[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51248-51253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21545]



[[Page 51248]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 000502120-0215-02; I.D. 041000E]
RIN 0648-AN39


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment 12

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 12 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South 
Atlantic Region (FMP). This rule limits the harvest and possession of 
red porgy in or from the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off the southern 
Atlantic states to specified incidental catch amounts, adds to the 
parameters that may be established or modified via the FMP's framework 
procedure for regulatory adjustments (framework procedure), and 
modifies the snapper-grouper limited access system to allow transfers 
of a trip-limited permit among vessels owned by the same person 
regardless of vessel size (length and tonnage). The intended effect is 
to protect and rebuild the currently overfished red porgy resource; to 
facilitate timely implementation of measures for the protection of 
snapper-grouper essential fish habitat (EFH) and essential fish habitat 
areas of particular concern (EFH HAPCs) through the framework 
procedure; and to remove an unnecessary restriction on the transfer of 
snapper-grouper trip-limited permits.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 22, 2000, except for the 
amendments to Secs. 622.39(d)(1)(vi), 622.39(d)(2), and 622.44(c)(4)(i) 
which are effective August 29, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 
may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 
Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702. Comments regarding 
the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule 
should be sent to F/SER22, 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). Comments on 
any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used 
in this rule should be directed to the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 
at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter J. Eldridge, 727-570-5305; 
fax 727-570-5583; e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The snapper-grouper fishery off the southern 
Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the 
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and approved and 
implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 
at 50 CFR part 622.
    On April 19, 2000, NMFS announced the availability of Amendment 12 
and requested comments on the amendment (65 FR 20939). A proposed rule 
to implement the measures in Amendment 12, with a request for comments 
through July 6, 2000, was published on June 6, 2000. (65 FR 35877). 
NMFS approved Amendment 12 on July 19, 2000. 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.
    The red porgy resource is overfished. In an emergency interim rule 
(EIR) published September 3, 1999 (64 FR 48324), NMFS prohibited the 
harvest and possession of red porgy in or from the EEZ off the southern 
Atlantic states. NMFS extended the prohibition on harvest and 
possession of red porgy through August 28, 2000 (65 FR 10039, February 
25, 2000). The detailed analysis that led to the conclusion that the 
red porgy resource is overfished was summarized in the EIR (64 FR 
48324) and is not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

    Comment 1: One commenter supports the management measures in 
Amendment 12 and notes that the management actions have over a 50-
percent probability of rebuilding the red porgy resource during the 
specified rebuilding time frame. The commenter believes that the 
actions taken in Amendment 12, coupled with the limited entry 
provisions of Amendment 8, are more than adequate to address the 
Council's concerns with red porgy. The commenter opposes an extension 
of the harvest moratorium, as established by the emergency interim 
rule, because continuing the moratorium would result in excessive 
discard mortality of red porgy due to the depth at which fish are 
captured (depending upon the depth caught, many or most fish are dead 
when brought to the boat). The commenter notes that the bycatch 
allowance will provide valuable size and age information which can be 
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the rebuilding program for red 
porgy. Also, the commenter suggests that anecdotal accounts by North 
Carolina fishermen indicate that the red porgy resource may not be in 
as serious an overfished condition as indicated in the most recent NMFS 
stock assessment.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the management measures in Amendment 12 
should lead to recovery of the red porgy resource within the prescribed 
stock rebuilding time frame. Specifically, if one assumes a total 
release mortality of 18 percent, there is over a 75-percent probability 
that the management measures in Amendment 12 will result in a complete 
recovery of the red porgy resource within the prescribed rebuilding 
period. NMFS also believes that the information obtained from sampling 
the catch associated with the bycatch allowance will provide useful 
information on the size and age structure of the red porgy resource as 
it recovers. These size and age data, along with limited fishery-
independent information, will allow the Council (and NMFS) to evaluate 
the status of the recovery of the red porgy resource every 2 years and 
propose appropriate management actions based upon the assessed 
condition of the resource. The bycatch allowance should mitigate some 
of the temporary, negative economic impacts on headboats and commercial 
vessels, while allowing the red porgy resource to recover within the 
prescribed time frame. As for the comment that red porgy is not 
overfished, see response to Comment 4.
    Comment 2: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commented on 
the final supplemental environmental impact statement for Amendment 12. 
While EPA supports Amendment 12 overall (including the 14-inch (35.6-
cm) minimum size limit, the one fish recreational bag limit, the one 
fish per person possession limit for charter and commercial vessels 
during the period January through April, and the Council's intent to 
review the status of the red porgy resource every two years, it prefers 
to maintain the moratorium on harvest and possession of red porgy (no 
commercial trip limit), as implemented under the emergency regulations. 
EPA references the possible adverse impacts on stock recovery of the 
bycatch allowance and notes that the stock

