[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 3, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31669-31672]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12324]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No.070718362-7488-01]
RIN 0648-AV14


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Revisions to Allowable Bycatch 
Reduction Devices

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the framework procedures for adjusting 
management measures of the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp 
Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), NMFS proposes to decertify the 
expanded mesh bycatch reduction device (BRD), the ``Gulf fisheye'' BRD, 
and the ``fisheye'' BRD, as currently specified, for use in the Gulf of 
Mexico (Gulf) shrimp fishery. NMFS would also certify a new 
specification for the fisheye device to be used in the Gulf. The 
intended effect of this proposed rule is to improve bycatch reduction 
in the shrimp fishery and better meet the requirements of national 
standard 9.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than 4:30 p.m., eastern time, 
on July 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AV14, by any one 
of the following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: 727-824-5308, Attn: Steve Branstetter.
     Mail: Steve Branstetter, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 
263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly 
accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic 
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, Wordperfect, or 
Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and 
Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) completed in support of the proposed 
rule are available from the Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th 
Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone: 727-824-5305; fax: 727-
824-5308.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Branstetter, telephone: 727-824-
5305, fax: 727-824-5308, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fishery for shrimp in the exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf is managed under the FMP prepared by 
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). The FMP is 
implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 
at 50 CFR part 622.

Background

    Regulations implementing Amendment 9 to the FMP were published 
April 14, 1998 (63 FR 18139), and established a requirement, with 
limited exceptions, for the use of certified BRDs in shrimp trawls 
towed in the Gulf EEZ shoreward of the 100-fm (183-m) depth contour 
west of 85[deg]30'W. longitude (western Gulf), the approximate 
longitude of Cape San Blas, FL. The rule established descriptions of 
BRD designs and configurations allowed for use in the western Gulf 
shrimp fishery.
    To better address the requirements of national standard 9 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, regulations implementing Amendment 10 to the FMP 
(69 FR 1538, January 9, 2004) required BRDs in shrimp trawls fished in 
the EEZ east of 85[deg]30' W. longitude (eastern Gulf).
    In accordance with the BRD framework procedures of the FMP, NMFS 
recently modified the existing BRD certification criterion for the 
western Gulf (73 FR 8219, February 13, 2008) to be consistent with the 
criterion for the eastern Gulf. The new criterion specifies a BRD must 
demonstrate a 30-percent reduction in the weight of finfish bycatch to 
be certified for use in the Gulf shrimp fishery.
    The ``fisheye'' BRD and ``Gulf fisheye'' BRD are the two dominant 
BRD designs currently used in the western Gulf. These two BRDs are 
actually the same device; the only difference between them is their 
configuration (where they are placed within the cod end of the trawl). 
The ``fisheye'' BRD must be placed along the top center of the cod end 
of a shrimp trawl no further forward than 11 ft (3.4 m) from the cod 
end tie-off rings. Subsequent tests of the fisheye device in slightly 
different configurations led to the certification of the ``Gulf 
fisheye'' BRD. In the ``Gulf fisheye'' configuration, the device may be 
placed 15 meshes on either side of top center, between 8.5 ft (2.6 m) 
and 12.5 ft (3.8 m) from the cod end tie-off rings, thus expanding the 
allowable placement of the device. These two configurations of the 
fisheye device are also certified for use in the eastern Gulf.
    Because of the fisheye-type device's simplistic design and low cost 
in either configuration, it became the industry standard. The most 
commonly used configuration for the fisheye device in the Gulf shrimp 
fishery has the BRD placed 10.5 ft (3.2 m) to 12.5 ft (3.8 m) forward 
of the cod end tie-off rings. According to NMFS' Southeast Fishery 
Science Center (SEFSC) estimates, the fisheye device in this 
configuration is achieving a 14-percent reduction in finfish bycatch by 
weight. Thus, it does not meet the new 30-percent finfish bycatch 
reduction criterion, established in separate rulemaking.
    However, placed farther back in the cod end, the fisheye device is 
more effective. When placed no farther

