[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31831-31836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12669]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 622 and 654

[Docket No. 000511134-0134-01; I.D. 072699D]
RIN 0648-AL81


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Fishery Management Plans of the Gulf of Mexico; Addition to FMP 
Framework Provisions; Stone Crab Gear Requirements

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement those provisions of 
the Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment to the Fishery 
Management Plans (FMPs) of the Gulf of Mexico (SFA Amendment) that 
modify the framework regulatory adjustment procedures in the FMPs for 
reef fish, red drum, and coastal migratory pelagics. These FMP 
framework modifications allow timely addition of various stock 
population parameters to the appropriate FMP(s), including biomass-
based estimates of minimum stock size thresholds (MSSTs), optimum yield 
(OY), maximum sustainable yield (MSY), stock biomass achieved by 
fishing at MSY (BMSY), and maximum fishing mortality 
thresholds (MFMTs). These regulations also revise the stone crab trap 
construction requirements, as proposed by the SFA Amendment. The 
intended effects are to provide a more timely mechanism for 
incorporating stock population parameters into the applicable FMPs when 
such information becomes available and to establish stone crab trap 
construction regulations that are compatible with those of the State of 
Florida and that will reduce finfish bycatch.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Crabtree, telephone: 727-570-5305, 
fax: 727-570-5583, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SFA Amendment addresses fisheries under 
the FMPs for coral and coral reef resources, coastal migratory 
pelagics, red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny lobster, and stone crab. 
The FMPs were prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council 
(Council), except for the FMPs for coastal migratory pelagics and spiny 
lobster that were prepared jointly by the South Atlantic and Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Councils. All of these FMPs, except the spiny 
lobster and stone crab FMPs, are implemented

[[Page 31832]]

under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 
622. The Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the 
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic is implemented by regulations at 50 
CFR part 640; the Fishery Management Plan for the Stone Crab Fishery of 
the Gulf of Mexico is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 654.
    On August 18, 1999, NMFS announced the availability of the SFA 
Amendment and requested comments on it (64 FR 44884). On November 2, 
1999, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement those provisions of 
the SFA Amendment that required rulemaking (i.e., the modifications of 
the framework procedures of the applicable FMPs and the changes to the 
stone crab trap construction requirements) and requested comments on 
the proposed rule (64 FR 59153). The background and rationale for the 
measures in the SFA Amendment and proposed rule are contained in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated here.
    On November 17, 1999, after considering the comments received, NMFS 
partially approved the SFA Amendment. NMFS approved the portions of the 
amendment dealing with descriptions of the fisheries and fishing 
communities, the spawning potential ratio (SPR) proxies submitted for 
the MFMTs (except for red snapper), the MSSTs for shrimp, and the 
proposed changes in the construction characteristics of stone crab 
traps. NMFS disapproved the portion of the amendment dealing with 
bycatch reporting, because the Council has not fulfilled the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirement to develop standardized reporting to assess the 
amount and type of bycatch. NMFS also disapproved the portion of the 
amendment dealing with bycatch reduction, except for the measure for 
the construction of stone crab traps. This disapproval was based on 
national standard 9, because the Council has not fulfilled the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to reduce bycatch to the extent 
practicable and has not adequately explained why additional measures to 
reduce bycatch are not practicable. NMFS disapproved the following 
actions regarding overfishing targets and thresholds. All of the SPRs 
submitted as proxies for MSY, OY, and the MSST were disapproved based 
on national standards 1 and 2 because they are not consistent with the 
best available scientific information and do not provide an adequate 
basis for achieving OY on a continuing basis. The targets and 
thresholds proposed for shrimp are biomass-based; however, the proxies 
for MSY and OY were disapproved and must be revised to reflect the 
yields associated with the various biomass proxies proposed. The MFMT 
(referred to as an ``overfishing threshold'') for royal red shrimp was 
disapproved based on national standards 1 and 2 because no fishing 
mortality rate is explicitly specified; therefore, no objective basis 
was provided for determining whether overfishing is occurring. NMFS 
disapproved the rebuilding schedules for king mackerel and red snapper 
based on national standards 1 and 2. The rebuilding targets specified 
are fishing mortality based (static SPR) rather than biomass-based as 
required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national standard 
guidelines. NMFS recently provided the information needed to develop 
new rebuilding plans to the Council. The static SPR targets would not 
allow an adequate determination of the management measures required to 
rebuild these stocks to a biomass capable of producing MSY because 
static SPR is not sensitive to population size and reflects only 
current levels of fishing mortality. The Council did not propose 
rebuilding schedules for red drum, Nassau grouper, or jewfish. 
Additional rationale for NMFS' approvals and disapprovals of the 
various components of the SFA Amendment are provided in the Comments 
and Responses Section.
    Those measures that were disapproved were not contained in the 
proposed rule; therefore, no changes to the proposed rule resulted from 
the disapprovals. No comments were received on the proposed rule, and 
the proposed rule has been adopted as final without change. NMFS 
received 11 comments on the SFA Amendment. They are summarized below:

Comments and Responses

    Comment 1: Two environmental groups recommended that NMFS 
disapprove the environmental assessment (EA) included in the amendment. 
They commented that the EA failed to adequately analyze the direct, 
indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed actions 
and reasonable alternatives that would minimize adverse impacts.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS has determined that no significant 
impact on the human environment will result from the approved measures. 
The proposed action, in the context of the fishery as a whole, will not 
have an adverse impact on the environment. The description of the 
affected environment for the fisheries under the jurisdiction of the 
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council is discussed in the Generic 
Amendment for Addressing Essential Fish Habitat. The only specific 
regulatory action that would affect fish stocks or the environment is 
the adoption of the construction characteristics of stone crab traps 
set forth in Chapter 46-13.002(2)(a) of Florida law. This measure is 
intended to reduce bycatch in the stone crab fishery and is not 
expected to have any adverse effects on the environment. The remaining 
measures proposed in the SFA Amendment address bycatch, overfishing 
definitions, and rebuilding schedules; however, the amendment proposes 
no regulatory actions that directly affect allocations or would be 
expected to substantially alter existing fishing practices in a way 
that would be detrimental to the environment. In addition, section 13.0 
of the EA incorporates by reference sections of the amendment 
containing a description of the expected environmental consequences of 
each of the proposed alternatives considered. Additional environmental 
analyses and determinations will be made as future regulatory measures 
are implemented to achieve the goals of the SFA Amendment.
    Comment 2: Five groups objected to the provisions of the amendment 
regarding reporting and minimization of bycatch. All commented that 
additional reporting requirements were needed to fully describe bycatch 
and that additional measures were required to reduce bycatch.
    Response: NMFS agrees that additional bycatch reporting measures 
are required. NMFS has disapproved the portion of the amendment dealing 
with bycatch reporting. The Council has not fulfilled the Magnuson-
Stevens Act requirement to develop standardized reporting to assess the 
amount and type of bycatch. The Council has taken steps to improve 
bycatch reporting, such as the cooperative state-Federal program under 
development by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, but this 
program is not yet fully implemented. Furthermore, NMFS is developing a 
bycatch reporting requirement in future and current logbooks that will 
be implemented on January 1, 2001. The Council proposed no new measures 
to improve bycatch reporting in its SFA Amendment; however, the Council 
is currently developing options to address bycatch problems in the 
shrimp fishery. These options include requiring bycatch reduction 
devices (BRDs) in the eastern Gulf, permits, logbooks, and observer 
programs.

[[Page 31833]]