[[Page 51249]]

recovery period of red porgy should be shorter with a harvest 
moratorium.
    Response: While NMFS agrees that harvest moratorium could result in 
a quicker recovery of red porgy, the commercial trip limit will still 
allow the resource to recover during the prescribed stock rebuilding 
time frame. Additionally, NMFS believes that the bycatch allowance will 
provide useful information for scientists to evaluate the rate of 
recovery of this resource and that it will mitigate some of the 
temporary, negative economic impacts on headboats and commercial 
vessels. As noted before, depending upon the depth caught, many or most 
red porgy are dead when brought to the boat.
    Comment 3: Two commenters support the management measures in 
Amendment 12, but recommend that the commercial trip limit be increased 
from 50 to 100 lb (22.7 to 45.4 kg).
    Response: Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS, when reviewing an 
FMP amendment proposed by a Council, can only approve or disapprove a 
management measure, it can not alter it. Thus, NMFS can only approve or 
disapprove the 50-lb (22.7-kg) commercial trip limit in Amendment 12. 
It cannot change it.
    Comment 4: Six commenters oppose the conservation measures in 
Amendment 12 because they believe that the red porgy resource is not 
overfished, that large red porgy are abundant, and that red porgy 
caught in deep water will not survive (i.e., whatever conservation 
measures are established, they will not prevent this bycatch 
mortality). They prefer no trip limit.
    Response: The Council and NMFS agree that many red porgy that are 
taken in deep water may not survive. It follows that these dead fish 
will not help the resource to recover and would be considered wasted if 
not utilized. The Council considered this and, in part to prevent such 
waste, allowed a 1-fish recreational bag limit (year-round) and a 50-lb 
(22.7-kg) commercial trip limit from May through December. 
Additionally, the commercial trip limit will provide fishery-dependent 
data that will allow scientists to evaluate the status of recovery of 
the resource. The Council and NMFS disagree with the belief that red 
porgy are not overfished. NMFS' 1999 stock assessment clearly shows 
that red porgy are overfished and that there is a clear need to rebuild 
this resource. Commercial and recreational landings have declined 
substantially. A failure to act at this time would exacerbate the 
resource decline as older fish die and are not replaced by younger 
fish. Further, national standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 
that conservation and management measures prevent overfishing while 
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.
    Comment 5: Three commenters wanted to subdivide the South Atlantic 
EEZ into several zones and have different management measures for each 
zone. They inferred that one zone could be off Georgia and Florida and 
another could be off South Carolina and North Carolina.
    Response: The red porgy resource is managed as one stock throughout 
the South Atlantic region. Although adults may not move great 
distances, they appear to move inshore and offshore depending upon 
environmental conditions. Further, eggs and larvae do move depending 
upon prevailing currents. Catch information indicates that the 
abundance of red porgy has been reduced more or less over the entire 
area, even though the center of abundance appears to be in the northern 
portion of the region. Given that the best available scientific 
information indicates that there is only one stock of red porgy, 
national standard 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that, to the 
extent practicable, the individual stock of fish be managed as a unit 
