Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31831

Point North lat. West long.

A ................................................................................................................................................................... 29°17′ 85°50′

B ................................................................................................................................................................... 29°17′ 85°38′

C .................................................................................................................................................................. 29°06′ 85°38′

D .................................................................................................................................................................. 29°06′ 85°50′

A ................................................................................................................................................................... 29°17′ 85°50′

Steamboat Lumps is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the following points:

Point North lat. West long.

A ................................................................................................................................................................... 28°14′ 84°48′

B ................................................................................................................................................................... 28°14′ 84°37′

C .................................................................................................................................................................. 28°03′ 84°37′

D .................................................................................................................................................................. 28°03′ 84°48′

A ................................................................................................................................................................... 28°14′ 84°48′

* * * * *

(o) Seasonal closure of the

commercial fishery for gag, red grouper,

and black grouper. From February 15 to

March 15, each year, no person aboard

a vessel for which a valid Federal

commercial permit for Gulf reef fish has

been issued may possess gag, red

grouper, or black grouper in the Gulf,

regardless of where harvested. However,

a person aboard a vessel for which the

permit indicates both charter vessel/

headboat for Gulf reef fish and

commercial Gulf reef fish may continue

to retain gag, red grouper, and black

grouper under the bag and possession

limit specified in § 622.39(b), provided

the vessel is operating as a charter

vessel or headboat. From February 15

until March 15, each year, the sale or

purchase of gag, red grouper, or black

grouper is prohibited as specified in

§ 622.45(c)(4).

3. In § 622.37, paragraph (d)(2)(ii) is

revised and paragraph (d)(2)(iii) is

added to read as follows:

§ 622.37 Size limits.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) Red grouper and yellowfin

grouper—20 inches (50.8 cm), TL.

(iii) Black grouper and gag—(A) For a

person not subject to the bag limit

specified in § 622.39(b)(1)(ii)—24 inches

(61.0 cm), TL.

(B) For a person subject to the bag

limit specified in § 622.39(b)(1)(ii)—22

inches (55.9 cm), TL.

* * * * *

4. In § 622.45, paragraph (c)(4) is

added to read as ollows:

§ 622.45 Restrictions on sale/purchase.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) From February 15 until March 15,

each year, no person may sell or

purchase a gag, black grouper, or red

grouper harvested from the Gulf by a

vessel with a valid Federal commercial

permit for Gulf reef fish. This

prohibition on sale/purchase does not

apply to gag, black grouper, or red

grouper that were harvested, landed

ashore, and sold prior to February 15

and were held in cold storage by a

dealer or processor.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–12578 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 622 and 654

[Docket No. 000511134–0134–01; I.D.

072699D]

RIN 0648–AL81

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Fishery

Management Plans of the Gulf of

Mexico; Addition to FMP Framework

Provisions; Stone Crab Gear

Requirements

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

implement those provisions of the

Generic Sustainable Fisheries Act

Amendment to the Fishery Management

Plans (FMPs) of the Gulf of Mexico (SFA

Amendment) that modify the framework

regulatory adjustment procedures in the

FMPs for reef fish, red drum, and

coastal migratory pelagics. These FMP

framework modifications allow timely

addition of various stock population

parameters to the appropriate FMP(s),

including biomass-based estimates of

minimum stock size thresholds

(MSSTs), optimum yield (OY),

maximum sustainable yield (MSY),

stock biomass achieved by fishing at

MSY (BMSY), and maximum fishing

mortality thresholds (MFMTs). These

regulations also revise the stone crab

trap construction requirements, as

proposed by the SFA Amendment. The

intended effects are to provide a more

timely mechanism for incorporating

stock population parameters into the

applicable FMPs when such information

becomes available and to establish stone

crab trap construction regulations that

are compatible with those of the State of

Florida and that will reduce finfish

bycatch.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

19, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy

Crabtree, telephone: 727–570–5305, fax:

727–570–5583, e-mail:

Roy.Crabtree@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SFA

Amendment addresses fisheries under

the FMPs for coral and coral reef

resources, coastal migratory pelagics,

red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny

lobster, and stone crab. The FMPs were

prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council), except

for the FMPs for coastal migratory

pelagics and spiny lobster that were

prepared jointly by the South Atlantic

and Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Councils. All of these

FMPs, except the spiny lobster and

stone crab FMPs, are implemented

31832 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

under the authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622.