    NMFS agrees that the SFA amendment does not fulfill the Magnuson-
Stevens Act mandate to reduce bycatch to the extent practicable. The 
Council has not adequately explained why additional measures to reduce 
bycatch are not practicable. NMFS has disapproved the portion of the 
amendment dealing with bycatch reduction except the modifications in 
the construction of stone crab traps. NMFS has requested that the 
Council take more aggressive action throughout the Gulf to reduce 
shrimp trawl bycatch. Such action could include extending the 
requirement for BRDs into Federal waters east of Cape San Blas, 
Florida, effort reduction in the fishery, closed areas, or seasonal 
closures. NMFS has approved the proposed changes in the construction 
characteristics of stone crab traps intended to reduce bycatch in that 
fishery.
    Comment 3: Three environmental groups recommended disapproval of 
the proposed rebuilding plans for overfished species on the basis that 
the plans were either incomplete or proposed no specific description of 
how stocks are to be rebuilt. Some recommended that interim goals were 
needed within the proposed rebuilding period to ensure that rebuilding 
was occurring on schedule.
    Response: NMFS has disapproved the rebuilding schedules for king 
mackerel and red snapper based on national standards 1 and 2 because 
they specified fishing mortality-based rebuilding targets rather than 
biomass-based targets, and because the time to rebuild in the absence 
of fishing mortality was not estimated based on rebuilding to biomass 
at MSY, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national 
standard guidelines. Therefore, they are not based on the best 
available scientific information and provide no adequate basis for 
preventing overfishing and rebuilding stocks. Furthermore, the 26-
percent spawning potential ratio (SPR) level specified as a proxy for 
red snapper is unlikely to reflect the fishing mortality rate at MSY 
according to the 1999 report of the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel. 
The Council did not propose rebuilding schedules for red drum, Nassau 
grouper, or jewfish. NMFS has recently provided the Council with 
information needed to revise rebuilding plans and requested that the 
Council submit the revisions through framework procedures as soon as 
possible. NMFS agrees that interim goals within an extended rebuilding 
period would be a valuable and precautionary way to ensure that a stock 
is rebuilding as planned; however, such goals are not explicitly 
required by the guidelines.
    Comment 4: Four environmental groups commented on the fishery 
management targets and thresholds proposed and specifically on the lack 
of any specification of the minimum stock size threshold (MSST). Some 
groups suggested that an interim SPR proxy be established for the MSST 
until biomass-based estimates are available.
    Response: NMFS has disapproved the SPRs submitted as proxies for 
MSY, OY, and MSST based on national standards 1 and 2. The Council must 
provide biomass-based estimates of MSY, OY, and MSST that are 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national standard 
guidelines rather than proxies based on fishing mortality, which is not 
based on the best available scientific information and would not 
provide an adequate measure for determining whether OY can be achieved 
on a continuing basis. The SPR proxies submitted for MFMT were approved 
with the exception of red snapper, which was disapproved based on 
national standards 1 and 2 because the 26-percent SPR level specified 
is unlikely to reflect the fishing mortality rate at MSY, according to 
the 1999 report of the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel. The MFMT for 
royal red shrimp was also disapproved because no fishing mortality rate 