[[Page 31670]]

forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) (102-105 meshes) from the tie-off rings, the 
fisheye BRD achieves a 37-percent reduction in total finfish bycatch by 
weight. There is a 98-percent probability the true reduction rate of 
the fisheye BRD, in this more rearward configuration, would meet the 
30-percent finfish reduction certification criterion.
    Similarly, it appears the efficiency of the expanded mesh BRD, 
currently certified for use in the eastern Gulf, has decreased. During 
the original tests of the expanded mesh BRD in the mid-1990s, it 
achieved between a 30- and 35-percent reduction in total finfish 
bycatch. Recent tests of the expanded mesh BRD in the Gulf indicate it 
is only achieving about a 17-percent reduction in total finfish 
bycatch.
    For both of the fisheye devices (the ``Gulf fisheye'' BRD and the 
``fisheye'' BRD) and the expanded mesh BRD, the potential of the BRDs 
has not changed, but it appears fishing behavior, or some other factor, 
in the fleet has changed. There have been numerous technological 
changes to the overall construction of shrimp trawl gear in recent 
years, such as new, larger turtle excluder devices (TEDs) and longer 
nets. In addition, there have been changes in fishing practices to help 
increase shrimp retention, such as faster towing speeds and modified 
retrieval procedures. Although the exact reasons for the BRDs' change 
in efficiency are not known, in practice, the fisheye device, in its 
most common configuration, and the expanded mesh BRD do not appear to 
meet the 30-percent finfish reduction certification criterion.
    This proposed rule would decertify the expanded mesh BRD, the 
``Gulf fisheye'' BRD, and the ``fisheye'' BRD, as currently specified, 
for use in the Gulf shrimp fishery and certify a new specification of 
the fisheye device (revise the description and allowed placement of the 
``fisheye'' BRD). The proposed rule would restrict placement of the 
fisheye device in the Gulf shrimp fishery to the top center of the cod 
end no farther forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) from the tie-off rings, and 
this new specification would simply be termed the fisheye BRD. Compared 
to the fisheye device in its current configurations, the fisheye BRD, 
in this more restricted configuration, will further reduce total 
finfish bycatch, including bycatch of juvenile red snapper.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is 
consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public 
comment.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    NMFS prepared an IRFA, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, for this proposed rule. The IRFA describes the 
economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small 
entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and 
the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this 
section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A 
copy of the full analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A 
summary of the IRFA follows.
    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the 
proposed rule. The proposed rule would revise the list of allowable 
BRDs used in the Gulf shrimp fishery. Specifically, NMFS proposes to 
decertify the expanded mesh BRD, the ``Gulf fisheye'' BRD, and the 
``fisheye'' BRD, as currently specified, for use in the Gulf shrimp 
fishery. The ``fisheye'' BRD with a new, more restrictive specification 
would be certified for use in the Gulf. The allowable placement of the 
fisheye BRD would be restricted to no further forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) 
from the cod end tie-off rings. The purpose of this proposed rule is to 
further reduce total finfish bycatch, including juvenile red snapper, 
in the Gulf shrimp fishery to better address the requirements of 
national standard 9 and aid in the rebuilding of the Gulf's overfished 
red snapper stock.
    No duplicative, overlapping or conflicting Federal rules have been 
identified.
    As of March 26, 2007, a Federal Gulf shrimp moratorium permit is 
required to fish for shrimp in the Gulf EEZ and 1,928 permits have been 
issued. Of these permits, 16 are currently not attached to a particular 
vessel, which results in 1,912 vessels possessing a Federal Gulf shrimp 
moratorium permit at this time. Of these 1,912 vessels with moratorium 
permits, 1,599 vessels were active in the Gulf food shrimp fishery in 
either 2005 or 2006, as demonstrated by recorded landings in the Gulf 
shrimp fishery landings file for the years 2005 and 2006. This is the 
most recent period of finalized data for this fishery and will be used 
for this analysis. The 313 permitted vessels not active during the 2005 
or 2006 seasons potentially could have fished during the 2007 season. 
However, because the status of their current or expected participation 
is unknown and information on recent performance characteristics are 
not available, they have not been included in the analysis of directly 
impacted vessels. Should these 313 vessels become active in the future, 
they could be directly impacted at that time. Over the past four years, 
participation in the fishery by permitted vessels has continually 
declined, particularly in 2006, and preliminary data suggests 
participation may have decreased further in 2007. This trend is 
expected to continue in the foreseeable future.
    Of the 1,599 active permitted vessels, an estimated 478 vessels are 
presently using BRDs that would still be allowable under the proposed 
action. These vessels would not be required to switch to new BRDs or 
change the placement of their ``fisheye'' BRD. The other 1,121 active 
permitted vessels presently using BRDs that would not be allowable 
under the proposed action would have to change the location of their 
current BRDs or switch to other BRDs. Thus, it is estimated that 1,121 
vessels would be directly impacted by the proposed action.
    The average annual gross revenue per active permitted vessel in 
2005-2006 was approximately $196,943 (2006 dollars). The maximum 
average annual gross revenue reported by an active permitted vessel 
during this period was $965,462. However, substantial differences in 
average annual revenues exist by vessel size. For the large vessel 
group (60 ft (18.3 m) in length or greater), the average annual revenue 
per vessel was approximately $221,017 in 2005-2006. For small active 
permitted vessels (less than 60 ft (18.3 m) in length), the average 
annual revenue per vessel was approximately $61,267 in 2005-2006. The 
distribution of annual revenues for small vessels is also considerably 
more heterogeneous than for large vessels reflecting the fact that the 
vast majority of large vessels operate on a full-time basis while, for 
small vessels, some operate on a full-time basis and others only on a 
part-time basis.
    On average, small active permitted vessels are also smaller in 
regards to almost all of their physical and operational attributes as 
they use smaller crews, fewer and smaller nets, have less engine 
horsepower and fuel capacity, etc. Small vessels are also older on 
average. Almost all large vessels are steel-hulled. Steel hulls are 
also the most common hull-type among small vessels, though more than 50 
percent of these vessels have fiberglass or wood hulls. More than two-
thirds of

