[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 251 (Friday, December 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82404-82412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33512]



[[Page 82403]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 251

December 30, 2011

Part III





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 622





Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Amendments to the Queen Conch and Reef Fish Fishery Management Plans of 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 251 / Friday, December 30, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 82404]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 100120037-1626-02]
RIN 0648-AY55


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Amendments to the Queen Conch and Reef Fish Fishery Management Plans of 
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands

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 2 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan 
for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
(Amendments 2 and 5), prepared by the Caribbean Fishery Management 
Council (Council). This final rule: Establishes annual catch limits 
(ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for queen conch and for all 
reef fish units or sub-units that are classified as undergoing 
overfishing (i.e., snapper, grouper and parrotfish); allocates ACLs 
among island management areas; revises the composition of the snapper 
and grouper complexes; prohibits fishing for and possession of three 
parrotfish species; establishes recreational bag limits for snappers, 
groupers, and parrotfishes; and establishes framework procedures for 
the queen conch and reef fish fishery management plans. Amendments 2 
and 5 also revise management reference points and status determination 
criteria. The intended effect of the rule is to prevent overfishing of 
queen conch and reef fish species while maintaining catch levels 
consistent with achieving optimum yield (OY).

DATES: This final rule is effective January 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of Amendments 2 and 5, which include an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis (FRFA), a regulatory impact review (RIR), and a fishery impact 
statement may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site 
at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/pdfs/2010_Caribbean_ACL_Amendment_FEIS_092011.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Arnold, Southeast Regional 
Office, NMFS, telephone: (727) 824-5305, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the 
U.S. Caribbean, the queen conch fishery is managed under the Fishery 
Management Plan for Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands (USVI) (Queen Conch FMP), and the reef fish fishery is 
managed under the Reef Fish Fishery Management Plan of Puerto Rico and 
the USVI (Reef Fish FMP). These FMPs were prepared by the Council and 
are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
    NMFS' 2011 Report on the Status of U.S. Fisheries classifies 
Caribbean queen conch, Grouper Units 1 and 4, Snapper Unit 1, and 
parrotfishes as undergoing overfishing.
    On September 26, 2011, NMFS published a notice of availability for 
Amendments 2 and 5 and requested public comment (76 FR 59375). On 
October 27, 2011, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendments 2 and 5 
and requested public comment (76 FR 66675). The proposed rule and 
Amendments 2 and 5 outline the rationale for the actions contained in 
this final rule. A summary of the actions implemented by this final 
rule are provided below.
    This final rule amends the composition of stock complexes within 
the Reef Fish FMP. Grouper and snapper unit complexes are being revised 
to include two species of commonly harvested fish that were previously 
excluded, remove the creole-fish from the Reef Fish FMP since the 
Council decided the species is no longer in need of Federal 
conservation and management due to no reported landings in the EEZ in 
recent years, and aggregate species in an ecologically consistent 
manner within the Reef Fish FMP.
    This final rule revises and establishes management reference points 
for snapper, grouper, parrotfish and queen conch in the following 
manner: (1) Establishes average catch as a proxy for calculating the 
MSY for all units or complexes; (2) calculates the MSY proxy for each 
species or unit using average catch from commercial landings data from 
1999-2005 for Puerto Rico and St. Croix, and from 2000-2005 for St. 
Thomas/St. John, and recreational catch data from 2000-2005 for Puerto 
Rico only; (3) sets the ABC for queen conch and parrotfish equal to the 
fishing level recommendation specified by the Council's Scientific and 
Statistical Committee (SSC) for those species; (4) defines the 
overfishing threshold of all species as the OFL, which would equal the 
MSY proxy; setting the OY and the ACL as equal values; (5) sets the OY 
equal to the OFL multiplied by a reduction factor of 0.85 to account 
for uncertainty in the scientific and management process for snapper 
and grouper in all three management areas. The OY of queen conch was 
not reduced below the ABC; (6) sets the ACL for parrotfish as a 0.85 
reduction of the SSC's ABC recommendation to account for uncertainty, 
ecological factors and other concerns for all three island groups; and 
(7) sets the OY/ACL equal to zero for Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, 
rainbow parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and midnight parrotfish.
    This final rule also establishes island-specific management to 
enable application of AMs in response to harvesting activities on a 
single island (Puerto Rico, St. Croix) or island group (St. Thomas/St. 
John) without necessarily affecting fishing activities on the other 
islands or island groups. This final rule establishes geographic 
boundaries between islands/island groups based upon an equidistant 
approach that uses a mid-point to divide the exclusive economic zone 
(EEZ) among islands. The three island management areas are: Puerto 
Rico, St. Croix, and St. Thomas/St. John.
    This final rule establishes ACLs and AMs for queen conch and for 
all snapper, grouper, and parrotfish units or complexes in the 
Caribbean Reef Fish FMP. The ACLs include reductions in catch to buffer 
allocations to account for scientific and catch-level uncertainty. Each 
ACL is sub-divided among the three islands/island groups, and for 
Puerto Rico only, separate sector ACLs (commercial and recreational) 
are established because commercial and recreational sector landings 
data are both available. For the St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John 
island management areas, only commercial data are available; therefore, 
ACLs are established for the St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John 
management areas based on commercial landings data only. The final rule 
specifies an ACL of zero for Nassau grouper, goliath grouper, rainbow 
parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and midnight parrotfish.
    The AMs are designed to prevent fishermen from exceeding the ACLs. 
The AMs for queen conch are described in the 2010 regulatory amendment 
(May 26, 2011, 76 FR 30554) to the Queen Conch FMP, and state that when 
the

[[Page 82405]]