is explicitly specified. Static SPR is an acceptable proxy for the 
MFMT; however, SPR is not biomass-based and is not an acceptable proxy 
for MSST. Transitional SPR can be a useful measure of the extent to 
which past fishing mortality has distorted the age structure of a 
stock, but it is not sensitive to population size or biomass and, thus, 
is not an acceptable proxy for MSST.
    Comment 5: Two charter-boat groups commented on the need for 
increased bycatch reduction in the shrimp fishery. They stated that 
BRDs have not reduced bycatch sufficiently and that a bycatch quota is 
needed in the shrimp fishery.
    Response: NMFS agrees that additional bycatch reduction is required 
in the Gulf shrimp fishery. NMFS has disapproved the portion of the 
amendment dealing with bycatch reduction. The Council has not fulfilled 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to reduce bycatch to the extent 
practicable and has not adequately explained why additional measures to 
reduce bycatch are not practicable. NMFS has encouraged the Council to 
take more aggressive action throughout the Gulf to reduce shrimp trawl 
bycatch. NMFS has also notified the Council that additional measures to 
monitor bycatch in the shrimp fishery are needed. The Council is 
currently developing options to address bycatch problems in the shrimp 
fishery. These options include BRDs in the eastern Gulf, permits, 
logbooks, and observer programs. The Council has not previously 
considered bycatch quotas in the shrimp fishery; however, this idea may 
merit future consideration.
    Comment 6: Three charter-boat groups commented that the overfishing 
thresholds for finfish were too conservative and should be disapproved. 
They specifically objected to the proposed thresholds for red snapper, 
jewfish, and Nassau grouper. They stated that MSY should be established 
on an individual basis.
    Response: NMFS agrees that MSY thresholds should be established on 
an individual species basis. NMFS disagrees that the proposed 
overfishing thresholds are overly conservative. The proposed SPR levels 
are consistent with a large body of published scientific literature 
regarding appropriate threshold levels to prevent recruitment 
overfishing. NMFS has disapproved the SPRs submitted as proxies for 
MSY, OY, and MSST based on national standards 1 and 2, because they are 
based on fishing mortality and are not consistent with the best 
available scientific information and are not adequate criteria for 
determining whether OY can be achieved on a continuing basis. The 
Council must provide species-specific, biomass-based estimates of MSY, 
OY, and MSST that are consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the 
national standard guidelines.
    Comment 7: One environmental group commented that the MFMT level 
should be set lower than MSY.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Both MSY and MFMT are limit thresholds. 
MSY is a biomass-based yield and MFMT is a fishing mortality rate, and, 
therefore, the two thresholds are not strictly comparable. NMFS' 
technical guidance recommends that MFMT be specified as the fishing 
mortality rate associated with MSY (FMSY). The SFA amendment 
specified fishing-mortality-rate proxies (i.e., SPR) for MSY for most 
species. Thus, the amendment specifies MSY equal to MFMT for most 
stocks. The use of an SPR proxy is appropriate for MFMT but not for 
MSY, and NMFS has disapproved the SPR proxies submitted for MSY. Static 
SPR is an acceptable proxy for the MFMT; however, SPR is not biomass-
based and is not indicative of any particular stock size or yield. 
Transitional SPR can be a useful measure of the extent to which past 
fishing mortality has distorted the age structure of a stock, but it is 
not sensitive to population size or biomass