[[Page 31671]]

the large vessels have freezing capabilities while few small vessels 
have such equipment. Small vessels still rely on ice for refrigeration 
and storage. A few of the small vessels are so small that they rely on 
live wells for storage.
    Both large and small active permitted Gulf shrimp vessels are 
highly dependent on Gulf food shrimp landings and revenues. In 2005-
2006, the percentage of revenues arising from food shrimp landings was 
nearly 99 percent for large vessels and approximately 94 percent for 
small vessels.
    Finally, according to previous projections, on average, both small 
and large Gulf shrimp vessels were experiencing significant economic 
losses, ranging from a -27 percent rate of return (net revenues/gross 
revenues) in the small vessel sector to a -36 percent rate of return in 
the large vessel sector (-33 percent on average for the fishery as a 
whole). Although more current estimates are not available, preliminary 
results indicate that the average active permitted Gulf shrimp vessel, 
whether large or small, was still earning an economic loss in 2006. 
Therefore, any additional financial burden could hasten additional exit 
from the fishery.
    The Small Business Administration defines a small business in the 
commercial fishing industry as an entity that is independently owned 
and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its 
affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $4.0 
million annually (NAICS codes 114111 and 114112, finfish and shellfish 
fishing). Based on the average annual revenues for the fishery provided 
above, all shrimp vessels expected to be directly impacted by the 
proposed action are determined, for the purpose of this analysis, to be 
small entities. This proposed rule is expected to directly affect 1,121 
vessels, or 59 percent of all permitted vessels and 70 percent of 
active permitted vessels. Thus, NMFS determines that this action will 
affect a substantial number of small entities.
    Adverse direct effects expected as a result of the proposed action 
would only accrue to certain vessels in the Gulf EEZ commercial shrimp 
fishery. The extent to which particular small entities' profits will be 
reduced by the proposed action is critically dependent on whether the 
1,121 potentially impacted shrimp vessel owners decide to employ the 
predominantly used and produced fisheye BRD in the proposed allowable 
position, which would be the most expedient option and minimize 
immediate out-of-pocket expenses, or switch to the modified Jones-Davis 
BRD or the extended funnel BRD which have a significantly lower average 
shrimp loss. Two other BRDs would be available, specifically the Jones-
Davis and composite panel BRDs. However, due to the lower average 
shrimp loss associated with the extended funnel and modified Jones-
Davis BRDs, and the lower cost relative to the Jones-Davis BRD (but not 
the composite panel BRD), the extended funnel and modified Jones-Davis 
BRDs would be economically preferable. Therefore, this analysis assumes 
that these would be the BRDs of choice.
    Approximately 6,400 replacement BRDs will be required under the 
proposed rule. NMFS has contracted for approximately 1,000 of the 
economically preferable BRDs to be produced for free distribution to 
vessels that would be forced to change their current BRDs as a result 
of the proposed rule. It is expected that one free BRD will be provided 
to each vessel to ensure that the benefits will be widely distributed. 
Since the small vessels that will potentially need to switch to new 
BRDs will likely only need to purchase three BRDs, as compared to six 
BRDs for large vessels, it is expected that the free BRDs will be 
provided only to large vessels. This analysis assumes that the shrimp 
industry will have approximately six months after publication of the 
final rule to meet the compliance requirements of the proposed rule. 
This should allow net shops sufficient time to produce the remaining 
5,400 BRDs which are expected to be needed in the shrimp industry.
    NMFS also anticipates that the effective date of this rule will 
occur during the off-season, which will allow vessel captains 
additional time to determine the best methods to use their new BRD 
according to their particular vessel's operations prior to the peak 
summer season. Thus, while it may take time for vessel captains to 
learn how to re-configure their gear so that the gear and gear 
modifications (BRDs and TEDs) operate in an optimal manner with respect 
to shrimp retention, the timing of the action should minimize the 
potential for any initially higher than expected shrimp losses as a 
result of vessel captains moving up the ``learning curve.''
    Therefore, in general, the actual impacts of the proposed rule are 
expected to be approximated by the impacts associated with use of the 
extended funnel or modified Jones-Davis BRDs. This general conclusion 
assumes that vessel owners will make prudent use of the time they are 
given to test the gear and that the relatively high average shrimp loss 
associated with the fisheye BRD in the proposed allowable position will 
provide sufficient economic incentive to switch to a different BRD as 
soon as possible.
    Regardless of the new BRD adopted, the estimated ten large vessels 
and one small vessel currently using the expanded mesh BRD would be 
expected to experience a substantial loss as a result of this proposed 
action. Even if these vessels switch to the extended funnel BRD or 
modified Jones-Davis BRD, these vessels are projected to experience an 
estimated annual loss of approximately $17,000 per vessel, or 
approximately 8 percent of their average annual gross revenues, as a 
result of higher costs associated with these relatively more expensive 
new BRDs and reduced revenues resulting from their higher average 
shrimp loss relative to the expanded mesh BRD. This loss would be 
expected to be sufficient to cause additional operational changes, 
since the losses would not likely be sustainable.
    For the estimated 70 small and 626 large vessels currently using 
the ``fisheye'' BRD in the 9-(2.7-m) to 11-ft (3.4-m) position, the 
expected impacts of the proposed rule are considerably less burdensome, 
despite the increased operating costs due to the higher costs of the 
new BRDs, and potentially even beneficial. Specifically, for the 70 
small vessels, a switch to the extended funnel BRD is projected to lead 
to slightly higher annual revenues, approximately $200, or 0.3 percent 
of their average annual gross revenues, because of the lower average 
shrimp loss from these alternative BRDs. A switch to the modified 
Jones-Davis BRD is projected to result in a slight annual loss of $400, 
or 0.6 percent of their average annual gross revenues. The effects of 
either switch would likely be imperceptible and, therefore, are 
expected to cause no change in these vessels' fishing operations.
    For the 626 large vessels, a switch to the extended funnel BRD is 
projected to result in an annual gain of approximately $2,000, or 
approximately 1 percent of average annual revenues, again due to the 
higher average shrimp retention. Under a switch to the modified Jones-
Davis BRD, the higher costs associated with purchasing this more 
expensive BRD are approximately equivalent to the increase in revenues 
resulting from its relatively lower average shrimp loss, thus resulting 
in no net change. As with the small vessels, all impacts would be 
expected to be imperceptible and cause no change in these vessels' 
fishing operations.

