[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51074-51079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 011018254-2153-02; I.D. 071001F]
RIN 0648-AO51


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 11

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

[[Page 51075]]


ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement Amendment 11 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico 
(Amendment 11), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council. This final rule requires owners or operators of all 
vessels harvesting shrimp in the exclusive economic zone of the Gulf of 
Mexico (Gulf EEZ) to obtain a commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp; 
prohibits the use of traps to harvest royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ; 
and prohibits the transfer of royal red shrimp at sea. In addition, 
NMFS informs the public of the approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) of the collection-of-information requirements contained in 
this final rule and publishes the OMB control numbers for those 
collections. The permit requirement will provide an accurate and 
efficient method of identifying and quantifying the number of vessels 
in the Gulf EEZ shrimp fishery. The prohibition of the use of traps for 
royal red shrimp is intended to prevent gear conflict and potential 
overfishing. The prohibition on transfer of royal red shrimp at sea is 
intended to enhance enforceability of the prohibition on use of traps 
in the fishery.

DATES: This final rule is effective September 6, 2002, except for the 
addition of Sec. 622.4(a)(2)(xi) and the revision of 
Sec. 622.6(a)(1)(i) which are effective December 5, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding the collection-of-information 
requirements contained in this final rule should be sent to Robert 
Sadler, 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].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fishery for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ is 
managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the 
Gulf of Mexico (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico 
Fishery Management Council (Council), 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.
    NMFS approved Amendment 11 on October 17, 2001. On February 25, 
2002, NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 11 and 
requested comments on the proposed rule through April 11, 2002 (67 FR 
8503). The rationale for the measures in Amendment 11 is provided in 
the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here.

Comments and Responses

    Comments received during public comment periods for the Amendment 
and the proposed rule are considered together in this final rule. 
Comments opposing the permitting system included a minority report 
submitted by two members of the Council, and five letters from industry 
representatives (two of which were submitted during both public comment 
periods). Comments supporting the permitting system included letters 
from three environmental organizations (one organization submitted a 
comment under each comment period). Additionally, NMFS received several 
hundred form letters stating general support for the permitting action.

Vessel Permits

    Comment 1: Opposing views were received regarding the need for a 
Federal shrimp vessel permit system as a mechanism to collect 
information regarding the shrimp fishery. Two individuals and one 
organization opposed the proposed permitting system noting that 
information was available through existing state and Federal programs 
to determine vessels and effort in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 
the Gulf of Mexico. Specific issues identified in these letters are 
addressed as separate comments herein.
    In contrast, three environmental organizations submitted comments 
and several hundred form letters were received stating general support 
for the permitting action as a means to gather information concerning 
bycatch in the fishery and as an enforcement tool that would enhance 
sea turtle conservation. Two of the environmental groups provided 
detailed comment in support of their position, noting that the existing 
Federal records include information compiled by port agents over 
several years, which may not be representative for the current year. 
Also, state licensing files do not necessarily distinguish between 
vessels that fish in state and Federal waters and when compiled among 
states would include duplicate records for those vessels licensed in 
multiple states.
    Response: Data collection and identification systems do exist 
through either state or Federal systems, but none is comprehensive or 
specifically identifies shrimp fishing vessels that are actively 
working in the EEZ. The NMFS-maintained Shrimp Landings File (SLF) 
represents landings by individual shrimp vessels over the course of a 
year, but does not necessarily indicate whether the effort occurred in 
state or Federal waters. The purpose of the NMFS Vessel Operating Units 
File (VOUF) is to maintain a record of vessel characteristics (i.e., 
length, age, horsepower, etc.), for all active shrimp fishing vessels; 
this file may include several vessels that are not currently active in 
the fishery. Thus, the VOUF contains a list of all vessels found in the 
SLF, plus vessels fishing in the inshore areas, and vessels suspected 
to still be active in the fishery. Neither of these data files provides 
an indication of whether the vessels fish in the EEZ. Similarly, state 
licensing files or trip tickets may indicate active fishing vessels, 
but these files will not provide information on whether a vessel fishes 
in state or Federal waters, or both. In some instances, these licenses 
are not specific to a fishery, and, thus, they do not readily identify 
shrimp fishing vessels as opposed to vessels operating in other 
fisheries. Trip tickets are not uniform across the Gulf states, and the 
GulfFIN clearinghouse that will standardize this information is still 
in development. Additionally, these data collection systems, designed 
for different purposes, are not standardized as to the information that 
is collected. The immediate benefit of a Federal permit system is to 
accurately identify the existing, active (on an annual basis) universe 
of shrimp fishing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico EEZ.
    A Federal permit system that creates a complete listing of all 
active vessels fishing in the EEZ is a prerequisite tool for any 
statistically robust data collection program intended to canvass or 
randomly sample the activities of the shrimp fishery in the EEZ. 
Previous data collection programs have been hampered by the inability 
to specifically identify the universe of vessels fishing for shrimp in 
the Gulf EEZ. Without this information, sampling programs have depended 
on non-random sampling. A more robust analysis of the shrimp fishery is 
only possible through stratified random sampling of the existing fleet, 
and that kind of sampling is only possible where the specific vessels 
are readily identifiable.
    The ability to sanction permits is an enforcement tool and could 
apply for violations of certain statutes and where