The Fishery Management Plan for the

Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of

Mexico and South Atlantic is

implemented by regulations at 50 CFR

part 640; the Fishery Management Plan

for the Stone Crab Fishery of the Gulf of

Mexico is implemented by regulations

at 50 CFR part 654.

On August 18, 1999, NMFS

announced the availability of the SFA

Amendment and requested comments

on it (64 FR 44884). On November 2,

1999, NMFS published a proposed rule

to implement those provisions of the

SFA Amendment that required

rulemaking (i.e., the modifications of

the framework procedures of the

applicable FMPs and the changes to the

stone crab trap construction

requirements) and requested comments

on the proposed rule (64 FR 59153). The

background and rationale for the

measures in the SFA Amendment and

proposed rule are contained in the

preamble to the proposed rule and are

not repeated here.

On November 17, 1999, after

considering the comments received,

NMFS partially approved the SFA

Amendment. NMFS approved the

portions of the amendment dealing with

descriptions of the fisheries and fishing

communities, the spawning potential

ratio (SPR) proxies submitted for the

MFMTs (except for red snapper), the

MSSTs for shrimp, and the proposed

changes in the construction

characteristics of stone crab traps.

NMFS disapproved the portion of the

amendment dealing with bycatch

reporting, because the Council has not

fulfilled the Magnuson-Stevens Act

requirement to develop standardized

reporting to assess the amount and type

of bycatch. NMFS also disapproved the

portion of the amendment dealing with

bycatch reduction, except for the

measure for the construction of stone

crab traps. This disapproval was based

on national standard 9, because the

Council has not fulfilled the MagnusonStevens Act mandate to reduce bycatch

to the extent practicable and has not

adequately explained why additional

measures to reduce bycatch are not

practicable. NMFS disapproved the

following actions regarding overfishing

targets and thresholds. All of the SPRs

submitted as proxies for MSY, OY, and

the MSST were disapproved based on

national standards 1 and 2 because they

are not consistent with the best

available scientific information and do

not provide an adequate basis for

achieving OY on a continuing basis. The

targets and thresholds proposed for

shrimp are biomass-based; however, the

proxies for MSY and OY were

disapproved and must be revised to

reflect the yields associated with the

various biomass proxies proposed. The

MFMT (referred to as an ‘‘overfishing

threshold’’) for royal red shrimp was

disapproved based on national

standards 1 and 2 because no fishing

mortality rate is explicitly specified;

therefore, no objective basis was

provided for determining whether

overfishing is occurring. NMFS

disapproved the rebuilding schedules

for king mackerel and red snapper based

on national standards 1 and 2. The

rebuilding targets specified are fishing

mortality based (static SPR) rather than

biomass-based as required by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national

standard guidelines. NMFS recently

provided the information needed to

develop new rebuilding plans to the

Council. The static SPR targets would

not allow an adequate determination of

the management measures required to

rebuild these stocks to a biomass

capable of producing MSY because

static SPR is not sensitive to population

size and reflects only current levels of

fishing mortality. The Council did not

propose rebuilding schedules for red

drum, Nassau grouper, or jewfish.

Additional rationale for NMFS’

approvals and disapprovals of the

various components of the SFA

Amendment are provided in the

Comments and Responses Section.

Those measures that were

disapproved were not contained in the

proposed rule; therefore, no changes to

the proposed rule resulted from the

disapprovals. No comments were

received on the proposed rule, and the

proposed rule has been adopted as final

without change. NMFS received 11

comments on the SFA Amendment.

They are summarized below:

Comments and Responses

Comment 1: Two environmental

groups recommended that NMFS

disapprove the environmental

assessment (EA) included in the

amendment. They commented that the

EA failed to adequately analyze the

direct, indirect, and cumulative

environmental impacts of the proposed

actions and reasonable alternatives that

would minimize adverse impacts.

Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS has

determined that no significant impact

on the human environment will result

from the approved measures. The

proposed action, in the context of the

fishery as a whole, will not have an

adverse impact on the environment. The

description of the affected environment

for the fisheries under the jurisdiction of

the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries

Management Council is discussed in the

Generic Amendment for Addressing

Essential Fish Habitat. The only specific

regulatory action that would affect fish

stocks or the environment is the

adoption of the construction

characteristics of stone crab traps set

forth in Chapter 46–13.002(2)(a) of

Florida law. This measure is intended to

reduce bycatch in the stone crab fishery

and is not expected to have any adverse

effects on the environment. The

remaining measures proposed in the

SFA Amendment address bycatch,

overfishing definitions, and rebuilding

schedules; however, the amendment

proposes no regulatory actions that

directly affect allocations or would be

expected to substantially alter existing

fishing practices in a way that would be

detrimental to the environment. In

addition, section 13.0 of the EA

incorporates by reference sections of the

amendment containing a description of

the expected environmental

consequences of each of the proposed

alternatives considered. Additional

environmental analyses and

determinations will be made as future

regulatory measures are implemented to

achieve the goals of the SFA

Amendment.

Comment 2: Five groups objected to

the provisions of the amendment

regarding reporting and minimization of

bycatch. All commented that additional

reporting requirements were needed to

fully describe bycatch and that

additional measures were required to

reduce bycatch.

Response: NMFS agrees that

additional bycatch reporting measures

are required. NMFS has disapproved the

portion of the amendment dealing with

bycatch reporting. The Council has not

fulfilled the Magnuson-Stevens Act

requirement to develop standardized

reporting to assess the amount and type

of bycatch. The Council has taken steps

to improve bycatch reporting, such as

the cooperative state-Federal program

under development by the Gulf States

Marine Fisheries Commission, but this

program is not yet fully implemented.

Furthermore, NMFS is developing a

bycatch reporting requirement in future

and current logbooks that will be

implemented on January 1, 2001. The

Council proposed no new measures to

improve bycatch reporting in its SFA

Amendment; however, the Council is

currently developing options to address

bycatch problems in the shrimp fishery.

These options include requiring bycatch

reduction devices (BRDs) in the eastern

Gulf, permits, logbooks, and observer

programs.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31833

NMFS agrees that the SFA

amendment does not fulfill the

Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to

reduce bycatch to the extent practicable.

The Council has not adequately

explained why additional measures to

reduce bycatch are not practicable.

NMFS has disapproved the portion of

the amendment dealing with bycatch

reduction except the modifications in

the construction of stone crab traps.

NMFS has requested that the Council

take more aggressive action throughout

the Gulf to reduce shrimp trawl bycatch.

Such action could include extending the

requirement for BRDs into Federal

waters east of Cape San Blas, Florida,

effort reduction in the fishery, closed

areas, or seasonal closures. NMFS has

approved the proposed changes in the

construction characteristics of stone

crab traps intended to reduce bycatch in

that fishery.

Comment 3: Three environmental

groups recommended disapproval of the

proposed rebuilding plans for

overfished species on the basis that the

plans were either incomplete or

proposed no specific description of how

stocks are to be rebuilt. Some

recommended that interim goals were

needed within the proposed rebuilding

period to ensure that rebuilding was

occurring on schedule.

Response: NMFS has disapproved the

rebuilding schedules for king mackerel

and red snapper based on national

standards 1 and 2 because they

specified fishing mortality-based

rebuilding targets rather than biomassbased targets, and because the time to

rebuild in the absence of fishing

mortality was not estimated based on

rebuilding to biomass at MSY, as

required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act

and the national standard guidelines.

Therefore, they are not based on the best

available scientific information and

provide no adequate basis for

preventing overfishing and rebuilding

stocks. Furthermore, the 26-percent

spawning potential ratio (SPR) level

specified as a proxy for red snapper is

unlikely to reflect the fishing mortality

rate at MSY according to the 1999 report

of the Reef Fish Stock Assessment

Panel. The Council did not propose

rebuilding schedules for red drum,

Nassau grouper, or jewfish. NMFS has

recently provided the Council with

information needed to revise rebuilding

plans and requested that the Council

submit the revisions through framework

procedures as soon as possible. NMFS

agrees that interim goals within an

extended rebuilding period would be a

valuable and precautionary way to

ensure that a stock is rebuilding as

planned; however, such goals are not

explicitly required by the guidelines.