USVI closes its territorial waters off St. Croix to the harvest and 
possession of queen conch, NMFS will concurrently close the EEZ in the 
area of Lang Bank until the start of the next territorial fishing 
season. For Puerto Rico and St Thomas/St. John, the applicable ACL will 
be set at zero and so the harvest prohibition will function as the AM 
in the EEZ for those areas.
    This final rule triggers AMs if an ACL has been exceeded based on a 
moving multi-year average of landings as described in the FMP. If the 
ACL is exceeded, this final rule reduces the length of the fishing 
season for the affected species the year following an overage by the 
amount needed to prevent such an overage from occurring again. The AM 
is triggered unless NMFS' Southeast Fisheries Science Center, in 
consultation with the Council and its Scientific and Statistical 
Committee (SSC), determines the overage occurred because data 
collection and monitoring improved, rather than because catches 
actually increased. In such circumstances NMFS and the Council would 
review the relevant information and take further action as appropriate.
    To maintain the role of parrotfish with respect to the health and 
ecological protection of threatened Acropora coral, this final rule 
prohibits the harvest of the three largest species of parrotfish that 
occur on Caribbean coral reefs. The harvest of blue, midnight, and 
rainbow parrotfish will be prohibited.
    Additionally, this final rule establishes an aggregate bag limit 
for the recreational harvest of snapper, grouper and parrotfish. The 
daily recreational bag limit for snapper, grouper, and parrotfish 
combined will be five fish per person per day, with no more than two 
parrotfish per person within the aggregate. This rule also establishes 
a vessel limit on snapper, grouper, and parrotfish of 15 fish per day, 
including no more than 6 parrotfish per vessel per day.
    To facilitate timely adjustments to harvest parameters and other 
management measures, this final rule establishes framework procedures 
for both the Reef Fish and Queen Conch FMPs. Management measures to be 
adjusted through framework amendments include but are not limited to 
quotas, closures, trip limits, bag limits, size limits, gear 
restrictions, fishing years, and reference points.

Comments and Responses

    The following summarizes the comments NMFS received on Amendments 2 
and 5 and the proposed rule, and NMFS' respective responses. Nine 
submissions were received on the amendments and the proposed rule, 
including comments from individuals, state and Federal agencies, 
environmental organizations, and fishing associations. Several 
commenters were generally supportive of the actions included in 
Amendments 2 and 5. A Federal agency had no specific comments and a 
non-governmental organization was supportive and recommended approval. 
Comments that pertain to specific actions addressed in Amendments 2 and 
5 or the proposed rule are summarized and responded to below.
    Comment 1: The boundary lines defining the EEZ subdivisions should 
take into account the distribution of marine biotopes and an additional 
(unquantified) buffer be added to the 15 percent uncertainty reduction 
in the setting of ACLs.
    Response: Although state and Federal efforts are underway to map 
and define biological communities throughout the U.S. Caribbean, 
suitable information is not yet available to support allocation of 
subdivisions by biotope. However, input from fishers with regard to 
their fishing locations were taken into consideration when establishing 
the boundary lines. Additionally, those boundary lines do not prevent 
fishers from fishing in any area of the U.S. Caribbean EEZ. Instead, 
the boundary lines only become restrictive when the ACL has been met 
for a species or species group within the EEZ subdivision for a 
particular island or island group. Then, AMs will be applied for that 
EEZ subdivision.
    With respect to the additional buffer for setting ACLs, the 15-
percent reduction serves as a buffer between the overfishing level and 
the ACL, thus minimizing the likelihood that overfishing will occur. 
Other ``buffers,'' including more stringent ones (i.e., buffers that 
reduce allowable catch to an even greater degree), were considered by 
the Council but not implemented. The Council determined that these more 
stringent buffers were not necessary to prevent overfishing of snapper, 
grouper, and parrotfish. The Council also determined that the 15 
percent reduction would more effectively encourage the development of 
compatible regulations by territorial and commonwealth governments and 
increase data collection efforts, which would bring more stability to 
the management regime. The Council further reduced allowable parrotfish 
harvest in St. Croix EEZ waters by 15,000 lb (6,804 kg) to address 
ecological considerations as described in Amendments 2 and 5.
    Comment 2: There is a need to reduce emphasis on fisheries 
management and to instead increase emphasis on restocking, 
preservation, establishment of defined shipping lanes, and deployment 
of fish attraction devices to better protect the environment and 
improve fishing opportunities.
    Response: The amendment and associated rule are designed to address 
the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 
is focused on the Federal management of fishing activities. While an 
ecosystem based approach to fisheries management is a principle of 
NMFS' overall management strategy, achieving that goal requires the 
cooperation by a host of local, state, and Federal agencies and the 
constituencies upon which those agencies depend. These efforts are 
ongoing.
    Comment 3: There is no rationale for the Council's SSC to establish 
a specific parrotfish quota for St. Croix, St. Thomas/St. John, and 
Puerto Rico.
    Response: The SSC's rationale for establishing the ABC levels from 
which ACLs were derived for each of the islands or island groups, was 
that those levels are roughly equal to the average catch during the 
reference years chosen by the Council (1999-2005 for Puerto Rico and 
St. Croix commercial landings, 2000-2005 for Puerto Rico recreational 
and St. Thomas/St. John commercial landings). Those year sequences were 
chosen by the Council based on outcomes from working group meetings of 
the Annual Catch Limit Working Group (ACLG), Technical Monitoring and 
Compliance Team (TMCT), and Southeast Data Assessment and Review 
(SEDAR), whose task was to identify and analyze available data in the 
U.S. Caribbean. The SEDAR findings, along with those of the ACLG, were 
presented to the SSC for development of OFL and ABC limits. Using those 
year sequences, the SSC established ABC values separately for St. 
Croix, St. Thomas/St. John, and Puerto Rico. The Council chose to 
reduce by 15 percent from each ABC when setting the ACL for each 
island, with an additional 5.8822 percent reduction (equal to 15,000 lb 
whole weight (6,804 kg)) for St. Croix, due the intense and directed 
nature of the parrotfish fishery on that island. That 15 percent 
reduction acts to ensure that the OFL is not exceeded as a result of 
both scientific and management uncertainty.
    Comment 4: The prohibition on harvest of midnight, blue, and 
rainbow parrotfish would have little biological impact because the 
species are extremely rare to the point of being effectively 
unavailable for harvest by the

