
fishing. The result would be reduced efficiency of fishing operations
for certain fishermen, but no overall decrease in trap fishing effort.
Also, some of the rejected alternatives regarding area
[[Page 13986]]
restrictions would have increased user conflicts on the fishing
grounds.
Regarding the procedure for fish trap retrieval in the event of a
vessel breakdown, the Council rejected the status quo alternative,
since reliable information indicated action was needed to improve
enforceability of the requirement that fish traps be returned to shore
after each fishing trip. The approved management measures regarding
trap retrieval during a vessel breakdown should enhance fishermen's
compliance with existing trap-tending regulations. These measures are
expected to increase fishing operation costs primarily for those
fishermen who try to circumvent such regulations (i.e., the average
time that traps are left in the water, and therefore catching fish, may
be reduced).
Regarding the measure giving the Regional Administrator authority
to reopen a prematurely closed commercial or recreational fishery for a
Gulf reef fish species or species group when needed to ensure harvest
of the full commercial quota or recreational fishery allocation, all of
the alternatives considered by the Council would provide fishermen with
fewer economic benefits.
The modification of the restrictions on the transfer of reef fish
permits between a vessel owner and an income-qualifying operator and
the provision giving a non-income-qualifying owner who loses his/her
income-qualifying operator an additional grace period for meeting the
earned income requirements for a new permit should address unintended,
permit-transfer inequities adversely affecting income-qualifying vessel
operators and non-income qualifying vessel owners. The result should be
increased flexibility in the transfer of reef fish vessel permits,
minimized adverse economic impacts on small entities resulting from the
previous permit transfer restrictions, and, hence, increased efficiency
in commercial fishing operations in the long-run. No adverse impacts on
gross revenues or costs of fishing operations are expected.
The Council considered a status quo management alternative
regarding the harvest of Nassau grouper in the Gulf EEZ (allowing
continued harvest) that was rejected because it would not provide
adequate protection for this overutilized resource. Also, the
prohibited harvest in the Gulf EEZ should ensure consistent management
throughout the species' range. Considering the relatively small annual
commercial landings of this species since the mid-1980s, the prohibited
harvest is expected to have inconsequential economic impacts on
commercial fishermen. Adverse impacts would be relatively larger in the
recreational fishery, but are still considered small.
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 OMB Control Number.
As previously discussed, this rule contains a new collection-of-
information requirement subject to the PRA--namely the requirement
that, when a vessel with a fish trap endorsement has a breakdown that
prevents the vessel from retrieving its traps, the owner or operator
notify the nearest NMFS Office of Enforcement and obtain authorization
for another vessel to retrieve the traps. This collection of
information has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-
0205. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated at 3 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Send comments regarding this reporting
burden estimate, or any other aspect of the collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see
ADDRESSES). This rule continues in effect previous collection-of-
information requirements associated with the fish trap permit
endorsement system that were previously approved by OMB under OMB
control number 0648-0205.
The provisions of 50 CFR 622.4(m) provide additional circumstances
under which a reef fish permit may be transferred. These provisions
constitute a substantive rule that relieves a restriction and, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), are not subject to the general requirement of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to delay for 30 days the
effective date of the revisions to 50 CFR 622.4(m) or the revisions of
references to that paragraph.
The provisions of this rule regarding transfer and renewal of fish
trap endorsements at 50 CFR 622.4(n) (including references to this
paragraph) constitute a substantive rule that relieves restrictions
and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), are not subject to the general
requirement of the APA to delay for 30 days the effective date.
List of Subjects
15 CFR Part 902
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
50 CFR Part 622
Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Virgin Islands.
Dated: March 19, 1997.
