[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16336-16341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7610]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 991008273-0070-02; I.D. 062399B]
RIN 0648-AK89


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South 
Atlantic; Amendment 9

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 9 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of 
the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Amendment 9). For Gulf migratory 
group king mackerel, this rule establishes a moratorium on issuance of 
gillnet endorsements that includes eligibility criteria and 
restrictions on transferability of endorsements; restricts the area in 
which the gillnet fishery can operate; reallocates the eastern zone 
quota between the Florida east coast and Florida west coast subzones; 
and divides the Florida west coast subzone into northern and southern 
subzones with respective quotas. This rule also allows retention and 
sale of cut-off (damaged) king and Spanish mackerel that are greater 
than the minimum size limits and possessed within the trip limits. The 
intended effect of this rule is to protect king and Spanish mackerel 
from overfishing and to maintain healthy stocks while still allowing 
catches by important commercial and recreational fisheries.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding the collection-of-information 
requirements 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: Dr. Steve Branstetter; telephone: 727-
570-5305; fax: 727-570-5583; e-mail: [email protected].

[[Page 16337]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fisheries for coastal migratory pelagic 
resources are managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal 
Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 
(FMP). The FMP was prepared jointly by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(Councils), approved by NMFS, and implemented under the authority of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.
    On July 6, 1999, NMFS announced the availability of Amendment 9 and 
requested comments on the amendment (64 FR 36325). NMFS approved 
Amendment 9 on October 7, 1999, and published a proposed rule to 
implement the measures in Amendment 9 and requested comments (64 FR 
60151, November 4, 1999). The background and rationale for the measures 
in the amendment and proposed rule are contained in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and are not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received twenty-one public comments, many with common 
statements. A summary of the comments and NMFS' responses follow.
    Comment 1: Three commenters expressed general support for the 
actions to be implemented by this final rule, with minor comments or 
suggestions for additional measures that could be considered by the 
Council (see Comment 10). One of the commenters stated that the actions 
to establish separate sub-zones along Florida's west coast and to 
implement a moratorium on gill net endorsements were long overdue. 
Another commenter supported measures that would bring catch capacity in 
line with total allowable catch until an individual fishing quota or 
other capacity limiting management strategy could be implemented. By 
contrast, one commenter opposed all of the actions proposed in 
Amendment 9, concluding that the actions were unwarranted and 
unnecessary.
    Response: NMFS believes that the actions in Amendment 9 will 
enhance the socioeconomic benefits of the commercial king mackerel 
fishery, protect the stock from overfishing, and reduce waste which 
will improve the accuracy of fishing mortality estimates. NMFS is 
implementing these actions through this final rule.
    Comment 2: Three comments supported the establishment of a northern 
and southern subzone in the Florida west coast subzone, but three other 
commenters were opposed to the establishment of the subzones because 
they unfairly restricted access to the fishery resource. One of the 
latter commenters noted that the proposed boundaries of the northern 
and southern subzones would discriminate against central Florida Gulf 
coast fishermen. The commenter stated that the northern subzone quota 
will be caught by fishermen fishing off the Florida Panhandle during 
the summer, closing the fishery in the subzone before the fish migrated 
south to the central Florida area; central Florida fishermen then would 
be restricted to fish in the southern subzone (Collier and Monroe 