[[Page 82406]]

commercial and recreational sectors. It is necessary to maintain the 
largest-sized individuals among grazing species and the lack of 
species-specific parrotfish landings data would render it impossible to 
enforce prohibitions on the take of midnight, blue, and rainbow 
parrotfish.
    Response: The Council chose to prohibit the harvest of these three 
parrotfish species because they are so rare on U.S. Caribbean coral 
reefs. Given those very low densities, it is likely that their recovery 
will be lengthy as the populations rebuild to densities adequate to 
support consistently successful reproduction. However, without this 
prohibition on harvest, it is probable that recovery will take much 
longer, so the Council and NMFS consider the harvest prohibition to be 
an essential first step in the process of recovering these parrotfish 
populations. Regarding the need to maintain the largest individuals 
among grazing species, this rule prohibits harvesting the three largest 
species of parrotfish (midnight, blue, rainbow) to accomplish that 
goal. Finally, regardless of how the parrotfish species are reported, 
they are easily identified, making it relatively straightforward to 
enforce the prohibition on harvest of midnight, blue, and rainbow 
parrotfish in Caribbean EEZ waters.
    Comment 5: The parrotfish harvest reductions, particularly from the 
waters surrounding St. Croix, are inadequate to address overfishing of 
these species and do not ensure adequate provision of critical 
settlement substrate for threatened Acroporid corals. Parrotfish 
harvest in the U.S. Caribbean is unsustainable and the proposed 
parrotfish harvest reductions are very unlikely to significantly 
decrease fishing pressure on parrotfish. Since the collapse of long-
spined sea urchin populations, parrotfish are the only major grazer 
remaining on U.S. Caribbean coral reefs.
    Response: The NMFS Protected Resources Division developed a 
Biological Opinion (BiOp) in October 2011 regarding the continued 
authorization of the reef fish fishery in the U.S. Caribbean. The BiOp 
focused its analyses on impacts to various species of turtles and on 
the impacts of continued parrotfish harvest on the availability of 
critical settlement substrate for Acroporid corals (specifically 
Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata). The BiOp determined that the 
continued operation of the U.S. Caribbean reef fish fishery is not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Acroporid corals and 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify Acropora critical habitat in 
the U.S. Caribbean.
    This rule reduces all parrotfish harvest levels in an effort to end 
overfishing of all parrotfish species. These reductions are described 
in detail in Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish FMP. For St. Croix, the ACL 
established by this final rule will adjust harvest to a level roughly 
33 percent below the average of the most recent 2 years (2006 and 2007) 
of landings available at the time the Notice of Intent to Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 5 was published in April 
2009 (April 17, 2009, 74 FR 17818) for. These are substantial 
parrotfish harvest reductions, and both NMFS and the Council believe 
that these reductions will substantially decrease fishing pressure on 
these species. NMFS agrees that parrotfish may be the only major grazer 
remaining on U.S. Caribbean coral reefs after the collapse of long-
spined sea urchin populations. Although there are other grazers on 
Caribbean coral reefs (e.g., surgeonfish), NMFS and the Council 
acknowledge that parrotfish are an important component of Caribbean 
coral reef ecosystems. The level of reduction was designed to balance 
those ecological considerations with the cultural importance of 
parrotfish to U.S. Caribbean residents, particularly residents of St. 
Croix.
    Comment 6: The AMs proposed in the rule are inadequate to prevent 
overfishing. The provision that allows the Council to not apply AMs if 
it is determined by the Council's SSC, in conjunction with the SEFSC, 
that surpassing the ACL resulted from enhanced reporting of landings, 
rather than by an actual increase in harvest, contradicts the intent of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act with respect to the application of AMs.
    Response: AMs included in both Amendments 2 and 5 are post-season 
in nature to account for the present reporting characteristics of the 
U.S. Caribbean fisheries. The AMs will be applied automatically unless 
there is a determination by the SEFSC (in consultation with the 
Council's SSC) that the ACL increase is due to improved reporting 
rather than due to an actual increase in landings. Post-season AMs are 
not always the preferred method of a management strategy to respond to 
an ACL overage, and the fishers themselves have requested that in-
season monitoring schemes be developed. Regional efforts are ongoing in 
the U.S. Caribbean to develop better methodologies to submit, compile, 
distribute, and analyze landings data. Progress has already been made, 
particularly in the electronic transmittal of data from state to 
Federal agencies. However, due to delays inherent in the present 
reporting process, landings data are not available within the fishing 
season, so only post-season AMs are presently feasible. Regarding the 
SSC and SEFSC review of data to determine if exceeding an ACL was the 
result of better reporting or increased landings, this provision allows 
for the best scientific information available to be applied to more 
effectively manage fishing activity. Thus, both the Council and NMFS 
decided this was a necessary approach if the long-term goal of more 
timely and accurate reporting was to be achieved.
    Comment 7: The adverse economic impacts of the rule on USVI small 
businesses are overestimated because it assumes all of the licensed 
fisherman land species that are the subject of the final rule.
    Response: It was assumed in the initial regulatory flexibility 
analysis (IRFA), and is assumed here that each and every one of the 383 
licensed commercial fishermen of the USVI represents a small business. 
Hence, the final rule potentially impacts 383 small businesses in the 
USVI, whether they all presently fish for these species or not. The 
total adverse economic impacts to St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John 
commercial fishermen are estimated independently of the number of small 
businesses, and instead by estimated reductions in historical and 
forecasted annual landings caused by shortened fishing seasons. The 
number of small businesses is used to estimate the average adverse 
economic impact per small business. If the number of small businesses 
adversely affected is lower, the average adverse economic impact per 
small business will be greater, but the estimates of the total adverse 
economic impacts do not change. The best information available was used 
to analyze these economic impacts.
    Comment 8: The species of concern in this amendment should not have 
been considered as being ``overfished or undergoing overfishing'' in 
all of the island areas, as the incidents of overfishing are localized. 
As a result of previous management measures taken by both the Council 
and the states to address these incidents of overfishing (i.e., the 
2005 Sustainable Fisheries Act Amendment (2005 Caribbean SFA 
Amendment); seasonal and permanent closures; size limits; quotas) along 
with the use of available scientific information, the species groups 
classified as overfishing should have been reclassified. All of these 
previous actions should have been considered