[[Page 51076]]

there is an unpaid and overdue civil penalty or criminal fine imposed 
under any marine resource law administered by the Secretary of 
Commerce. Additional details concerning this specific issue are 
addressed in the response to Comment 11.
    Comment 2: The Secretary of Commerce has the authority to implement 
measures that are needed to collect data under section 401 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Two comments suggested that a Gulf-wide vessel 
registration system be implemented under the auspices of the Gulf 
States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission).
    Response: In regards to the vessel registration system proposal 
required in Section 401 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS proposed 
utilizing the Vessel Identification System that is under development by 
the US Coast Guard (USCG). However, the USCG is still reviewing options 
to implement this system, and its implementation is not anticipated in 
the near future. Trip tickets are not uniform across the Gulf states, 
and the GulfFIN clearinghouse under development by the Commission will 
provide a standardization of this information. This program will 
greatly enhance the overall data collection systems for Gulf of Mexico 
fisheries, but it will not identify the number of shrimp vessels 
fishing in the EEZ.
    Comment 3: The shrimp fishery has been participating in a data 
collection program for several years. The Congressionally mandated 
Incidental Harvest Research Program collected substantial amounts of 
information regarding the characterization of the catch and bycatch 
species found in shrimp trawls. That program led to additional data 
collection efforts currently underway using observers and logbooks to 
document the port of departure, fishing time, catch, and the location 
of fishing effort.
    Response: The industry contributions to collecting data on the 
catch and effort in the shrimp fishery were an integral part of the 
development of Council actions to implement Amendment 9 to the Gulf 
shrimp FMP. Continuing data collection efforts will benefit additional 
management decisions. However, without a method to identify the 
universe of vessels active in the fishery, these programs have relied 
on voluntary participation by the shrimp fleet. The results of NMFS' 
1992-1996 Incidental Harvest Research Program, as well as the Council's 
subsequent actions implemented in Amendment 9 that were based on the 
results of that program, have been questioned because the sampling was 
not conducted through a stratified random sampling effort across the 
various strata of vessels. Similarly, during the summer 1998 Red 
Snapper/Shrimp Research Program, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center 
attempted to implement a trial logbook program. That attempt was only 
partially successful because it failed to reach many of the intended 
participants in a timely manner. These programs used the available 
information systems to identify potential participants, but even in 
combination, these other information systems do not directly provide 
current information on the number and location of shrimp fishing 
vessels operating in the EEZ. A major benefit of a Federal permit 
system is in providing opportunity to design statistically robust data 
collection programs to benefit management of the fishery resources of 
the region.
    Comment 4: Amendment 11 does not state specifically what data are 
missing resulting in the need for a new data collection program. Data 
on fishing effort and catch are already collected by NMFS port agents 
and state agencies.
    Response: Amendment 11 does not propose to implement a biological 
or fishery data collection system; it proposes to implement a vessel 
permitting system, which by itself is a data collection tool to 
identify those shrimp vessels actively fishing in the EEZ each year. 
With a permit system as a source to identify a representative 
stratified random sample of shrimp vessels, research to collect 
biological, fishery, social, and economic data on the fishery could be 
accomplished using observers, logbooks, vessel monitoring systems or 
other data collection methods. Once the Agency has more accurately 
determined the number of fishery participants through the permit 
system, then appropriate methods of data collection will be determined. 
Anticipated improvements from the permitting and subsequent sampling 
procedures would include more precise red snapper bycatch estimations 
and more accurate determinations of economic and community impacts. 
Information collected under such future programs would aid in the 
formulation of sound management measures for the shrimp fishery and 
those finfish fisheries that are affected by bycatch and bycatch 
mortality arising from the shrimp fishery. See also response to comment 
10.
    Comment 5: Amendment 11 does not state what supporting documents 
will be required to obtain a Federal fishing permit. There is no 
discussion of the conditions by which NMFS could reject the issuance or 
renewal of such a permit. Failure or delay in issuing or renewing a 
Federal permit in a timely manner because applications are incomplete 
or have a lack of supporting documentation could have a substantial 
economic impact on the vessel owner. Automatic renewal of permits 
should be issued with expiration dates spread evenly over the year, 
rather than with a single expiration date, to avoid administrative 
delays. Electronic (internet-based) permitting and payment of 
permitting fees via credit cards would additionally speed up the 
process.
    Response: The conditions for obtaining and renewing a shrimp vessel 
permit, including the time frames for issuance, are a NMFS 
administrative procedure, and the Councils usually defer specific 
application procedures to NMFS. The proposed application procedures and 
requirements were described in the proposed rule (67 FR 8503, February 
25, 2002). Current regulations (50 CFR 622.4(b)(3) and 50 CFR 622.4(h)) 
do provide the information that needs to be submitted to obtain and 
renew vessel permits and address the timing for applying and renewing 
permits. The procedures for shrimp permit applications will be based on 
these existing regulations.
    Regarding the comments on internet-based permit issuance and fee 
payment, NMFS currently is developing the resources and technological 
capability for these opportunities. NMFS is actively examining the 
feasibility of changing to such a system to improve customer service 
without adversely affecting the accuracy and usefulness of the permit 
database.
    Comment 6: Given that the permits would be non-transferrable, what 
would happen if the owner sold his permitted vessel?
    Response: Open-access permits, such as the shrimp vessel permits, 
do not require transfer provisions. Once the vessel transaction is 
complete, the new owner may simply apply to obtain a new permit without 
relying on the more lengthy permit transfer process. As a result, the 
rule does not provide for permit transfers.
    Comment 7: Without qualifying criteria the number of permits issued 
may be inflated due to speculation or part-time fishing in the EEZ, 
thus rendering the database unusable as a measure of effort.
    Response: The database generated by the issuance of vessel permits 
is not intended as a direct measure of effort. The database will 
provide an enumeration of the vessels that either fish or have the 
intent to fish in the EEZ on an annual basis. However, by using the 
identification information from a permit system, those vessels can then 
be