C. Karnella,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR chapter IX and 50
CFR chapter VI are amended as follows:
15 CFR CHAPTER IX
PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
2. In Sec. 902.1, the table in paragraph (b) is amended by adding,
in numerical order, the following entry to read as follows:
Sec. 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
OMB
control
number
CFR part or section where the information collection (all
requirement is located numbers
begin
with
0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
50 CFR
* * * * *
622.40(a)(2)................................................... -0205
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR CHAPTER VI
PART 622--FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC
3. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
4. Effective March 25, 1997, in Sec. 622.4, in paragraph (a)(2)(i),
in the second sentence, the words ``a moratorium on'' are removed;
paragraph (a)(2)(v), the last sentence; paragraph (g),
[[Page 13987]]
the first sentence; paragraphs (m) and (n); and paragraph (p)(3)(i),
the last, parenthetical sentence are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.4 Permits and fees.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Gulf reef fish. * * * See paragraph (m) of this section
regarding a moratorium on commercial vessel permits for Gulf reef fish
and limited exceptions to the earned income requirement for a permit.
* * * * *
(g) Transfer. A vessel permit or endorsement or dealer permit
issued under this section is not transferable or assignable, except as
provided in paragraph (m) of this section for a commercial vessel
permit for Gulf reef fish, in paragraph (n) of this section for a fish
trap endorsement, or in paragraph (p) of this section for a red snapper
endorsement. * * *
* * * * *
(m) Moratorium on commercial vessel permits for Gulf reef fish. The
provisions of this paragraph (m) are applicable through December 31,
2000.
(1) No applications for additional commercial vessel permits for
Gulf reef fish will be accepted. Existing vessel permits may be
renewed, are subject to the restrictions on transfer or change in
paragraphs (m)(2) through (5) of this section, and are subject to the
requirement for timely renewal in paragraph (m)(6) of this section.
(2) An owner of a permitted vessel may transfer the commercial
vessel permit for Gulf reef fish to another vessel owned by the same
entity.
(3) An owner whose earned income qualified for the commercial
vessel permit for Gulf reef fish may transfer the permit to the owner
of another vessel, or to the new owner when he or she transfers
ownership of the permitted vessel. Such owner of another vessel, or new
owner, may receive a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish for
his or her vessel, and renew it through April 15 following the first
full calendar year after obtaining it, without meeting the earned
income requirement of paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section. However, to
further renew the commercial vessel permit, the owner of the other
vessel, or new owner, must meet the earned income requirement not later
than the first full calendar year after the permit transfer takes
place.
(4) An owner of a permitted vessel, the permit for which is based
on an operator's earned income and, thus, is valid only when that
person is the operator of the vessel, may transfer the permit to the
income qualifying operator when such operator becomes an owner of a
vessel.
(5) An owner of a permitted vessel, the permit for which is based
on an operator's earned income and, thus, is valid only when that
person is the operator of the vessel, may have the operator
qualification on the permit removed, and renew it without such
qualification through April 15 following the first full calendar year
after removing it, without meeting the earned income requirement of
paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section. However, to further renew the
commercial vessel permit, the owner must meet the earned income
requirement not later than the first full calendar year after the
operator qualification is removed. To have an operator qualification
removed from a permit, the owner must return the original permit to the
RD with an application for the changed permit.
(6) A commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish that is not
renewed or that is revoked will not be reissued. A permit is considered
to be not renewed when an application for renewal is not received by
the RD within 1 year of the expiration date of the permit.
(n) Endorsements for fish traps in the Gulf. The provisions of this
paragraph (n) are applicable through February 7, 2007. After February
7, 2007, no fish trap endorsements are valid.
(1) Only those fish trap endorsements that are valid on February 7,
1997, may be renewed. Such endorsements are subject to the restrictions
on transfer in paragraphs (n)(2) and (3) of this section and are
subject to the requirement for timely renewal in paragraph (n)(5) of
this section.
(2) Through February 7, 1999, a fish trap endorsement may be
transferred only to a vessel that has a commercial permit for reef
fish.
(3) After February 7, 1999, a fish trap endorsement is not
transferable except as follows:
(i) An owner of a vessel with a fish trap endorsement may transfer
the endorsement to another vessel owned by the same entity.
(ii) A fish trap endorsement is transferable upon a change of
ownership of a permitted vessel with such endorsement from one to
another of the following: Husband, wife, son, daughter, brother,
sister, mother, or father.