[[Page 82407]]

while setting ACLs, and these values in most cases should have been the 
same as for species considered not to be undergoing overfishing.
    Response: The purpose of Amendments 2 and 5 was not to revise the 
status of stocks with respect to their classification as either 
undergoing overfishing or overfished, but to establish management 
reference points and ACLs based upon the previously determined status 
of those stocks. Overfished or undergoing overfishing designations 
apply to the fishery as defined in the FMP, which is Caribbean-wide. 
Management reference points were set U.S. Caribbean-wide, then 
allocated among the three island groups (St. Thomas/St. John, St. 
Croix, Puerto Rico) according to proportional contribution by each 
island group to the total average landings used to set the MSY proxy 
and OFL. Because of the nature of landings data in the U.S. Caribbean, 
where landings are commonly reported to fishery management unit (FMU) 
level rather than to species level (with the exception of snapper in 
Puerto Rico, as described in Amendment 5 to Reef Fish FMP), ACL 
assignments were made at the FMU level rather than at the level of the 
individual species.
    The 2005 Caribbean SFA Amendment was taken into consideration when 
devising alternatives included in Amendments 2 and 5. That amendment 
implemented a variety of management measures for reef fish species in 
the U.S. Caribbean, including area closures that may have affected 
reported landings. A primary consideration during the development of 
the management reference point alternatives was the choice of the year 
sequence used to establish the average catch, and from that, the MSY 
proxy and overfishing limit (OFL) were developed. When evaluating 
alternatives for year sequences for average catch, the Council chose 
not to use data from any years more recent than 2005, due to the 
potential impact on landings of the previous management measures listed 
in the comment.
    The Council chose a 0.85 reduction to set the ACLs. Before making a 
decision on the appropriate reduction, the Council reviewed public 
comments and the recommendation of its Reef Fish Advisory Panel, which 
functions as interface between user groups and the Council and provides 
insight from in-the-field observations. Fishers and the Advisory Panel 
supported a 0.85 reduction while an environmental organization 
supported a 0.75 reduction. The Council also had several discussions 
regarding the issue of uncertainty and the value of choosing an 
uncertainty factor that would be most acceptable to the territorial and 
commonwealth governments. The Council determined that the 0.85 scalar 
would be most likely to result in the application of compatible state 
regulations and increased data collection efforts, thereby stabilizing 
the management regime.
    After Amendments 2 and 5 were developed, the Council initiated 
development of the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment pertaining to those 
species not designated as undergoing overfishing. The Council chose to 
reduce by 10 percent for most of the units included in the 2011 
Caribbean ACL Amendment, rather than by 15 percent as was done for the 
units included in Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish FMP. This 10 percent 
reduction was chosen because landings patterns for the species included 
in the 2011 Caribbean ACL Amendment were less variable than for the 
species included in Amendment 5 to the Reef Fish FMP. It was determined 
by the Council that those less variable landings required a smaller 
reduction to minimize the likelihood that landings in any year would 
exceed the OFL.
    Comment 9: The ACLs proposed are inconsistent with National 
Standard (NS) 1, which requires that conservation and management 
measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving the OY from each 
fishery. Setting ACLs creates artificial limitations for the fishermen 
of St. Thomas, and management to an artificial buffer is not necessary 
because their fishery has been stable throughout the past four decades.
    Response: The 2006 revisions to the Magnuson-Stevens Act require 
that ACLs be set at a level such that overfishing does not occur, 
regardless of the relative stability of the reported landings. 
Available data in the U.S. Caribbean are not sufficient to support 
direct estimation of MSY and other key parameters. In such cases, the 
NS 1 guidelines direct regional fishery management councils to estimate 
them using reasonable proxies, like long-term average catch, and to 
consider uncertainty in determining the appropriateness of alternative 
proxies. The NS 1 guidelines suggest that ACLs and OY should generally 
be reduced from the overfishing threshold and MSY, respectively, to 
effectively prevent overfishing. The Council chose to set OY and ACL as 
equal values, taking into consideration the socioeconomic and 
ecological components of OY when determining how far ACLs should be 
reduced below the overfishing threshold. An `uncertainty' factor was 
applied to reduce allowable landings below the OFL in an effort to 
account for uncertainty in the scientific and management processes. The 
uncertainty factor is designed to account for scientific uncertainty in 
estimating the OFL and management uncertainty in effectively 
constraining harvest over time. The reduction (buffer) chosen by the 
Council will prevent overfishing by minimizing the likelihood that 
annual landings will exceed the OFL, while achieving, on a continuing 
basis, OY.
    Comment 10: The establishment of ACLs is not consistent with 
National Standard 2 (NS 2), which requires that conservation and 
management measures be based in the best scientific information 
available. ACLs are not based on the best scientific information 
because they were based on unreliable reported landings data (e.g. not 
species-specific), and that data should be obtained from port sampling 
and this method was not used to formulate the ACLs.
    Response: NMFS and the Council have considered NS 2 in the 
development of ACLs. Although the reported landings data has areas in 
need of improvement, this is the best scientific information available. 
Those landings data are provided by the fishers on an island-specific 
basis. The SEFSC, along with participating state, Federal, private, and 
fishing interests conducted analyses of port sampling data and 
determined they were inadequate with respect to the requirements for 
randomness and temporal consistency which therefore minimizes the 
utility of port sampling for establishing ACLs.
    Comment 11: The establishment of management measures in Amendments 
2 and 5 is not consistent with National Standard 6 (NS 6), which 
requires that conservation and management measures take into account, 
and allow for variations among fisheries, fishery resources, and 
catches. The variability in the fishery of St. Thomas/St. John is low 
and almost entirely due to normal year-to-year fluctuations in 
environmental variables, and that variability should be considered in 
the establishment of management measures for the specific island group.
    Response: The landings variability for all island groups was 
analyzed. The data used for all islands for establishing management 
measures has the same limitations and were therefore treated in the 
same manner to account for both expected and unpredictable variations. 
This was done by applying a buffer to reduce OY and ACL from the OFL or 
ABC. Management reference points were set for the U.S. Caribbean and 
then