[[Page 31834]]

and, thus, is not an acceptable proxy for MSY. The Council must provide 
species-specific, biomass-based estimates of MSY and MSST in addition 
to the fishing-mortality-based proxies provided.
    Comment 8: Two environmental groups commented that additional 
measures are required to reduce bycatch in the reef fish fishery. These 
groups specifically raised concerns regarding bycatch of Nassau grouper 
and jewfish and requested that NMFS evaluate the level of bycatch of 
these two species.
    Response: The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey 
monitored bycatch in the reef fish recreational fishery. NMFS agrees 
that additional measures to reduce bycatch and better bycatch reporting 
measures in the commercial fishery are required. NMFS has disapproved 
the portions of the amendment dealing with reducing bycatch and bycatch 
reporting. The Council has taken steps to improve bycatch reporting, 
such as the cooperative state-Federal program under development by the 
Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, but this program is not yet 
fully implemented. Furthermore, NMFS is developing a bycatch reporting 
requirement in future and current logbooks that will be implemented on 
January 1, 2001. NMFS intends to continue to evaluate the effect of 
bycatch on the recovery of overfished reef fish stocks and to encourage 
the Council to take additional steps to reduce bycatch and increase the 
survival rates of fish caught and released in the reef fish fishery as 
needed. Thus, the Council has made progress towards improved bycatch 
monitoring in the Gulf, but several of the measures are still in 
development. The Council is also considering the need for mandatory 
observers to monitor bycatch in Gulf fisheries.
    NMFS intends to continue to evaluate the effect of bycatch on the 
recovery of overfished reef fish stocks and to encourage the Council to 
take additional steps to reduce bycatch and increase the survival rates 
of fish caught and released in the reef fish fishery as needed. NMFS 
recently published a NOAA Technical Report assessing the status of 
Nassau grouper and jewfish. NMFS is currently monitoring numbers of 
jewfish and Nassau grouper caught and released in the recreational 
fishery.
    Comment 9: One commercial industry group commented that the 
proposed red snapper overfishing targets and thresholds were far too 
conservative.
    Response: NMFS disapproved the proposed red snapper overfishing 
targets and thresholds but disagrees with the assertion that the 
proposed thresholds are overly conservative. The proxies proposed for 
red snapper overfishing targets and thresholds are consistent with 
previous recommendations of the reef fish stock assessment panels that 
were available to the Council at the time the SFA amendment was 
prepared. NMFS disapproved the overfishing thresholds and the 
rebuilding period proposed for red snapper because (1) the rebuilding 
target specified is fishing-mortality-based (26-percent SPR) rather 
than biomass-based, (2) the 26-percent SPR level specified as a proxy 
for MSY is unlikely to reflect the fishing mortality rate at MSY, 
according to the 1999 report of the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel, 
and (3) the time to rebuild in the absence of fishing mortality was not 
estimated based on rebuilding to biomass at MSY, as required by the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national standard guidelines. The Council 
must provide additional biomass-based estimates of MSY and MSST, in 
addition to the fishing-mortality-based proxies provided, that address 
the recommendations of the Stock Assessment Panel and are consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national standard guidelines. 
Biomass-based targets and thresholds were included in the 1999 red 
snapper stock assessment and have been reviewed by the Reef Fish Stock 
Assessment Panel, but not yet by the Council.
    Comment 10: One commercial industry group commented that the Gulf 
shrimp fishery has already minimized bycatch to the extent practicable. 
They argued that BRDs do not reduce bycatch mortality effectively and 
should not be required.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Current estimates of the effectiveness of 
BRDs suggest that a reduction in red snapper mortality of approximately 
40 percent has been achieved and that greater reductions in 2000 are 
likely to result from changes in the design of acceptable BRDs, and 
from improvements in industry's ability to use BRDs effectively as 
experience is gained. The 1999 Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel also 
concluded that red snapper bycatch was reduced about 40 percent in 
1999. BRD performance improved in 1999, in part, because NMFS no longer 
allows the BRD configuration in which the elephant ear flap obstructs 
the opening of the BRD.
    The Council is currently developing options to address bycatch 
problems in the shrimp fishery. These options include BRDs in the 
eastern Gulf, permits, logbooks, and observer programs. NMFS believes 
that BRDs have significantly reduced shrimp trawl bycatch in the 
western Gulf but that additional reductions are needed. NMFS has 
disapproved the portion of the amendment dealing with bycatch reduction 
based on national standard 9, except that portion addressing the 
modifications in stone crab trap construction. The Council has made 
progress towards reducing bycatch in the Gulf shrimp fishery by 
requiring BRDs in the western Gulf, but the Council has not adequately 
explained why additional measures to reduce bycatch are not 
practicable. Thus, it is not clear that the Council has fulfilled the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act's mandate to reduce bycatch to the extent 
practicable. Bycatch in the shrimp fishery has a substantial effect on 
many finfish stocks, including red snapper. NMFS has encouraged the 
Council to take more aggressive action throughout the Gulf to reduce 
shrimp trawl bycatch. Such action could include extending the 
requirement for BRDs into Federal waters east of Cape San Blas, 
Florida, effort reduction in the fishery, closed areas, or seasonal 
closures. NMFS believes that these actions may be practicable and could 
reduce bycatch substantially. NMFS has also notified the Council that 
additional measures to monitor bycatch in the shrimp fishery are 
needed.
    Comment 11: Two environmental groups commented that more 
conservative fishery management targets and thresholds are needed for 
hermaphroditic species (species that change sex) such as groupers.
    Response: NMFS agrees that a precautionary approach to the 
management of hermaphroditic species is appropriate. Hermaphroditic 
species may respond differently to fishing mortality than typical non-
hermaphroditic species do, and, in some situations, hermaphrodites that 
change sex from female to male may be more sensitive to overfishing 
than non-hermaphrodites. The SFA amendment proposes more conservative 
targets and thresholds for grouper than those currently approved. NMFS 
has approved the SPR proxies proposed for MFMT for hermaphroditic 
groupers but has disapproved the SPR proxies proposed for MSY, OY, and 
MSST for hermaphroditic groupers based on national standards 1 and 2, 
because they are based on fishing mortality, are not consistent with 
the best available scientific information, and are not adequate 
criteria for determining whether OY can be achieved on a continuing 
basis. The Council must provide biomass-based estimates of MSY, OY, and 
MSST; the estimates