throughout its range. Because fishing zones were not included included 
in Amendment 12, they are not addressed further.
    Comment 6: Four hundred and ninety identical comments were received 
from individuals. They stated that the moratorium on harvest of red 
porgy (as established by the emergency rule) should be continued and 
that the 50-lb (22.7-kg) commercial trip limit and 1-fish recreational 
bag limit in Amendment 12 should be disapproved. They recommended that 
``no take'' zones be established where fishing would not be allowed. 
Finally, they recommended that an interim rule be issued that would 
prevent any harvest of red porgy should NMFS be unable to implement 
Amendment 12 prior to the expiration of the emergency interim rule on 
August 28, 2000.
    Response: Amendment 12 does not contain a management measure to 
implement ``no take'' zones, so such a measure cannot be approved and 
implemented under Amendment 12. Consequently, this comment is not 
addressed further. At this time, it appears that the approved measures 
of Amendment 12 to conserve and rebuild the red porgy resource can be 
implemented prior to the expiration of the current EIR. If this 
expectation changes, NMFS will consider implementing an interim rule to 
ensure that red porgy are not further overfished.
    Red porgy are one of several species that occur in relatively deep 
water. Thus, fishing for other species at those depths will result in 
an incidental bycatch of red porgy. Most fish, including red porgy, 
that are hooked in deep water and hauled to the surface will not 
survive. The 1-fish recreational bag limit and the 50-lb (22.7-kg) 
commercial trip limit will allow recovery of this resource according to 
the approved stock rebuilding plan. In addition, those fish caught and 
retained as bycatch will provide useful information on the size and age 
structure of the red porgy resource. This information will facilitate 
the determination of the effectiveness of the red porgy stock 
rebuilding program. Additionally, the bycatch allowance will mitigate 
the temporary, economic hardship on fishermen due to the reduced 
harvests.
    Comment 7: Three commenters recommended that NMFS: (1) issue an 
interim rule extending the closure of the red porgy fishery until long-
term management measures are implemented that will clearly prevent 
overfishing, minimize bycatch, and help the population rebuild; (2) 
disapprove Amendment 12 and return it to the Council for revision of 
the 50-lb (22.7-kg) commercial trip limit for May 1 through December 
31, the 1-fish commercial trip (possession) limit for January through 
April, and the year-round 1-fish recreational bag limit, in accordance 
with the precautionary approach to fisheries management; and (3) 
require the Council to establish marine reserves to prevent bycatch of 
red porgy. They commented that an interim rule should be in place prior 
to the expiration of the current emergency rule on August 28, 2000. 
Further, they commented that Amendment 12 will not prevent overfishing 
and, thus, violates national standard 1. They also believe that 
Amendment 12 will not minimize bycatch and may actually increase 
bycatch in violation of national standard 9. Also, they commented that 
Amendment 12 may violate the rebuilding requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for overfished stocks because it adopts an 18-year 
rebuilding schedule. They believe it may be possible, in some 
instances, to rebuild the stock within 10 years. Finally, they 
commented that NMFS' alleged position in favor of Amendment 12 resulted 
in private discussions among Council staff and others and that there 
was no public involvement or access to these discussions, which, they 
further allege, resulted in NMFS