[[Page 51077]]

contacted to gather the information necessary to estimate fishing 
effort. (See also the responses to Comments 3 and 4).
    Comment 8: National standard 5 states in part that ``conservation 
and management measures shall, where practicable, consider efficiency 
in the utilization of fishery resources...''. Efficiency in the 
utilization of fishery resources is enhanced through minimizing the 
regulatory burden on the harvesters. This measure will be costly to 
implement, more complex than the existing system, and will result in 
less rather than more efficiency.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that this would be a complex or costly 
regulatory burden. This amendment includes a collection-of-information 
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act; namely, a 
requirement to submit an application for a Gulf shrimp commercial 
vessel permit. In addition, NMFS revised the Multiple Fishery Vessel 
Application (Application) that will be used for the Gulf shrimp permit 
and is used for other fishery permits issued by the NMFS Southeast 
Regional Office. NMFS added data fields for the applicant's birth date, 
street address, and county; vessel net tonnage; vessel gross tonnage; 
and vessel hull identification number. The collection of this 
information has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, 
OMB control number 0648-0205. The public reporting burden for the 
collection of information related to the Gulf shrimp permit application 
and the additional data elements on the Application are estimated to 
average 20 minutes per response. This estimate of the public reporting 
burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing the collections of information.
    Comment 9: National standard 6 states that ``conservation and 
management measures shall take into account and allow for variations 
among, and contingencies in, fishery, fishery resources, and catches.'' 
Vessel permits are almost exclusively used as fishery management tools 
in fisheries where the intent is to control fishing effort to protect 
and rebuild stocks. This is not the case in the shrimp fishery. 
Shrimping in the EEZ is not a threat to shrimp stocks, and good fishery 
management practices do not require the level of effort scrutiny needed 
to manage other fisheries.
    Response: Mandatory vessel permitting proved to be an effective way 
of obtaining information on the number of potentially active vessels 
and participants in other commercial and for-hire fisheries operating 
in the Gulf, including the reef fish and coastal migratory pelagics 
fisheries. These data combined with logbook reporting, observer 
reports, and other surveys provided managers with essential information 
on effort, catch, bycatch, and other important parameters regarding 
these fisheries. Having a known universe of vessels operating in the 
Gulf shrimp fishery will help provide the same opportunities for 
scientists and managers to collect data on effort, catch, bycatch, and 
other important parameters of both targeted shrimp stocks, as well as 
bycatch species that may or may not be under separate management 
regimes.
    Comment 10: National standard 7 states that ``conservation and 
management measures shall, where practicable, minimize cost and avoid 
unnecessary duplication.'' The estimated cost for implementation of 
shrimp permits is an unjustified burden on the taxpayers of this 
country and to the shrimping industry. The current data collection 
systems contain the information necessary to manage the fishery; 
therefore an additional permitting requirement will increase cost and 
create unnecessary duplication.
    Response: Amendment 11 states that the public burden associated 
with vessel permits and data collection are estimated to be 
approximately $350,000 per year, based on an anticipated issuance of 
7,000 permits at a cost of $50 per permit. NMFS costs associated with 
the issuance of these permits is estimated to be $350,000. The funds 
generated from permit fees are not retained by NMFS and revert to the 
General Treasury, thus offsetting any public (taxpayer) burden. There 
are no expected cost increases to be borne by state and other local 
governments from implementing a vessel permitting system for the shrimp 