[[Page 31672]]

Additionally, any potential adverse impacts in the first year would be 
slightly mitigated by the provision of the one free BRD.
    The estimated 27 small and 387 large vessels currently using the 
``Gulf fisheye'' BRD are projected to experience greater losses than 
the vessels currently using the ``fisheye'' BRD in the 9-(2.7-m) to 11-
ft (3.4-m) position. Specifically, for the 27 small vessels, a switch 
to the extended funnel BRD or modified Jones-Davis BRD is projected to 
result in an estimated annual loss of approximately $1,400, or 
approximately 2 percent of the vessel's average annual gross revenues. 
This loss would result from both an increase in operating costs, as 
these BRDs are relatively more expensive, and a decrease in annual 
revenues, since they also have a slightly higher average shrimp loss. 
For the 387 large vessels, a switch to the extended funnel BRD or 
modified Jones-Davis BRD is projected to result in an estimated annual 
loss of approximately $4,000, or approximately 2 percent of the 
vessel's average annual gross revenues. Again, this loss would be due 
to both an increase in operating costs and higher average shrimp loss. 
Under current economic conditions, such losses to both the small and 
large vessels could cause some vessels to alter their current 
operations in an effort to either reduce costs or increase revenues. 
Such changes might include, but not be limited to, reducing effort, the 
number of crew, or crew revenue shares, or switching to other 
fisheries. The impacts on the large vessels would be slightly mitigated 
in the first year by the provision of the one free BRD.
    The only alternative considered to the proposed action is the 
status quo, or no action. Since the status quo would not change the 
existing list of allowable BRDs in the Gulf shrimp fishery, there would 
be no new impacts associated with this action. However, new information 
collected between 2001 and 2003 indicate that the expanded mesh BRD, 
the ``Gulf fisheye'' BRD, and the ``fisheye'' BRD in its standard 
configuration, as used in the Gulf shrimp fishery, do not meet the 30-
percent finfish reduction criterion. According to NMFS' SEFSC 
estimates, the fisheye device in its most common configurations 
achieves between a 14- and 23-percent reduction in finfish bycatch by 
weight, and the expanded mesh BRD achieves a 17-percent reduction in 
finfish bycatch by weight.
    Allowing for the provisional certification of BRDs achieving a 25-
percent reduction in finfish bycatch by weight, which has been 
established via separate rulemaking, could significantly reduce the 
potential adverse economic impacts of this proposed action on small 
entities since it would allow for the temporary certification of the 
extended funnel BRD in the western Gulf. Relative to the other BRDs 
that meet the 30-percent finfish reduction criterion, the extended 
funnel BRD's average shrimp loss is considerably lower and, thus, so 
are the economic impacts potentially resulting from this action if 
shrimp vessel owners switch to this particular BRD. The period of time 
vessel owners are expected to be given should be sufficient to allow 
them to switch to this BRD or the modified Jones-Davis BRD, which will 
mitigate any adverse economic impacts from the proposed rule. 
Additional mitigation in the first year will accrue due to the 
distribution of the 1,000 free BRDs.
    Copies of the RIR and IRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