[[Page 51250]]

changing its position from opposing to supporting the measures in 
Amendment 12. They also stated that all information, including a 
scientific assessment of the management measures and alternatives in 
Amendment 12, should have been made available to the public prior to 
permanent rulemaking.
    Response: Because of the complexity of these comments, a brief 
chronology of events is provided to orient the reader regarding the 
issues. In March 1999, the Council received NMFS' comprehensive 
assessment of the red porgy resource, which showed that overfishing was 
occurring and that conservation measures were required. The Council 
requested that NMFS issue an EIR to prohibit all harvest and possession 
of red porgy, and immediately began development of Amendment 12 that 
would establish permanent measures to prevent overfishing and to 
rebuild the overfished resource. Based on the Council's request and the 
condition of the red porgy resource, NMFS issued an EIR, effective 
September 8, 1999, through March 1, 2000. Because of the shortage of 
time and the need to safeguard the red porgy resource, the Council took 
final action on Amendment 12 at its December 1999 meeting and also 
requested that the EIR be extended through August 28, 2000. At its 
December 1999 meeting, the Council was briefed on the likely economic 
consequences of the red porgy harvest moratorium, received input on 
bycatch mortality of red porgy from its Snapper-Grouper Advisory Panel 
and others, discussed the NMFS stock assessment, and heard various 
opinions concerning the status of the resource. During the meeting, the 
NMFS Regional Administrator (RA) commented that he supported rebuilding 
the red porgy resource but that NMFS had not taken a position on a 
harvest moratorium under Amendment 12, if that was the Council's 
preferred choice. After considering all of the above factors, the 
Council adopted the measures in Amendment 12 at its December 1999 
meeting, with the expectation that the red porgy resource would recover 
from its currently overfished state within the prescribed recovery time 
frame. Subsequent to the Council's December 1999 meeting and prior to 
its March 2000 meeting, discussions continued among NMFS and state 
scientists regarding the red porgy data and assessment assumptions. In 
particular, scientists and managers scrutinized two different growth 
rates for red porgy and considered whether fishing effort had declined 
in recent years. NMFS then held a conference call among Council staff, 
NMFS staff, and state personnel to identify issues of concern and to 
determine whether these issues should be reviewed by the Council at its 
March 2000 meeting. The conference call results were discussed at the 
Council's Snapper-Grouper Committee meeting on March 8, 2000, as well 
as at the Council meeting on March 9, 2000. Primarily, these discussion 
were regarding the age and growth model used in the virtual population 
analysis, recent levels of fishing effort, and possible Council action, 
given the present status of the scientific information. (This is 
summarized on page 65 of the Council minutes from its March 2000 
meeting.) As a result of this discussion, the RA stated that he would 
encourage the scientists to meet and discuss the scientific issues, 
perform whatever analyses are appropriate, and obtain a peer review of 
any analyses outside the NMFS Southeast Region. He also suggested that 
the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee review any new 
information and analyses, preferably before the Council's September 
2000 meeting. In summary, Council members had an opportunity to discuss 
publicly these red porgy scientific and related management issues and 
take any further necessary and appropriate action at their March 2000 
meeting. In this context, it should be noted that the Council took 
final action on Amendment 12 at the December 1999 meeting, subject to 
the understanding that it would consider and address any critical 
comments received on the draft supplemental environmental impact 
statement at the March 2000 meeting.
    The statement that NMFS underwent an ``apparent'' change of view 
regarding the management measures in Amendment 12 is incorrect. As 
noted previously, the Council took final action at the December 1999 
meeting. Subsequently, a discussion among NMFS and state scientists 
revealed differences of opinion concerning the data base and 
interpretation of the 1999 stock assessment. The RA was aware of this 
discussion and attempted to determine whether there were issues that 
should be brought to the attention of the Council at its March 2000 
meeting. As previously explained, the resulting conference call was 
fully described for the public at the Council's March 2000 meeting, and 
the RA described a course of action to improve the red porgy data base 
so that the Council could take appropriate action in the future, should 
it be required. It should be noted that NMFS does not make decisions to 
approve or disapprove management measures proposed by the Council until 
after considering the public comment received on such measures during 
Secretarial review, as provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In this 
case, the public comment period for the amendment ended on June 19, 
2000; the public comment period for the proposed rule ended on July 6, 
2000. Under Magnuson-Stevens Act provisions, NMFS was required to take 
final action on Amendment 12 no later than July 19, 2000. Amendment 12 
does not contain a management measure to implement ``no take'' zones, 
so such a measure can not be approved and implemented under Amendment 
12. Although both the Council and NMFS believe that ``no take'' zones 
can be an appropriate management tool, Amendment 12 does not address 
them. Consequently, this comment is not addressed further.
    At this time, it appears that permanent measures to rebuild the red 
porgy resource can be implemented prior to the expiration of the 
current EIR.
    The best scientific information available, including the NMFS 1999 
stock assessment, indicates that the red porgy resource could not be 
rebuilt within 10 years, even with a harvest moratorium. Because of 
this, the Council selected and NMFS supports the 18-year rebuilding 
schedule based on advice from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 
As noted earlier, both the Council and NMFS will be evaluating new 
information at least every 2 years, and acting accordingly to ensure 
that the resource recovers in accordance with the established stock 
rebuilding plan. Amendment 12 is consistent with national standards 1 
(prevent overfishing and achieve optimum yield on a continuing basis) 
and 9 (minimize bycatch to the extent practicable) because there is no 
practical way to eliminate bycatch in the multi-species snapper-grouper 
fishery that harvest red porgy. Nonetheless, the Council and NMFS 
encourage fishermen to change location should they encounter red porgy, 
so that bycatch and bycatch mortality can be minimized. Since the 
majority of incidentally taken red porgy will be dead when captured, 
measurements from these individuals can be used to obtain size and age 
data.
    Comment 8: Two commenters expressed concern that the wording of the 
commercial trip limit section of the proposed rule, 
Sec. 622.44(c)(4)(ii), appeared, indirectly, to include charterboats 
and headboats in the commercial category, thus, entitling