Counties), creating a hardship on the fishermen and their families.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the establishment of subzones and the 
reallocation of the Gulf group king mackerel Eastern Zone quota is 
unfair or discriminatory to any particular region or fishing sector. 
The allocations of the quota, as derived by the Councils, were based on 
the recent landing histories for each region. The Councils recommended 
an allocation to fishers in the northern zone that reflected their 
recent landings, while at the same time, protected the historical 
contribution and participation of the fishers in the south Florida 
area. NMFS agrees with the strategy employed to derive these re-
allocations.
    Comment 3: Eleven comments stated the proposed northern subzone 
quota of 175,500 lb (79,606 kg) was too small. Several of these 
commenters expressed dismay that the proposed quota was only 14 percent 
of the total 1,170,000-lb (530,703-kg) eastern zone quota. The 
commenters thought that the northern subzone would receive a 25 to 30 
percent allocation of the eastern zone quota. Several commenters stated 
that the re-allocation unfairly provided most of the quota to the 
southern subzone, noting that fishermen in the southern subzone also 
have the ability to fish seasonally on Atlantic group king mackerel, 
thus providing even greater access to king mackerel resources. Several 
commenters suggested that NMFS increase the allocation proposed by the 
Council for the northern subzone by at least 100,000 lb (45,359 kg).
    Response: The Councils recognized that northern Florida landings of 
king mackerel have increased significantly in recent years. During the 
1980s, Monroe County (the Florida Keys) accounted for nearly 90 percent 
of the king mackerel landings on the west coast of Florida. During the 
1990s, the contribution by the Florida Panhandle area increased to 
approximately 25 percent of the total hook-and-line landings. The 
selection of a dedicated 175,500 lb (79,606 kg) to the proposed 
northern subzone equates to 30 percent of the existing 585,000-lb 
(265,352-kg) hook-and-line allocation for the existing Florida west 
coast subzone, and nearly 25 percent of the total Florida west coast 
hook-and-line allocation as implemented in this rule. The allocation of 
the 175,500 lb (79,606 kg) was derived by dedicating 7.5 percent of the 
total eastern Gulf commercial quota of 2.34 million lb (1.06 million 
kg) to the northern subzone. The remaining 92.5 percent was then 
divided equally between the Florida east coast and Florida west coast 
(excluding the northern subzone). The Florida west coast quota for the 
proposed southern subzone was then divided equally between the hook-
and-line and run-around gillnet fisheries. In providing this option, 
the Councils attempted to reflect the recent increases in the 
proportion of the landings attributable to the northern area, while 
maintaining support for the more traditional and historical fishery of 
southern Florida.
    With the seasonal shift in the boundary dividing the Atlantic group 
from the Gulf group king mackerel stocks, beginning on April 1 of each 
year, southern Florida (Monroe and Collier County) fishermen do have 
access to the Atlantic group fish. However, this fishery is short-lived 
as the fish soon migrate north out of the south Florida area.
    NMFS supports the Councils' rationale in deriving the allocations 
for each subzone within the Gulf group eastern zone king mackerel 
fishery. NMFS cannot increase the proposed allocation for the northern 
subzone, as suggested by the various commenters. NMFS may approve, 
partially approve, or disapprove actions submitted by the Councils; 
NMFS may not substitute actions in this rule for those submitted by the 
Councils.
    Comment 4: Three commenters believed that the proposed reduction 
for the Florida east coast quota was unfair. Commenters noted that they 
had accepted lower trip limits for years so that the fishery could 
remain open year-round. With the reduction in their quota, the fishers 
are concerned that the fishery will be closed earlier resulting in 
hardship on Atlantic coast fishermen.
    Response: The Florida east coast subzone was first established for 
the 1994-95 fishing year with a quota of 865,000 lb (392,357 kg) for 
this segment of the fishery. Beginning with the 1997-98 fishing year, 
the quota was increased to 1,170,000 lb (530,703 kg). The measures in 
Amendment 9 would reduce this quota to 1,082,250 lb

[[Page 16338]]