[[Page 82408]]

allocated among the three island groups (St. Thomas/St. John, St. 
Croix, Puerto Rico) according to the proportional contribution by each 
island group to the total average landings used to set the MSY proxy 
and OFL.
    Comment 12: The designation of Puerto Rico and the USVI as fishing 
communities under the terms of National Standard 8 (NS 8) is 
questionable. NS 8 requires that conservation and management measures 
take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
communities by using economic and social data to provide the sustained 
participation of the communities and minimize adverse economic impacts 
to the community to the extent practicable. The passage of recent ACLs 
in 2010 and 2011 should have been accompanied by in-depth analysis of 
the impacts of those actions upon the USVI fishing communities, and no 
ACLs should be approved until the analyses are completed and 
implications are considered.
    Response: NMFS and the Council recognize the designation of St. 
Thomas/St. John, St. Croix, and coastal areas of Puerto Rico as fishing 
communities. However, for Puerto Rico, the fishing community 
designation does not apply to the entire island, but instead to the 
northern coastal, southern coastal, eastern coastal, and western 
coastal municipalities combined. The impacts of the provisions of 
Amendments 2 and 5 are included within the analysis of the social 
impacts, which is found in the Social Impact Assessment (section 9) of 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Additionally, the NS 8 
guidelines state that consideration of impacts to designated fishing 
communities be within the context of the conservation requirements of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These requirements were considered during the 
development of Amendments 2 and 5. The impacts to the fishing 
communities were analyzed and minimized to the extent practicable while 
still meeting the other Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements. 
Deliberations regarding the importance of fishery resources to affected 
fishing communities, therefore, must not compromise the achievement of 
conservation requirements and goals of the FMP.
    Comment 13: For ACLs and AMs to be effective, Puerto Rico and the 
USVI should achieve compatibility with Federal regulations, and 
adequate funding should be available to collect and process data, 
enforce regulations, and effectively manage the fishery. There is an 
importance to ``buy in'' by the fishers with regard to the concept of a 
regulated, sustainable resource.
    Response: Efforts are underway by the Council, NMFS, and the states 
to establish compatible regulations in both Puerto Rico and the USVI, 
but those regulatory changes must be effectuated by the state 
governments rather than by the Council or NMFS. NMFS recognizes the 
advantages to developing and implementing regulations to ensure the 
long-term sustainability of Caribbean fisheries resources and the 
ecosystems upon which they depend.
    Comment 14: The cost of the prohibition on fishing for blue, 
rainbow and midnight parrotfish in the EEZ off the USVI, especially St. 
Croix, was overestimated because the species are rarely, if ever, 
caught in Federal waters and the adverse impacts should be minimal.
    Response: Because parrotfish harvest data is not available at the 
species level in the USVI, the expected economic effects of the 
regulations associated with blue, rainbow, and midnight parrotfish 
could not be quantitatively assessed at the species level. As a result, 
the IRFA only provided quantitative estimates of the expected economic 
effects of the proposed regulations on all parrotfish species combined. 
Because blue, rainbow, and midnight parrotfish may not be the primary 
parrotfish species harvested, the estimates of the expected economic 
impacts on all parrotfish species may not be representative of the 
impacts on these three species and may, in fact, overestimate actual 
effects. However, overestimation of potential economic effects is not 
expected to be a substantive issue because the purpose of the RFA is to 
identify alternatives that achieve the regulatory objective while 
reducing or minimizing significant adverse economic effects on small 
entities. If the effects are minimal, as the comment suggests, then the 
need to reduce these effects is diminished.
    Comment 15: Fishermen will not be able to relocate into territorial 
waters to mitigate for any losses of parrotfish landings because the 
resource is overexploited in territorial waters. It is incorrect to 
assume that USVI fishermen may be able to mitigate for some, but not 
all, of the losses incurred by the parrotfish prohibition.
    Response: The RIR determined and the IRFA indicated that USVI 
fishermen could mitigate for 20 percent of the potential loss of 
landings by shifting effort into territorial waters. In response to 
this comment on the proposed rule, the FRFA includes the possibility 
that fishermen cannot mitigate for any losses of landings of 
parrotfish, snapper and grouper in the USVI as a result of new ACLs. 
This new assumption indicates that the ACLs may be up to 100 percent 
effective in reducing ACL overages.

Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined 
that this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management 
of the species within Amendments 2 and 5 and is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. However, ACLs are a controversial 
issue in the U.S. Caribbean, which is a region with populations 
characterized by large percents of racial/ethnic minorities, high 
poverty rates, and low median household incomes. Moreover, commercial 
fishermen of St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John will experience a 
substantially greater adverse economic impact relative to their 
counterparts in Puerto Rico.
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, NMFS 
prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) that includes a 
statement of need for, and objectives of, the rule; a summary and 
assessment of significant issues raised by public comments; a 
description and estimate of the number of small entities; a description 
of the compliance requirements, including estimates of the adverse 
economic impacts; and a description of steps taken to minimize 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities. The description 
of the action, why it is being considered, and the objectives of this 
action are contained in the proposed rule (76 FR 66675, Oct. 27, 2011), 
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 FRFA follows.
    The final rule, which consists of several actions, will establish 
recreational bag limits for specified reef fish species; specify ACLs 
and AMs for parrotfish, grouper, snapper, and queen conch and establish 
framework measures to facilitate regulatory modifications. The rule 
will not alter existing reporting or record-keeping requirements.
    The Magnuson Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for the rule.
    There were no significant issues regarding the IRFA raised by 
public comments; however, three comments were received regarding the 
estimate of the adverse economic impacts on USVI fishermen. The first 
comment disagreed with the description of the impact of the