[[Page 51251]]

them to the commercial trip limit from May through December.
    Response: The applicability of commercial trip limits is addressed 
in the introductory text of Sec. 622.44(c), which states that the 
vessel trip limits apply, provided persons aboard the vessel are not 
subject to the bag limits. Vessels operating as charterboats or 
headboats are subject to the bag limits; therefore, the commercial trip 
limits would not apply.

Classification

    The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS determined that Amendment 
12 is necessary for the conservation and management of the snapper-
grouper fishery off the South Atlantic states and that it is consistent 
with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 
applicable laws.
    This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes 
of Executive Order 12866.
    The Council prepared a final supplemental environmental impact 
statement for the FMP; a notice of availability was published on May 
12, 2000 (65 FR 30587).
    The amendment implemented by this final rule was prepared by the 
Council and submitted to NMFS for review, approval, and implementation 
under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared for 
the proposed rule. The actions having an economic impact on small 
entities include restricting commercial landings of red porgy to a 
maximum of 50 lb (22.7 kg) per trip from May through December, 
prohibiting the sale or purchase of red porgy from January through 
April, reducing the bag limit from 5 to 1 red porgy per person per day 
or per trip (whichever is more restrictive) and allowing the owner of a 
vessel having a 225-lb (102-kg) trip-limited permit for snapper-grouper 
to transfer the permit to a larger vessel under the same ownership. An 
FRFA based on the IRFA and on the public comments received on the 
proposed rule and the IRFA was prepared. A summary of the FRFA follows.
    There are about 1,200 fishing craft (boats and vessels combined) 
that are operated by entities that hold permits for commercial snapper-
grouper fishing, and all such entities are considered to represent 
small business entities. About 330 of the fishing craft have a history 
of red porgy landings, and of these, about 270 are determined to be 
directly impacted by the proposed actions. The average length of these 
fishing craft is 37.2 ft (11.4 m); they generate annual average gross 
revenues of about $42,000, and have net operating revenues of about 
$29,000 per year. The 1-fish bag limit will affect about 33 headboat 
operations that are also defined as small business entities. The 
headboats have an average length of 63 ft (19 m), involve a total 
capital investment of $220,000, and generate annual average gross 
revenue of about $123,000. No additional reporting, record keeping, or 
other compliance requirements by small entities are contained in the 
final rule.
    NMFS received about 500 comments, of which 490 were identical, on 
the proposed action. The comments that alluded to economic impacts on 
small entities generally suggested that the red porgy resource was in 
better biological condition than indicated by the Council and NMFS and 
that the restrictions on commercial harvest were too severe. NMFS 
disagreed with the comments about the condition of the red porgy stock. 
However, NMFS pointed out that while the emergency rule did not allow 
any level of take, the final rule does allow for some level of 
commercial incidental catch and allows for some red porgy to be 
harvested by customers of for-hire vessels. NMFS indicated that the 
level of take allowed by the final rule will help mitigate the negative 
economic impacts from the rule. There were no changes to the proposed 
rule that resulted from public comments.
    The Council defined the red porgy actions, including the commercial 
trip limit, the seasonal prohibition on sale or purchase, and the bag 
limit, as a single action and considered three alternatives to the 
action. One alternative was the status quo. Status quo is considered to 
be the set of management regulations in place before NMFS took an 
interim emergency action to close the fishery for all users while a 
permanent change in the regulations was being considered. Although the 
status quo would have no short-term negative economic impacts on small 
entities, it was rejected because the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifically 
requires the Council to take actions to rebuild this severely 
overfished fishery. Another rejected alternative would prohibit all 
commercial and recreational fishing for red porgy. The Council rejected 
this alternative because of the increased short-term negative impacts 
of a total and indefinite prohibition on all fishing for red porgy. The 
other rejected alternative was to adopt the commercial trip limit of 50 
lb (22.7 kg), but not to have a seasonal prohibition on sale or 