[[Page 31835]]

must be consistent with the national standard guidelines in addition to 
the fishing-mortality-based proxies provided by the Council. The Reef 
Fish Stock Assessment Panel will review these biomass-based estimates 
and evaluate their appropriateness for promoting sustainable fisheries 
for hermaphroditic species.

Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, with the 
concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, 
determined that the approved measures of the SFA Amendment are 
necessary for the conservation and management of the fisheries of the 
Gulf of Mexico and that, with the exception of the provisions that were 
disapproved, the SFA Amendment is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that the proposed rule, if adopted, 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.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 622

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

50 CFR Part 654

    Fisheries, Fishing.

    Dated: May 15, 2000
Andrew A. Rosenberg,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 654 
are 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. 622.48, paragraphs (c) and (d) are revised, and 
paragraph (j) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 622.48  Adjustment of management measures.

* * * * *
    (c) Coastal migratory pelagic fish. For a species or species group: 
Age-structured analyses, target date for rebuilding an overfished 
species, MSY (or proxy), stock biomass achieved by fishing at MSY 
(BMSY) (or proxy), maximum fishing mortality threshold 
(MFMT), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), OY, TAC, quota (including 
a quota of zero), bag limit (including a bag limit of zero), size 
limits, vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas and reopenings, 
gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition), 
reallocation of the commercial/recreational allocation of Atlantic 
group Spanish mackerel, and permit requirements.
    (d) Gulf reef fish. (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, quotas, 
MSY (or proxy), OY, and estimates of stock biomass achieved by fishing 
at MSY (BMSY), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), and 
maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT).
    (2) SMZs and the gear restrictions applicable in each.
* * * * *
    (j) Gulf red drum. Target date for rebuilding an overfished 
species, MSY (or proxy), stock biomass achieved by fishing at MSY 
(BMSY), OY, TAC, minimum stock size threshold (MSST), 
maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), escapement rates for 
juvenile fish, bag limits, size limits, gear harvest limits, and other 
restrictions required to prevent exceeding allocations or quotas.

PART 654--STONE CRAB FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO

    3. The authority citation for part 654 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    4. In Sec. 654.22, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 654.22  Gear restrictions.

    (a) Trap construction requirements. No person fishing for stone 
crab may transport on the water or fish with any trap which does not 
meet the following requirements:
    (1) Each trap must be constructed of wood, plastic, or wire.
    (2) A trap may be no larger in dimension than 24 by 24 by 24 inches 
(61 by 61 by 61 cm) or 8.0 ft3 (0.23 m3).
    (3) The throats (entrances) to all wood and plastic traps must be 
located on the top horizontal section of the trap. If the throat is 
longer in one dimension, the throat size in the longer dimension must 
not exceed 5\1/2\ inches (14.0 cm) and in the shorter dimension must 
not exceed 3\1/2\ inches (9.0 cm). If the throat is round, the throat 
size must not exceed 5 inches (12.7 cm) in diameter.
    (4) In any wire trap used to harvest stone crabs, each throat must 
be horizontally oriented. The width of the opening where the throat 
meets the vertical wall of the trap and the opening of the throat at 
its farthest point from the vertical wall, inside the trap, must be 
greater than the height of any such opening. No such throat may extend 
farther than 6 inches (15.2 cm) into the inside of any trap, measured 
from where the throat opening meets the vertical wall of the trap to 
the throat opening at its farthest point from the vertical wall, inside 
the trap.
    (5) A wire trap must have at least three unobstructed escape rings 
installed, each with a minimum inside diameter of 2\3/8\ inches (6.0 
cm). One such escape ring must be located on a vertical outer surface 
adjacent to each crab retaining chamber.
    (6) A plastic or wire trap must have a degradable panel.
    (i) A plastic trap will be considered to have degradable panel if 
it contains at least one sidewall with a rectangular opening no smaller 
in either dimension than that of the throat. This opening may be 
obstructed only with a cypress or untreated pine slat or slats no 
thicker than \3/4\ inch (1.9 cm) such that when the slat degrades, the 
opening in the sidewall of the trap will no longer be obstructed.
    (ii) A wire trap will be considered to have a degradable panel if 
one of the following methods is used in construction of the trap:
    (A) The trap lid tie-down strap is secured to the trap at one end 
by a single loop of untreated jute twine, a corrodible loop composed of 
non-coated steel wire measuring 24 gauge or thinner, or an untreated 
pine dowel no larger than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in length by \3/8\ inch 
(0.95 cm) in diameter. The trap lid must be secured so that when the 
jute, corrodible loop, or pine dowel degrades, the lid will no longer 
be securely closed.
    (B) The trap contains at least one sidewall with a vertical 
rectangular opening no smaller in either dimension than 6 inches (15.2 
cm) in height by 3 inches (7.6 cm) in width. This opening may be laced, 
sewn, or otherwise obstructed by--
    (1) A single length of untreated jute twine knotted only at each 
end and not tied or looped more than once around a single mesh bar;

[[Page 31836]]

    (2) Untreated pine slat(s) no thicker than \3/8\ inch (0.95 cm);
    (3) Non-coated steel wire measuring 24 gauge or thinner;
    (4) A panel of ferrous single-dipped galvanized wire mesh made of 
24 gauge or thinner wire; or
    (5) A rectangular panel made of any material, fastened to the trap 
at each of the four corners of the rectangle by rings made of non-
coated 24 gauge or thinner wire or single strands of untreated jute 
twine. When the jute, untreated pine slat(s), non-coated steel wire, 
wire mesh panel, or corner fasteners degrade, the opening in the 
sidewall of the trap must no longer be obstructed.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-12669 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F