(490,900 kg). This segment of the fishery has been closed only once 
when the quota was reached during the 1998-99 fishing year. That 
closure was only two weeks prior to the March 31 end of the fishing 
year. Given that this fishery has only once met its quota, NMFS does 
not believe that the redistribution of quota allocations will affect 
overall landings and fishing season for this segment of the fishery.
    Additionally, any future increases of total allowable catch for the 
Gulf group king mackerel stock, when that stock is no longer 
overfished, would be distributed among the various fishery sectors.
    Comment 5: Two commenters believed that restricting gillnet 
endorsements to those fishers who were active in the fishery is unfair. 
One of the commenters also opposed the limited transferability of the 
endorsements. Both noted that fishers who may be inactive in a fishery 
still maintain their permits and endorsements in the event that their 
primary fisheries are closed, and it becomes necessary for them to fish 
in an alternative fishery. By contrast, two commenters supported the 
moratorium and limited transferability of gillnet endorsements, but 
questioned the continuing 50-percent allocation of the commercial quota 
for the proposed southern subzone gillnet segment of the fishery.
    Response: The Councils chose to restrict the issuance of gillnet 
endorsements in the Gulf group king mackerel fishery to curtail 
expansion of that fishery, and NMFS agrees with this concept. The 
gillnet fishery has a long history of participating in the commercial 
king mackerel fishery. NMFS' records indicate that about 87 vessels 
hold active king mackerel permits with gillnet endorsements, but, since 
the 1994/1995 season, only 22 different vessels have participated in 
the fishery. Only about 17 of the 22 recently active gillnet 
endorsement holders would be able to retain their gillnet endorsements 
under Amendment 9. Two of the 22 vessels dropped out of the fishery 
prior to the 1995/1996 and 1996/1997 fishing seasons that will be used 
as the criterion for retention of the gillnet endorsement, and three 
vessels entered the fishery after these dates. Thus, the majority (17 
of 22) of the current and active gillnet fishers will be eligible to 
remain in the fishery.
    NMFS believes that limiting the number of participants in the 
gillnet fishery is imperative to prevent expansion and 
overcapitalization in the fishery and to reduce the probability of 
quota overruns by this prolific segment of the fishery. Limiting the 
issuance of gillnet endorsements to those vessels that can demonstrate 
active participation in the fishery and allowing transfer of those 
endorsements only to family members will allow continued participation 
by historical fishing families while the Councils consider whether 
additional or alternative options should be implemented to effectively 
manage the overfished Gulf group king mackerel fishery.
    NMFS disagrees that the continued 50-percent allocation to the 
gillnet fishery in the proposed southern subzone of the Florida west 
coast subzone is inequitable. As noted, about 17 of the 22 recently 
active participants will be eligible to continue in this fishery, and 
this segment of the fishery historically has taken its allocation of 
the quota in a short timeframe. Should the number of eligible 
participants in the gillnet fishery decline in the future, the Council 
can reconsider this allocation.
    Comment 6: Two comments supported the sale of cut-off fish.
    Response: One of the mandates in the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act 
is to reduce bycatch and waste in fisheries. NMFS agrees that allowing 
the possession and sale of cut-off fish that otherwise would meet the 
minimum size limit and be possessed within the legal trip limit will 
reduce waste in this fishery and provide a more accurate assessment of 
fishing mortality by reducing unreported regulatory discards.
    Comment 7: Three comments addressed a proposed action described in 
Amendment 9 that was rejected by the Councils and not included in the 
proposed and final rule. This action would have prohibited the sale of 
recreationally caught fish. Additionally, a minority report from one 
Gulf Council member expressed concern that this measure was not 
approved by the South Atlantic Council for consideration by the 
Secretary of Commerce. Commenters suggested that recreational sale, if 
allowed to continue, should be suspended when the commercial fishery 
closes.
    Response: NMFS supports the concept of prohibiting the sale of 
recreationally caught fish. Allowing such sales leads to double-
counting of fish which impacts the accuracy of the estimates of fishing 
mortality. The no-sale provision described in the amendment was not 
supported collectively by the Councils administering this joint FMP. 
Thus, the Councils could not forward the no-sale provision for 
inclusion in the proposed rule.
    Comment 8: Two commenters questioned the fairness of further 
restricting the commercial fishery by placing a moratorium on gillnet 
endorsements, while the recreational fishery is not required to have a 
permit and does not have to demonstrate any qualifications to maintain 
an active status in the fishery.
    Response: There are currently no licensing requirements for private 
individuals to fish recreationally in the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ). However, a charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal migratory 
fish must be issued and on board a vessel that is operating as a 
charter vessel or headboat to fish for or possess coastal migratory 
pelagic fish in or from the EEZ. Additionally, the owner or operator of 
a vessel for which a charter vessel/headboat permit for coastal 
migratory pelagic fish has been issued, or whose vessel fishes for or 
lands such coastal migratory pelagic fish in or from state waters 
adjoining the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ, and who is selected by NMFS 
to report must maintain a fishing record for each trip or a portion of 
such trips, as specified by NMFS, on forms provided by NMFS and must 
submit such records on a regular basis. If selected, charter vessels 
must submit completed fishing records to NMFS weekly, and headboats 
must submit completed fishing records monthly. The Councils are 
currently considering a permit moratorium for the for-hire sector for 
coastal migratory pelagic fish, Gulf reef fish, and South Atlantic 
snapper-groupers to address the rapid expansion of the for-hire 
industry throughout the Southeast.
    Comment 9: One commenter questioned why it was necessary to further 
restrict directed commercial harvest by limiting the number of 
commercial fishermen in the coastal migratory pelagic fishery through a 
permit moratorium, when the Councils were not further restricting 
shrimping effort which has an impact on coastal migratory stocks 
through bycatch mortality.
    Response: The Councils have addressed shrimp trawl bycatch and its 
impact on coastal migratory pelagic fishes. Bycatch reduction devices 
(BRDs) are required in all EEZ waters shoreward of the 100-fathom (183-
m) depth contour west of Cape San Blas, Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico, 
and in all EEZ waters of the South Atlantic. BRDs are also required in 
all South Atlantic state waters, and the State of Florida requires the 
use of BRDs in shrimp trawls in state waters in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Additionally, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is