(iii) When a change of ownership of a vessel with a fish trap
endorsement is directly related to the disability or death of the
owner, the RD may issue such endorsement, temporarily or permanently,
with the commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish that is issued for
the vessel under the new owner. Such new owner will be the person
specified by the owner or his/her legal guardian, in the case of a
disabled owner, or by the will or executor/administrator of the estate,
in the case of a deceased owner. (Paragraphs (m)(3) and (4) of this
section apply for the transfer of a commercial vessel permit for Gulf
reef fish upon disability or death of an owner.)
(iv) A fish trap endorsement may be transferred to a vessel with a
commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish whose owner has a record of
landings of reef fish from fish traps in the Gulf EEZ, as reported on
fishing vessel logbooks received by the SRD, from November 20, 1992,
through February 6, 1994, and who was unable to obtain a fish trap
endorsement for the vessel with the reported landings.
(4) The owner of a vessel that is to receive a transferred
endorsement must return the originals of the endorsed commercial vessel
permit for Gulf reef fish and the unendorsed permit to the RD with an
application for a fish trap endorsement for his or her vessel.
(5) A fish trap endorsement that is not renewed or that is revoked
will not be reissued. Such endorsement is considered to be not renewed
when an application for renewal is not received by the RD within 1 year
of the expiration date of the permit.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * * (Paragraphs (m)(3) and (4) of this section apply for the
transfer of a commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish upon
disability or death of an owner.)
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 622.31, in paragraph (a), the reference to
``Sec. 622.4'' is revised to read ``Sec. 622.4 or Sec. 622.17'' and
paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods.
* * * * *
(c) Fish traps. (1) A fish trap may not be used in the South
Atlantic EEZ.
(2) A fish trap may not be used or possessed in the Gulf EEZ west
of 85 deg.30' W. long. and, after February 7, 2007, may not be used or
possessed in the Gulf EEZ.
(3) A fish trap used other than where authorized in paragraph
(c)(1) or (2) of this section may be disposed of in any appropriate
manner by the Assistant Administrator or an authorized officer.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 622.32, paragraph (b)(2)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:
[[Page 13988]]
Sec. 622.32 Prohibited and limited harvest species.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Red drum and Nassau grouper may not be harvested or possessed
in or from the Gulf EEZ. Such fish caught in the Gulf EEZ must be
released immediately with a minimum of harm.
* * * * *
Sec. 622.37 [Amended]
7. In Sec. 622.37(d)(4), the word ``Nassau,'' is removed.
8. In Sec. 622.40, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.40 Limitations on traps and pots.
(a) * * *
(2) Gulf EEZ. A fish trap in the Gulf EEZ may be pulled or tended
only by a person (other than an authorized officer) aboard the vessel
with the fish trap endorsement to fish such trap. If such vessel has a
breakdown that prevents it from retrieving its traps, the owner or
operator must immediately notify the nearest NMFS Office of Enforcement
and must obtain authorization for another vessel to retrieve and land
its traps. The request for such authorization must include the
requested effective period for the retrieval and landing, the persons
and vessel to be authorized to retrieve the traps, and the point of
landing of the traps. Such authorization will be specific as to the
effective period, authorized persons and vessel, and point of landing.
Such authorization is valid solely for the removal of fish traps from
the EEZ and for harvest of fish incidental to such removal.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 622.42, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.42 Quotas.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Shallow-water groupers, that is, all groupers other than deep-
water groupers, jewfish, and Nassau grouper, including scamp before the
quota for shallow-water groupers is reached, combined--9.8 million lb
(4.4 million kg), round weight.
* * * * *
Sec. 622.43 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 622.43(b)(1), the words ``bartered, traded, or'' are
removed.
11. In Sec. 622.48, paragraph (d)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 622.48 Adjustment of management measures.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) For a species or species group: Target date for rebuilding an
overfished species, TAC, bag limits, size limits, vessel trip limits,
closed seasons or areas, gear restrictions, reopening of a fishery
prematurely closed, and quotas.
* * * * *
Appendix A to Part 622 [Amended]
12. In Table 3, under the family Sparidae--Porgies, the scientific
name for Red porgy is revised to read ``Pagrus pagrus'' and in Table 4,
under the family Sparidae--Porgies, the scientific names of Saucereye
porgy and Red porgy are revised to read ``Calamus calamus'' and
``Pagrus pagrus'', respectively.
[FR Doc. 97-7528 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P