purchase or a reduction in the bag limit. The Council rejected this 
alternative because the biological analyses indicated that a more 
restrictive approach was necessary to meet the specific goal of 
rebuilding the red porgy stock within an 18-year period. The status quo 
was considered as an alternative to the action to allow the owner of a 
vessel with a trip-limited permit for snapper-grouper to transfer the 
permit to a larger vessel under the same ownership but was rejected 
because it was not the Council's original intent to have that transfer 
restriction.
    The primary fishery management plan objective addressed by the rule 
is the objective to ``Prevent overfishing in all species by maintaining 
the spawning potential ratio (SPR) at or above target levels.'' The 
rule is needed because the red porgy stock is severely overfished and 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Council and NMFS to take action 
to resolve the overfished status of the stock.
    Copies of the FRFA are available (see ADDRESSES).
    The amendments to Secs. 622.39(d)(1)(vi) and 622.39(d)(2) 
establish, respectively, a daily bag limit of one red porgy per person 
per day and a possession limit of one red porgy per person per day or 
one per trip, whichever is more restrictive. The amendment to 
Sec. 622.44(c)(4)(i) establishes a 50-lb (22.7-kg) commercial trip 
limit for red porgy, from May 1 through December 31 each year. All 
three of these amendments relieve restrictions on fishers relative to 
the regulations prohibiting all harvest of red porgy that have been in 
place since September 8, 1999.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) which has been approved by 
OMB under control number 0648-0365. The requirement specifies that 
dealers possessing red porgy, gag, or black grouper during seasonal 
closures must maintain documentation that such fish were harvested from 
areas other than the South Atlantic. Public reporting burden for this 
collection of information is estimated to average 30 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 burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data 
collection, including suggestions for reducing the

[[Page 51252]]

burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
    The President has directed Federal agencies to use plain language 
in their communications with the public, including regulations. To 
comply with this directive, we seek public comment on any ambiguity or 
unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this final 
rule. Such comments should be directed to NMFS Southeast Regional 
Office (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

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

    Dated: August 17, 2000.
William T. Hogarth,
Deputy 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. 622.18, paragraph (e)(2) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 622.18  South Atlantic snapper-grouper limited access.

* * * * *
    (e) * * * 
    (2) Trip-limited permits. An owner of a vessel with a triplimited 
permit may request that the RA transfer the permit to another vessel 
owned by the same entity.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 622.36, paragraph (b)(5) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 622.36  Seasonal harvest limitations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Red porgy. During January, February, March, and April, each 
year, the harvest or possession of red porgy in or from the South 
Atlantic EEZ, and in the South Atlantic on board a vessel for which a 
valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/headboat permit for South 
Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued without regard to where such 
red porgy were harvested, is limited to one per person per day or one 
per person per trip, whichever is more restrictive. Such red porgy are 
subject to the prohibition on sale or puchase, as specified in 
Sec. 622.45(d)(5).
    4. In Sec. 622.39, paragraphs (d)(1)(vi) and (d)(2) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec. 622.39  Bag and possession limits.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * 
    (1) * * * 
    (vi) Red porgy--1.
* * * * *
    (2) Possession limits. (i) Provided each passenger is issued and 
has in possession a receipt issued on behalf of the vessel that 
verifies the duration of the trip--
    (A) A person aboard a charter vessel or headboat on a trip that 
spans more than 24 hours may possess no more than two daily bag limits 
of species other than red porgy.
    (B) A person aboard a headboat on a trip that spans more than 48 
hours and who can document that fishing was conducted on at least 3 
days may possess no more than three daily bag limits of species other 
than red porgy.
    (ii) A person aboard a vessel may not possess red porgy in or from 
the EEZ in excess of one per day or one per trip, whichever is more 
restrictive.
* * * * *