[[Page 16339]]

considering options to extend BRD requirements into the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico, making the use of BRDs mandatory in all EEZ waters in the Gulf 
of Mexico.
    Comment 10: Several commenters offered suggestions for additional 
actions that they believe would be beneficial to managing the coastal 
migratory pelagic fisheries but that were not included in Amendment 9. 
One comment suggested that NMFS allow for quota adjustments in 
subsequent years for any overruns that occur by a particular fishery 
segment. Two commenters suggested that a logbook or other reporting 
system should be required for recreational fishing vessels or operators 
who sell their catch to avoid the double-counting of recreationally 
caught fish that are later sold and counted against the commercial 
quota. One commenter further suggested that a fishing license system 
should be developed for the private recreational sector in the EEZ. One 
commenter suggested that 50 percent, not 25 percent, of the fisher's 
income should be derived from commercial fishing in order to be 
eligible for a commercial permit. Another commenter suggested that the 
criterion should be based on the landing history of mackerel and not 
just on income derived from fishing. One commenter stated that the 
stock assessment and proposed actions did not consider an 18.6-year 
lunar cycle, the North Atlantic oscillation, or the 11-year shift in 
sea water temperatures and the effects of these phenomena on coastal 
migratory pelagic fish stocks.
    Response: NMFS agrees that numerous additional management options 
are available to the Councils to effectively manage the coastal 
migratory pelagic resources of the southeastern United States. However, 
as noted in Comment 3, NMFS cannot substitute measures for those 
proposed by the Councils in this rule. NMFS encourages the public to be 
actively involved in the Council process and provide suggestions to the 
Councils for their deliberations. Regarding the incorporation of 
environmental variables and their effects on fish stocks in stock 
assessments, although these phenomena may exist, there is currently no 
evidence suggesting that they have any effect on the biology, 
abundance, or distribution of mackerel.

Classification

    The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined on October 7, 
1999, that Amendment 9 is necessary for the conservation and management 
of the FMP and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
other applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that this rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were 
received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis was not prepared.
    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.
    This rule includes collection-of-information requirements that are 
subject to the PRA and which has been approved under OMB control number 
0648-0205. The estimated response times are 20 minutes for a king 
mackerel permit application and 5 minutes for a king mackerel gillnet 
endorsement. These estimates include the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collections of information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Virgin Islands.