[[Page 82409]]

prohibition on fishing for blue, rainbow and midnight parrotfish in the 
EEZ off the USVI, especially St. Croix. The comment contends that the 
cost of the prohibition on fishing for and possession of blue, rainbow 
and midnight parrotfish in the EEZ, particularly off St. Croix, was 
overestimated because the species are rarely, if ever, caught in 
Federal waters and the adverse impact should be minimal. Because 
parrotfish harvest data is not available at the species level in the 
USVI, the expected economic effects of the regulations associated with 
blue, rainbow, and midnight parrotfish could not be quantitatively 
assessed at the species level. As a result, the IRFA only provided 
quantitative estimates of the expected economic effects of the proposed 
regulations on all parrotfish species combined. Because blue, rainbow, 
and midnight parrotfish may not be the primary parrotfish species 
harvested, the estimates of the expected economic impacts on all 
parrotfish species may not be representative of the impacts on these 
three species and, in fact, overestimate actual effects. However, 
overestimation of potential economic effects is not expected to be a 
substantive issue because the purpose of the RFA is to identify 
alternatives that achieve the regulatory objective while reducing or 
minimizing significant adverse economic effects on small entities. If 
the effects are minimal, as the comment suggests, then the need to 
reduce these effects is diminished.
    The second comment disagreed with the assumption that USVI 
fishermen may be able to mitigate for some, but not all, losses by 
increasing landings of snapper, grouper, and parrotfish species taken 
in the EEZ by relocating into territorial waters, although it is more 
difficult for USVI fishermen to substitute fishing in territorial 
waters for fishing in Federal waters. The comment contends that 
fishermen would not be able to relocate into territorial waters to 
mitigate for any losses of parrotfish landings because the resource is 
overexploited in territorial waters. NMFS, in its RIR, determined and 
through the IRFA indicated that USVI fishermen could mitigate for 20 
percent of the potential loss of landings by shifting effort into 
territorial waters. In response to this comment, the FRFA includes the 
possibility that fishermen cannot mitigate for any losses of landings 
of parrotfish, snapper and grouper in the USVI. That new assumption 
results in the ACLs being up to 100 percent effective in reducing an 
overage.
    The third comment contended the estimate of the adverse economic 
impacts to USVI small businesses was too high because it assumed all of 
the licensed fishermen land species that are the subject of the final 
rule. NMFS assumed in the IRFA, and assumes here, that every one of the 
383 licensed commercial fishermen of the USVI represents a small 
business that may potentially be impacted by this rule, whether they 
all presently fish for these species or not. The total adverse economic 
impacts to St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John commercial fishermen are 
estimated independently of the number of small businesses and instead 
by estimated reductions in historical and forecasted annual landings. 
The number of small businesses is used to estimate the average adverse 
economic impact per small business. If the number of small businesses 
adversely affected is lower, the average adverse economic impact per 
small business will be greater.
    This final rule is expected to directly affect businesses that 
harvest parrotfish, snapper and grouper from Federal waters off Puerto 
Rico and the USVI and those that harvest queen conch in Federal waters 
off St. Croix. These businesses are in the finfish fishing (NAICS 
114111), shellfish fishing (NAICS 114112) and charter fishing 
industries (NAICS 487210). A business is classified as a small business 
if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field 
of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual 
receipts or number of employees not in excess of the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA's) size standards. The finfish and shellfish 
fishing industries have an SBA size standard of $4.0 million in annual 
receipts, and the charter fishing industry's size standard is $7.0 
million in annual receipts. NMFS assumes all commercial (finfish and 
shellfish) and charter fishing businesses that operate in the U.S. 
Caribbean have annual receipts less than these size standards and are 
small businesses.
    In 2008, there were from 868 to 874 active commercial fishermen in 
Puerto Rico; 74 percent of these fishermen were captains and the 
remaining 26 percent were crew members. NMFS assumes each captain 
represents a small business in the finfish fishing and shellfish 
fishing industries and each member of the crew an employee of one of 
those businesses. Therefore, NMFS concludes that there are 642 to 644 
small businesses in the finfish fishing and shellfish fishing 
industries in Puerto Rico, and potentially all of these businesses will 
be directly affected by the rule. In 2008, there were 223 licensed 
commercial fishermen in St. Croix and 160 in St. Thomas/St. John. There 
is a moratorium on increasing the number of U.S. Virgin Islands 
commercial fishing licenses, so the FRFA assumes the 223 commercial 
fishermen in St. Croix and 160 commercial fishermen in St. Thomas/St. 
John represent 383 small businesses in the finfish fishing and 
shellfish fishing industries in the U.S. Virgin Islands who will be 
directly affected by the rule.
    There are an estimated 9 small businesses in the charter fishing 
industry in Puerto Rico, 12 such businesses in St. Thomas/St. John and 
1 in St. Croix. The final rule will apply to all of these small 
businesses.
    The final rule will apply to all small businesses in Puerto Rico, 
St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John within the finfish fishing, shellfish 
fishing, and charter fishing industries. Therefore, the final rule 
applies to a substantial number of small entities in the U.S. Caribbean 
in these industries. Charter fishing operations in Puerto Rico and the 
U.S. Virgin Islands target pelagic species and tend not to target queen 
conch or reef fish species in Federal waters. Consequently, it is 
expected that small businesses in the charter fishing industry in 
Puerto Rico, St. Croix or St. Thomas/St. John will experience little to 
no adverse economic impact because of this final rule.
    The final rule is expected to result in one shortened Federal 
fishing season in the Puerto Rico EEZ, three shortened fishing seasons 
in the St. Croix EEZ, and three shortened fishing seasons in the St. 
Thomas/St. John EEZ. This final rule is expected to have a 
substantially greater adverse economic impact on small businesses in 
the finfish fishing industries in St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John 
than in Puerto Rico because the projected reductions in harvest of the 
different species, as discussed in the following paragraphs, are 
substantially larger in the USVI than in Puerto Rico. There is expected 
to be no adverse economic impact on small businesses in the shellfish 
fishing industry.
    A comparison of the Puerto Rico commercial ACLs for parrotfish, 
grouper and Snapper Units 1, 3 and 4 to baseline annual commercial 
landings suggests the commercial ACLs for these units will not require 
reductions in the lengths of the Federal commercial fishing seasons for 
these units in the Puerto Rico EEZ. Therefore, NMFS expects no adverse 
economic impact on small businesses in Puerto Rico that harvest these 
species.
    The Puerto Rico commercial Snapper Unit 2 ACL is less than the 
baseline annual landings, which suggests there will be an overage of 
Snapper Unit 2