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

    Dated: May 28, 2008.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is 
proposed to be 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.  622.41, paragraphs (g)(3)(i)(A),(B), and (E) are 
revised to read as follows:


Sec.  622.41  Species specific limitations.

    (g) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Fisheye--see Appendix D for separate specifications in the Gulf 
and South Atlantic EEZ.
    (B) Gulf fisheye--South Atlantic EEZ only.
    (E) Expanded mesh--South Atlantic EEZ only.
    3. In Appendix D to part 622, sections C and D are revised to read 
as follows:

APPENDIX D TO PART 622--SPECIFICATIONS FOR CERTIFIED BRDS

    C. Fisheye.
    1. Description. The fisheye BRD is a cone-shaped rigid frame 
constructed from aluminum or steel rod of at least \1/4\ inch (6.35-
mm) diameter, which is inserted into the cod end to form an escape 
opening.
    2. Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements. The 
fisheye has a minimum escape opening dimension of 5 inches (12.7 cm) 
and a minimum total escape opening area of 36 in\2\ (91.4 cm\2\). 
When the fisheye BRD is installed, no part of the lazy line 
attachment system (i.e., any mechanism, such as elephant ears or 
choker straps, used to attach the lazy line to the cod end) may 
overlap the fisheye escape opening when the fisheye is installed aft 
of the attachment point of the cod end retrieval system.
    (a) In the Gulf EEZ, the fisheye BRD must be installed at the 
top center of the cod end of the trawl to create an opening in the 
trawl facing in the direction of the mouth of the trawl no further 
forward than 9 ft (2.7 m) from the cod end drawstring (tie-off 
rings).
    (b) In the South Atlantic EEZ, the fisheye BRD must be installed 
at the top center of the cod end of the trawl to create an escape 
opening in the trawl facing the direction of the mouth of the trawl 
no further forward than 11 ft (3.4 m) from the cod end tie-off 
rings.
    D. Gulf fisheye.
    1. Description. The Gulf fisheye is a cone-shaped rigid frame 
constructed from aluminum or steel rod of at least \1/4\ inch (6.35-
mm) diameter, which is inserted into the top center of the cod end, 
and is offset not more than 15 meshes perpendicular to the top 
center of the cod end to form an escape opening.
    2. Minimum Construction and Installation Requirements. The Gulf 
fisheye has a minimum escape opening dimension of 5 inches (12.7 cm) 
and a minimum total escape opening area of 36 in\2\ (91.4 cm\2\). To 
be used in the South Atlantic EEZ, the Gulf fisheye BRD must be 
installed in the cod end of the trawl to create an escape opening in 
the trawl, facing in the direction of the mouth of the trawl, no 
less than 8.5 ft (2.59 m) and no further forward than 12.5 ft (3.81 
m) from the cod end tie-off rings, and may be offset no more than 15 
meshes perpendicular to the top center of the cod end. When the Gulf 
fisheye BRD is installed, no part of the lazy line attachment system 
(i.e., any mechanism, such as elephant ears or choker straps, used 
to attach the lazy line to the cod end) may overlap the fisheye 
escape opening when the fisheye is installed aft of the attachment 
point of the cod end retrieval system.
    4. In addition to the amendments above, in 50 CFR part 622, 
remove the word ``codend,'' wherever it occurs, and add in its place 
the words ``cod end''.
[FR Doc. E8-12324 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S