    Dated: March 22, 2000.
Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended 
as follows:

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

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

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

    2. In Sec. 622.4, paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) through (a)(2)(iv), the 
first sentence of paragraph (g), and paragraph (o) are revised to read 
as follows:


Sec. 622.4  Permits and fees.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Gillnets for king mackerel in the southern Florida west coast 
subzone. For a person aboard a vessel to use a run-around gillnet for 
king mackerel in the southern Florida west coast subzone (see 
Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(3)), a commercial vessel permit for king 
mackerel with a gillnet endorsement must have been issued to the vessel 
and must be on board. See paragraph (o) of this section regarding a 
moratorium on endorsements for the use of gillnets for king mackerel in 
the southern Florida west coast subzone and restrictions on 
transferability of king mackerel gillnet endorsements.
    (iii) King mackerel. For a person aboard a vessel to be eligible 
for exemption from the bag limits and to fish under a quota for king 
mackerel in or from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, a 
commercial vessel permit for king mackerel must have been issued to the 
vessel and must be on board. To obtain or renew a commercial vessel 
permit for king mackerel valid after April 30, 1999, at least 25 
percent of the applicant's earned income, or at least $10,000, must 
have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale 
of fish) or from charter fishing during one of the 3 calendar years 
preceding the application. See paragraph (q) of this section regarding 
a moratorium on commercial vessel permits for king mackerel, initial 
permits under the moratorium, transfers of permits during the 
moratorium, and limited exceptions to the earned income or gross sales 
requirement for a permit.
    (iv) Spanish mackerel. For a person aboard a vessel to be eligible 
for exemption from the bag limits and to fish under a quota for Spanish 
mackerel in or from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ, a 
commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel must have been issued to 
the vessel and must be on board. To obtain or renew a commercial vessel 
permit for Spanish mackerel valid after April 30, 1999, at least 25 
percent of the applicant's earned income, or at least $10,000, must 
have been derived from commercial fishing (i.e., harvest and first sale 
of fish) or from charter fishing during one of the 3 calendar years 
preceding the application.
* * * * *
    (g) Transfer. A vessel permit, license, 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

[[Page 16340]]

commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, in paragraph (n) of this 
section for a fish trap endorsement, in paragraph (o) of this section 
for a Gulf king mackerel gillnet endorsement, in paragraph (p) of this 
section for a red snapper license, in paragraph (q) of this section for 
a king mackerel permit, in Sec. 622.17(c) for a commercial vessel 
permit for golden crab, or in Sec. 622.18(e) for a commercial vessel 
permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper. * * *
* * * * *
    (o) Moratorium on endorsements for the use of gillnets for king 
mackerel in the southern Florida west coast subzone. (1) An initial 
king mackerel gillnet endorsement will be issued only if--
    (i) The vessel owner was the owner of a vessel with a commercial 
mackerel permit with a gillnet endorsement on or before October 16, 
1995; and
    (ii) The vessel owner was the owner of a vessel that had gillnet 
landings of Gulf migratory group king mackerel in one of the two 
fishing years, July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996, or July 1, 1996, 
through June 30, 1997. Such landings must have been documented by NMFS 
or by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection trip ticket 
system as of December 31, 1997. Only landings when a vessel had a valid 
commercial permit for king mackerel with a gillnet endorsement and only 
landings that were harvested, landed, and sold in compliance with state 
and Federal regulations may be used to establish eligibility.
    (2) Paragraphs (o)(1)(i) and (o)(1)(ii) of this section 
notwithstanding, the owner of a vessel that received a commercial king 
mackerel permit through transfer, between March 4, 1998, and March 28, 
2000, from a vessel that met the eligibility requirements in paragraphs 
(o)(1)(i) and (o)(1)(ii) also qualifies for an initial king mackerel 
gillnet endorsement.
    (3) To obtain an initial king mackerel gillnet endorsement under 
the moratorium, an owner or operator of a vessel that does not have a 
king mackerel gillnet endorsement on March 28, 2000 must submit an 
application to the RA, postmarked or hand delivered not later than June 
26, 2000. Except for applications for renewals of king mackerel gillnet 
endorsements, no applications for king mackerel gillnet endorsements 
will be accepted after June 26, 2000. Application forms are available 
from the RA.
    (4) The RA will not issue an owner more initial king mackerel 
gillnet endorsements under the moratorium than the number of vessels 
with king mackerel gillnet endorsements that the owner owned 
simultaneously on or before October 16, 1995.
    (5) An owner of a vessel with a king mackerel gillnet endorsement 
issued under this moratorium may transfer that endorsement 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. Such endorsement also may be transferred to 
another vessel owned by the same entity.
    (6) A king mackerel gillnet endorsement that is not renewed or that 
is revoked will not be reissued. An endorsement is considered to be not 
renewed when an application for renewal is not received by the RA 
within 1 year after the expiration date of the permit that includes the 
endorsement.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 622.38, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 622.38  Landing fish intact.