fishery.
    NMFS has assessed both the costs and benefits of the intended 
regulations and has determined that this action is justified. The 
permit cost of $50 per application, which represents the cost to the 
agency in processing and issuing the permit, represents less than one 
percent of the profits realized by the average Gulf of Mexico shrimp 
vessel, and burden time (estimated at 20 minutes per permit 
application) is minimal. The increased scientific information that can 
be collected by using the permit system to randomly sample the shrimp 
fleet will provide a greater benefit to the various Gulf of Mexico 
fisheries as a whole than the cost to develop the permit system. NMFS 
also does not believe that the permit system is duplicative and 
addressed its rationale for that finding in the Response to Comment 1.
    Comment 11: National standard 8 states that ``Conservation and 
management measures shall....take into account the importance of 
fishery resources to fishing communities in order to (a) provide for 
the sustained participation of such communities, and (b) to the extent 
practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.'' 
The shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is the most valuable fishery 
and involves the largest number of participants. Consequently, more 
people are affected by regulations on this fishery. Because of the many 
regulations applicable to this fishery under both the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens Act (turtle-excluder-devices 
(TEDs), BRDs, closed areas, closed seasons, etc.), violations are 
proportionally more costly to shrimp vessel owners as opposed to other 
finfish fisheries. Additionally, the Gulf shrimp fishery consists of a 
large number of vessels that are not owner-operated. Given that an 
owner has little control over the operator while the vessel is at sea, 
owners could be economically ruined by operators who may violate 
regulations leading to a permit sanction.
    Response: Participants in other fisheries are subject to 
requirements under more than one statute, such as the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, Endangered Species Act, and/or the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
For example, summer flounder fishermen are similarly required to use 
TEDs. As such, participants in the
    Gulf shrimp fishery will not be subject to greater or 
disproportionate costs as a result of regulatory violations as compared 
to other fisheries. So long as permit holders remain in compliance with 
applicable law, they will not be subject to any additional economic 
burden. NMFS cannot insulate owners from liability, as the Magnuson-
Stevens Act explicitly establishes liability for any person, including 
owners and operators of vessels involved in fisheries violations, as 
well as liability for the vessel, its cargo, and appurtenances.
    Royal Red Shrimp Traps
    Comment 1: One comment suggested that NMFS should more carefully 
consider alternative gears to trawls for shrimp fishing, noting that 
trawls are identified as some of the most destructive fishing gear 
currently in use. Given that the royal red shrimp fishery is prosecuted 
in deep water, and that deep water corals have long life spans and 
infrequent recruitment, trawls could severely damage deep water reefs.

[[Page 51078]]

 The value of an alternative to trawls would depend on the intensity of 
fishing in a particular area, but should be considered.
    Response: At this time, NMFS agrees with the Council's position 
that the prohibition of traps in the royal red shrimp fishery is 
beneficial. Allowing the use of traps could result in gear conflicts 
and entanglements that could compromise vessel safety considering the 
depth of water where this fishery is prosecuted. Additionally, the 
existing trawl fishery has been harvesting royal red shrimp at a level 
near maximum-sustainable-yield for several years. The addition of a new 
gear and additional harvesting efforts could lead to overfishing. NMFS 
recognizes the potential impacts to habitat from trawling operations, 
and should the Council choose to change allowable gears in this 
fishery, at a later time, NMFS would give careful consideration to the 
option.