[[Page 82410]]

landings of 509 lb (231 kg) and a shortened Snapper Unit 2 fishing 
season in the Puerto Rico EEZ. NMFS expects that Puerto Rico's small 
businesses will mitigate for the potentially shortened Snapper Unit 2 
fishing season in the Puerto Rico EEZ by moving into territorial waters 
to harvest Snapper Unit 2 species during the time the Federal season is 
closed, because approximately 95 percent of fishable area off Puerto 
Rico is in territorial waters. Hence, NMFS projects that Puerto Rico 
small businesses would lose up to 10 percent of baseline Snapper Unit 2 
landings annually with a value up to $383. That loss represents less 
than a tenth of a percent of annual Snapper Unit 2 landings and on 
average, less than 1 lb (0.45 kg) of Snapper Unit 2 species and less 
than $1 lost per small business in Puerto Rico. Another mitigating 
behavior would be to target alternative species in the Puerto Rico EEZ 
that have open seasons.
    The St. Croix ACLs for parrotfish, snapper and grouper are less 
than baseline average annual landings, which indicates fishing seasons 
for these units will be reduced. St. Croix small businesses will incur 
annual losses of landings of up to 34 percent of parrotfish landings, 
27 percent of snapper landings, and 6 percent of grouper landings each 
year. These reductions represent losses of ex-vessel revenue up to 
approximately $0.83 million annually. The average St. Croix small 
business will lose up to $3,706 annually. When estimated losses of 
revenues from the 2011 ACLs Amendment are added, St. Croix small 
businesses lose collectively up to $1.19 million annually.
    The St. Thomas/St. John ACLs for parrotfish, snapper and grouper 
are less than baseline average annual landings, which indicates fishing 
seasons for these units will be reduced. St. Thomas/St. John small 
businesses will lose up to 6 percent of parrotfish, 20 percent of 
snapper and 9 percent of grouper landings each year. These reductions 
represent losses of ex-vessel revenue up to approximately $0.27 
million. The average St. Thomas/St. John small business will lose up to 
$1,690 annually. When estimated losses of revenues from the 2011 ACLs 
Amendment are added, St. Thomas/St. John small businesses lose 
collectively up to $0.51 million annually.
    The percent of fishable area in the U.S. Virgin Islands' 
territorial waters is significantly less than the percent of fishable 
area in Puerto Rico's territorial waters. 38 percent of fishable area 
off the U.S. Virgin Islands lies within the U.S. Caribbean EEZ, and a 
larger share of landings in St. Croix and St. Thomas/St. John derive 
from fishing in the EEZ than in Puerto Rico. Therefore, it is more 
difficult for U.S. Virgin Islands fishermen to substitute fishing in 
territorial waters for fishing in Federal waters.
    The final rule rejects alternatives that would have established 
ACLs and AMs that would have resulted in larger reductions in Federal 
fishing seasons and greater significant adverse economic impacts on 
small businesses, especially in the USVI.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

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

    Dated: December 22, 2011.
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 amended 
as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  622.32, paragraph (b)(1)(v) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.32  Prohibited and limited-harvest species.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) No person may fish for or possess midnight parrotfish, blue 
parrotfish, or rainbow parrotfish in or from the Caribbean EEZ. Such 
fish caught in the Caribbean EEZ must be released with a minimum of 
harm.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  622.33, paragraph (d)(1) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  622.33  Caribbean EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Pursuant to the procedures and criteria established in the FMP 
for Queen Conch Resources in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 
when the ACL, as specified in Sec.  622.49(c)(2)(i)(A), is reached or 
projected to be reached, the Regional Administrator will close the 
Caribbean EEZ to the harvest and possession of queen conch, in the area 
east of 64[deg]34[min] W. longitude which includes Lang Bank, east of 
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, by filing a notification of closure 
with the Office of the Federal Register.
* * * * *

0
4. In Sec.  622.39, paragraph (g) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.39  Bag and possession limits.

* * * * *
    (g) Caribbean reef fish--(1) Applicability. Paragraph (a)(1) of 
this section notwithstanding, the bag limits of paragraph (g)(2) of 
this section do not apply to a person who has a valid commercial 
fishing license issued by Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    (2) Bag limits. Groupers, snappers, and parrotfishes combined--5 
per person per day or, if 3 or more persons are aboard, 15 per vessel 
per day; but not to exceed 2 parrotfish per person per day or 6 
parrotfish per vessel per day.


0
5. In Sec.  622.48, paragraph (b) is revised and paragraph (m) is added 
to read as follows:


Sec.  622.48  Adjustment of management measures.

* * * * *
    (b) Caribbean reef fish. Fishery management units (FMUs), quotas, 
trip limits, bag limits, size limits, closed seasons or areas, gear 
restrictions, fishing years, MSY, OY, TAC, maximum fishing mortality 
threshold (MFMT), minimum stock size threshold (MSST), overfishing 
limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC) control rules, ACLs, 
AMs, ACTs, and actions to minimize the interaction of fishing gear with 
endangered species or marine mammals.
* * * * *
    (m) Caribbean queen conch. Quotas, trip limits, bag limits, size 
limits, closed seasons or areas, gear restrictions, fishing year, MSY, 
OY, TAC, MFMT, MSST, OFL, ABC control rules, ACLs, AMs, ACTs, and 
actions to minimize the interaction of fishing gear with endangered 
species or marine mammals.


0
6. In Sec.  622.49, the section heading is revised and paragraph (c) is 
added to read as follows:


Sec.  622.49  Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures 
(AMs).

* * * * *
    (c) Caribbean island management areas. If landings from a Caribbean 
island management area, as specified in Appendix E to part 622, except 
for landings of queen conch (see Sec.  622.33(d)), are estimated by the 
SRD to have exceeded the applicable ACL, as specified in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section for Puerto Rico management