* * * * *
    (g) Cut-off (damaged) king or Spanish mackerel that comply with the 
minimum size limits in Sec. 622.37(c)(2) and (c)(3), respectively, and 
the trip limits in Sec. 622.44(a) and (b), respectively, may be 
possessed in the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South Atlantic EEZ on, and 
offloaded ashore from, a vessel that is operating under the respective 
trip limits. Such cut-off fish also may be sold. A maximum of five 
additional cut-off (damaged) king mackerel, not subject to the size 
limits or trip limits, may be possessed or offloaded ashore but may not 
be sold or purchased and are not counted against the trip limit.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec. 622.41, paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2)(iv) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 622.41  Species specific limitations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) King mackerel, Gulf migratory group--hook-and-line gear and, 
in the southern Florida west coast subzone only, run-around gillnet. 
(See Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(3) for a description of the southern 
Florida west coast subzone.)
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Exception for king mackerel in the Gulf EEZ. The provisions of 
this paragraph (c)(2)(iv) apply to king mackerel taken in the Gulf EEZ 
and to such king mackerel possessed in the Gulf. Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) 
of this section notwithstanding, a person aboard a vessel that has a 
valid commercial permit for king mackerel is not subject to the bag 
limit for king mackerel when the vessel has on board on a trip 
unauthorized gear other than a drift gillnet in the Gulf EEZ, a long 
gillnet, or a run-around gillnet in an area other than the southern 
Florida west coast subzone. Thus, the following applies to a vessel 
that has a commercial permit for king mackerel:
    (A) Such vessel may not use unauthorized gear in a directed fishery 
for king mackerel in the Gulf EEZ.
    (B) If such a vessel has a drift gillnet or a long gillnet on board 
or a run-around gillnet in an area other than the southern Florida west 
coast subzone, no king mackerel may be possessed.
    (C) If such a vessel has unauthorized gear on board other than a 
drift gillnet in the Gulf EEZ, a long gillnet, or a run-around gillnet 
in an area other than the southern Florida west coast subzone, the 
possession of king mackerel taken incidentally is restricted only by 
the closure provisions of Sec. 622.43(a)(3) and the trip limits 
specified in Sec. 622.44(a). See also paragraph (c)(4) of this section 
regarding the purse seine incidental catch allowance of king mackerel.
* * * * *
    5. In Sec. 622.42, paragraphs (c)(1)(i)(A)(1) through 
(c)(1)(i)(A)(3) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 622.42  Quotas.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (1) Florida east coast subzone--1,082,250 lb (490,900 kg).
    (2) Florida west coast subzones--(i) Southern--1,082,250 lb 
(490,900 kg), which is further divided into a quota of 541,125 lb 
(245,450 kg) for vessels fishing with hook-and-line and a quota of 
541,125 lb (245,450 kg) for vessels fishing with run-around gillnets.
    (ii) Northern--175,500 lb (79,606 kg).
    (3) Description of Florida subzones. The Florida east coast subzone 
is that part of the eastern zone north of 25 deg.20.4' N. lat., which 
is a line directly east from the Miami-Dade/Monroe County, FL, 
boundary. The Florida west coast subzone is that part of the eastern 
zone south and west of 25 deg.20.4' N. lat. The Florida west coast 
subzone is further divided into southern and northern subzones. From 
November 1 through March 31, the southern subzone is that part of the 
Florida west coast subzone that extends south and west from