Classification

    On October 17, 2001, NMFS approved Amendment 11 based on a 
determination that it was consistent with the national standards of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. In making that 
determination, NMFS took into account the data, views, and comments 
received during the comment period on Amendment 11.
    This final rule has been determined to be significant for purposes 
of Executive Order 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 the proposed rule for this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed 
rule. Comments were received regarding the economic impacts (see 
Comments 8, 10, and 11) but did not alter the determination and 
appropriateness of the certification. As a result, no regulatory 
flexibility analysis was 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 Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) control number.
    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject 
to the PRA--namely, a requirement to submit an application for a Gulf 
shrimp commercial vessel permit and a vessel identification 
requirement. In addition, NMFS is revising the Multiple Fishery Vessel 
Application (Application) that will be used for the Gulf shrimp permit 
and is used for other fishery permits issued by the NMFS Southeast 
Regional Office. NMFS is adding data fields for the applicant's birth 
date, street address, and county; vessel net tonnage; vessel gross 
tonnage, and vessel hull identification number. The permit application 
requirement and the new application data field requirements have been 
approved by OMB, OMB control number 0648-0205. The public reporting 
burden for the collection of information related to the Gulf shrimp 
permit application and the additional data elements on the Application 
is estimated to average 20 minutes per response. This estimate of the 
public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, 
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collections of information. 
The vessel identification requirement was previously approved by OMB 
under control number 0648-0358, with an estimated response time of 45 
minutes total per vessel. Send comments regarding these burden 
estimates or any other aspect of the collection-of-information 
requirements, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS 
and to OMB (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 622

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

    Dated: August 1, 2002.
William T. Hogarth,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR 
part 622 are amended as follows:

15 CFR Chapter IX

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

    1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 902.1, the table in paragraph (b), under 50 CFR, is 
amended by revising the entry for 622.6 to read as follows:


Sec. 902.1  OMB Control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Current OMB
      CFR part of section where the information          control number
           collectionrequirement is located               (all numbers
                                                       begin with 0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*        *        *        *        *
50 CFR
*        *        *        *        *
    622.6............................................    -0358 and -0359
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Chapter VI

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

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

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

    4. In Sec. 622.2, the definition of ``Shrimp'' is revised to read 
as follows:


 622.2  Definitions and acronyms.

* * * * *
    Shrimp means one or more of the following species, or a part 
thereof:
    (1) Brown shrimp, Farfantepenaeus aztecus.
    (2) White shrimp, Litopenaeus setiferus.
    (3) Pink shrimp, Farfantepenaeus duorarum.
    (4) Royal red shrimp, Hymenopenaeus robustus.
    (5) Rock shrimp, Sicyonia brevirostris.
    (6) Seabob shrimp, Xiphopenaeus kroyeri.
* * * * *

    5. In Sec. 622.4, paragraph (a)(2)(xi) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 622.4  Permits and fees.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (xi) Gulf shrimp. For a person aboard a vessel to fish for shrimp 
in the Gulf EEZ or possess shrimp in or from the Gulf EEZ, a valid 
commercial vessel permit for Gulf shrimp must have been issued to the 
vessel and must be on board.
* * * * *

    6. In Sec. 622.6, paragraph (a)(1)(i) introductory text is revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 622.6  Vessel and gear identification.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

[[Page 51079]]

    (i) Official number. A vessel for which a permit has been issued 
under Sec. 622.4 must display its official number--
* * * * *

    7. In Sec. 622.31, paragraph (k) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 622.31  Prohibited gear and methods.

* * * * *
    (k) Traps for royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and transfer at sea. 
A trap may not be used to fish for royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ. 
Possession of a trap and royal red shrimp on board a vessel is 
prohibited. A trap used to fish for royal red shrimp in the Gulf EEZ 
may be disposed of in any appropriate manner by the Assistant 
Administrator or an authorized officer. In addition, royal red shrimp 
cannot be transferred in the Gulf EEZ, and royal red shrimp taken in 
the Gulf EEZ cannot be transferred at sea regardless of where the 
transfer takes place.
[FR Doc. 02-19977 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S