    5. In Sec. 622.44, paragraph (c)(4) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 622.44  Commercial trip limits.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Red porgy. (i) From May 1 through December 31, 50 lb (22.7 kg).
    (ii) From January 1 through April 30, the seasonal harvest limit 
specified in Sec. 622.36(b)(5) applies.
* * * * *
    6. In Sec. 622.45, paragraph (d)(5) is revised and paragraph (d)(7) 
is added to reaad as follows:

[[Page 51253]]

Sec. 622.45  Restrictions on sale/purchase.

* * * * *
    (d) * * * 
    (5) During January, February, March, and April, no person may sell 
or purchase a red porgy harvested from the South Atlantic EEZ or, if 
harvested by a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter 
vessel/headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been 
issued, harvested from the South Atlantic. The prohibition on sale/
purchase during January through April does not apply to red porgy that 
were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to January 1 and were 
held in cold storage by a dealer or processor. This prohibition also 
does not apply to a dealer's purchase or sale of red porgy harvested 
from an area other than the South Atlantic, provided such fish is 
accompanied by documentation of harvest outside the South Atlantic. 
Such documentation must contain:
    (i) The information specified in 50 CFR part 300 subpart K for 
marking containers or packages of fish or wildlife that are imported, 
exported, or transported in interstate commerce;
    (ii) The official number, name, and home port of the vessel 
harvesting the red porgy;
    (iii) The port and date of offloading from the vessel harvesting 
the red porgy; and
    (iv) A statement signed by the dealer attesting that the red porgy 
was harvested from an area other than the South Atlantic.
* * * * *
    (7) During March and April, no person may sell or purchase a gag or 
black grouper harvested from the South Atlantic EEZ or, if harvested by 
a vessel for which a valid Federal commercial or charter vessel/
headboat permit for South Atlantic snapper-grouper has been issued, 
harvested from the South Atlantic. The prohibition on sale/purchase 
during March and April does not apply to gag or black grouper that were 
harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to March 1 and were held in 
cold storage by a dealer or processor. This prohibition also does not 
apply to a dealer's purchase or sale of gag or black grouper harvested 
from an area other than the South Atlantic, provided such fish is 
accompanied by documentation of harvest outside the South Atlantic. 
Such documentation must contain:
    (i) The information specified in 50 CFR part 300 subpart K for 
marking containers or packages of fish or wildlife that are imported, 
exported, or transported in interstate commerce;
    (ii) The official number, name, and home port of the vessel 
harvesting the gag or black grouper;
    (iii) The port and date of offloading from the vessel harvesting 
the gag or black grouper; and
    (iv) A statement signed by the dealer attesting that the gag or 
black grouper was harvested from an area other than the South Atlantic.
* * * * *

    7. In Sec. 622.48, paragraph (f) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 622.48  Adjustment of management measures.

    (f) South Atlantic snapper-grouper and wreckfish. Biomass levels, 
age-structured analyses, target dates for rebuilding overfished 
species, MSY, ABC, TAC, quotas, trip limits, bag limits, minimum sizes, 
gear restrictions (ranging from regulation to complete prohibition), 
seasonal or area closures, definitions of essential fish habitat, 
essential fish habitat, essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs, 
and restrictions on gear and fishing activities applicable in essential 
fish habitat and essential fish habitat HAPCs.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-21545 Filed 8-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F