[[Page 16341]]

25 deg.20.4' N. lat. to 26 deg.19.8' N. lat., a line directly west from 
the Lee/Collier County, FL boundary (i.e., the area off Collier and 
Monroe Counties). From April 1 through October 31, the southern subzone 
is that part of the Florida west coast subzone that is between 
26 deg.19.8' N. lat. and 25 deg.48' N. lat., which is a line directly 
west from the Monroe/Collier County, FL, boundary (i.e., off Collier 
County). The northern subzone is that part of the Florida west coast 
subzone that is between 26 deg.19.8' N. lat. and 87 deg.31'06'' W. 
long., which is a line directly south from the Alabama/Florida 
boundary.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 622.44, paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 622.44  Commercial trip limits.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Eastern zone-Florida east coast subzone. In the Florida east 
coast subzone, king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on 
board or landed from a vessel for which a commercial permit for king 
mackerel has been issued, as required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii), from 
November 1 each fishing year until the subzone's fishing year quota of 
king mackerel has been harvested or until March 31, whichever occurs 
first, in amounts not exceeding 50 fish per day.
    (ii) Eastern zone-Florida west coast subzone--(A) Gillnet gear. (1) 
In the southern Florida west coast subzone, king mackerel in or from 
the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a vessel for which a 
commercial permit with a gillnet endorsement has been issued, as 
required under Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(ii), from July 1, each fishing year, 
until a closure of the southern Florida west coast subzone's fishery 
for vessels fishing with run-around gillnets has been effected under 
Sec. 622.43(a)--in amounts not exceeding 25,000 lb (11,340 kg) per day.
    (2) In the southern Florida west coast subzone:
    (i) King mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or 
landed from a vessel that uses or has on board a run-around gillnet on 
a trip only when such vessel has on board a commercial permit for king 
mackerel with a gillnet endorsement.
    (ii) King mackerel from the southern west coast subzone landed by a 
vessel for which such commercial permit with endorsement has been 
issued will be counted against the run-around gillnet quota of 
Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)(i).
    (iii) King mackerel in or from the EEZ harvested with gear other 
than run-around gillnet may not be retained on board a vessel for which 
such commercial permit with endorsement has been issued.
    (B) Hook-and-line gear. In the Florida west coast subzone, king 
mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed from a 
vessel with a commercial permit for king mackerel, as required by 
Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(iii), and operating under the hook-and-line gear 
quotas in Sec. 622.42(c)(1)(i)(A)(2)(i) or (c)(1)(i)(A)(2)(ii):
    (1) From July 1, each fishing year, until 75 percent of the 
respective northern or southern subzone's hook-and-line gear quota has 
been harvested--in amounts not exceeding 1,250 lb (567 kg) per day.
    (2) From the date that 75 percent of the respective northern or 
southern subzone's hook-and-line gear quota has been harvested, until a 
closure of the respective northern or southern subzone's fishery for 
vessels fishing with hook-and-line gear has been effected under 
Sec. 622.43(a)--in amounts not exceeding 500 lb (227 kg) per day.
* * * * *
    7. In Sec. 622.45, paragraph (h) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 622.45  Restrictions on sale/purchase.

* * * * *
    (h) Cut-off (damaged) king or Spanish mackerel. A person may not 
sell or purchase a cut-off (damaged) king or Spanish mackerel that does 
not comply with the minimum size limits specified in Sec. 622.37(c)(2) 
or (c)(3), respectively, or that is in excess of the trip limits 
specified in Sec. 622.44(a) or (b), respectively.
[FR Doc. 00-7610 Filed 3-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F