[[Page 82411]]

area species or species groups, paragraph (c)(2) of this section for 
St. Croix management area species or species groups, or paragraph 
(c)(3) for St. Thomas/St. John management area species or species 
groups, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal 
Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to 
reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or 
species groups that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do 
not exceed the applicable ACL. If NMFS determines the ACL for a 
particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced 
data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total 
catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length 
of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group the 
following fishing year. Landings will be evaluated relative to the 
applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as 
described in the FMP. With the exceptions of Caribbean queen conch in 
Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John management areas, goliath grouper, 
Nassau grouper, midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and rainbow 
parrotfish, ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and 
territorial landings for each management area. The ACLs specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this section are given in 
round weight. (See Sec.  622.32 for limitations on taking prohibited 
and limited harvest species. The limitations in Sec.  622.32 apply 
without regard to whether the species is harvested by a vessel 
operating under a valid commercial fishing license issued by Puerto 
Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands or by a person subject to the bag 
limits.)
    (1) Puerto Rico--(i) Commercial ACLs. The following ACLs apply to 
commercial landings of Puerto Rico management area species or species 
groups.
    (A) Queen conch--0 lb (0 kg), for the EEZ only.
    (B) Parrotfishes--52,737 lb (23,915 kg).
    (C) Snapper Unit 1--284,685 lb (129,131 kg).
    (D) Snapper Unit 2--145,916 lb (66,186 kg).
    (E) Snapper Unit 3--345,775 lb (156,841 kg).
    (F) Snapper Unit 4--373,295 lb (169,324 kg).
    (G) Groupers--177,513 lb (80,519 kg).
    (ii) Recreational ACLs. The following ACLs apply to recreational 
landings of Puerto Rico management area species or species groups.
    (A) Queen conch--0 lb (0 kg), for the EEZ only.
    (B) Parrotfishes--15,263 lb (6,921 kg).
    (C) Snapper Unit 1--95,526 lb (43,330 kg).
    (D) Snapper Unit 2--34,810 lb (15,790 kg).
    (E) Snapper Unit 3--83,158 lb (37,720 kg).
    (F) Snapper Unit 4--28,509 lb (12,931 kg).
    (G) Groupers--77,213 lb (35,023 kg).
    (2) St. Croix. (i) ACLs. The following ACLs apply to landings of 
St. Croix management area species or species groups.
    (A) Queen conch--50,000 lb (22,680 kg).
    (B) Parrotfishes--240,000 lb (108,863 kg).
    (C) Snappers--102,946 lb (46,696 kg).
    (D) Groupers--30,435 lb (13,805 kg).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) St. Thomas/St. John. (i) ACLs. The following ACLs apply to 
landings of St. Thomas/St. John management area species or species 
groups.
    (A) Queen conch--0 lb (0 kg), for the EEZ only.
    (B) Parrotfishes--42,500 lb (19,278 kg).
    (C) Snappers--133,775 lb (60,679 kg).
    (D) Groupers--51,849 lb (23,518 kg).
    (ii) [Reserved]


0
7. In table 2 of Appendix A to Part 622, Lutjanidae--Snappers, units 1 
and 2 are revised; In Serranidae--Sea basses and groupers, units 3 and 
4 are revised; and In Serranidae--Sea basses and groupers, unit 5 is 
added to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 622--Species Tables

* * * * *

Table 2 of Appendix A to Part 622--Caribbean Reef Fish

Lutjanidae--Snappers

Unit 1

Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus
Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella
Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus
Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens
Wenchman, Pristipomoides aquilonaris

Unit 2

Cardinal, Pristipomoides macrophthalmus
Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus
* * * * *

Serranidae--Sea basses and Groupers

* * * * *

Unit 3

Coney, Epinephelus fulvus
Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus
Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus
Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis

Unit 4

Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci
Red grouper, Epinephelus morio
Tiger grouper, Mycteroperca tigris
Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa

Unit 5

Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus
Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus
* * * * *

0
8. Appendix E to part 622 is added to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 622--Caribbean Island/Island Group Management Areas

    Table 1 of Appendix E to Part 622--Coordinates of the Puerto 
Rico Management Area.
    The Puerto Rico management area is bounded by rhumb lines 
connecting, in order, the following points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Point                                North lat.                         West long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A (intersects with the International/EEZ    19[deg]37'29''                     65[deg]20'57''
 boundary).
B (intersects with the EEZ/Territorial      18[deg]25'46.3015''                65[deg]06'31.866''
 boundary).
From Point B, proceed southerly along the
 EEZ/Territorial boundary to Point C
    C (intersects with the EEZ/Territorial  18[deg]13'59.0606''                65[deg]05'33.058''
     boundary).
    D.....................................  18[deg]01'16.9636''                64[deg]57'38.817''
    E.....................................  17[deg]30'00.000''                 65[deg]20'00.1716''
    F.....................................  16[deg]02'53.5812''                65[deg]20'00.1716''
From Point F, proceed southwesterly, then
 northerly, then easterly, and finally
 southerly along the International/EEZ
 boundary to Point A
    A (intersects with the International/   19[deg]37'29''                     65[deg]20'57''
     EEZ boundary).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 82412]]

    Table 2 of Appendix E to Part 622--Coordinates of the St. Croix 
Management Area.
    The St. Croix management area is bounded by rhumb lines 
connecting, in order, the following points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Point                                North lat.                         West long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.........................................  18[deg]03'03''                     64[deg]38'03''
From Point G, proceed easterly, then
 southerly, then southwesterly along the
 EEZ/Territorial boundary to Point F
    F.....................................  16[deg]02'53.5812''                65[deg]20'00.1716''
    E.....................................  17[deg]30'00.000''                 65[deg]20'00.1716''
    D.....................................  18[deg]01'16.9636''                64[deg]57'38.817''
    G.....................................  18[deg]03'03''                     64[deg]38'03''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 of Appendix E to Part 622--Coordinates of the St. 
Thomas/St. John Management Area.
    The St. Thomas/St. John management area is bounded by rhumb 
lines connecting, in order, the following points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Point                                North lat.                         West long.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A (intersects with the International/EEZ    19[deg]37'29''                     65[deg]20'57''
 boundary).
From Point A, proceed southeasterly along
 the EEZ/Territorial boundary to Point G
    G.....................................  18[deg]03'03''                     64[deg]38'03''
    D.....................................  18[deg]01'16.9636''                64[deg]57'38.817''
    C (intersects with the EEZ/Territorial  18[deg]13'59.0606''                65[deg]05'33.058''
     boundary).
From Point C, proceed northerly along the
 EEZ/Territorial boundary to Point B
    B (intersects with the EEZ/Territorial  18[deg]25'46.3015''                65[deg]06'31.866''
     boundary).
    A (intersects with the International/   19[deg]37'29''                     65[deg]20'57''
     EEZ boundary).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-33512 Filed 12-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P