Comment 4: Four environmental

groups commented on the fishery

management targets and thresholds

proposed and specifically on the lack of

any specification of the minimum stock

size threshold (MSST). Some groups

suggested that an interim SPR proxy be

established for the MSST until biomassbased estimates are available.

Response: NMFS has disapproved the

SPRs submitted as proxies for MSY, OY,

and MSST based on national standards

1 and 2. The Council must provide

biomass-based estimates of MSY, OY,

and MSST that are consistent with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national

standard guidelines rather than proxies

based on fishing mortality, which is not

based on the best available scientific

information and would not provide an

adequate measure for determining

whether OY can be achieved on a

continuing basis. The SPR proxies

submitted for MFMT were approved

with the exception of red snapper,

which was disapproved based on

national standards 1 and 2 because the

26-percent SPR level specified is

unlikely to reflect the fishing mortality

rate at MSY, according to the 1999

report of the Reef Fish Stock

Assessment Panel. The MFMT for royal

red shrimp was also disapproved

because no fishing mortality rate is

explicitly specified. Static SPR is an

acceptable proxy for the MFMT;

however, SPR is not biomass-based and

is not an acceptable proxy for MSST.

Transitional SPR can be a useful

measure of the extent to which past

fishing mortality has distorted the age

structure of a stock, but it is not

sensitive to population size or biomass

and, thus, is not an acceptable proxy for

MSST.

Comment 5: Two charter-boat groups

commented on the need for increased

bycatch reduction in the shrimp fishery.

They stated that BRDs have not reduced

bycatch sufficiently and that a bycatch

quota is needed in the shrimp fishery.

Response: NMFS agrees that

additional bycatch reduction is required

in the Gulf shrimp fishery. NMFS has

disapproved the portion of the

amendment dealing with bycatch

reduction. The Council has not fulfilled

the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandate to

reduce bycatch to the extent practicable

and has not adequately explained why

additional measures to reduce bycatch

are not practicable. NMFS has

encouraged the Council to take more

aggressive action throughout the Gulf to

reduce shrimp trawl bycatch. NMFS has

also notified the Council that additional

measures to monitor bycatch in the

shrimp fishery are needed. The Council

is currently developing options to

address bycatch problems in the shrimp

fishery. These options include BRDs in

the eastern Gulf, permits, logbooks, and

observer programs. The Council has not

previously considered bycatch quotas in

the shrimp fishery; however, this idea

may merit future consideration.

Comment 6: Three charter-boat groups

commented that the overfishing

thresholds for finfish were too

conservative and should be

disapproved. They specifically objected

to the proposed thresholds for red

snapper, jewfish, and Nassau grouper.

They stated that MSY should be

established on an individual basis.

Response: NMFS agrees that MSY

thresholds should be established on an

individual species basis. NMFS

disagrees that the proposed overfishing

thresholds are overly conservative. The

proposed SPR levels are consistent with

a large body of published scientific

literature regarding appropriate

threshold levels to prevent recruitment

overfishing. NMFS has disapproved the

SPRs submitted as proxies for MSY, OY,

and MSST based on national standards

1 and 2, because they are based on

fishing mortality and are not consistent

with the best available scientific

information and are not adequate

criteria for determining whether OY can

be achieved on a continuing basis. The

Council must provide species-specific,

biomass-based estimates of MSY, OY,

and MSST that are consistent with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and the national

standard guidelines.

Comment 7: One environmental group

commented that the MFMT level should

be set lower than MSY.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Both MSY

and MFMT are limit thresholds. MSY is

a biomass-based yield and MFMT is a

fishing mortality rate, and, therefore, the

two thresholds are not strictly

comparable. NMFS’ technical guidance

recommends that MFMT be specified as

the fishing mortality rate associated

with MSY (FMSY). The SFA amendment

specified fishing-mortality-rate proxies

(i.e., SPR) for MSY for most species.

Thus, the amendment specifies MSY

equal to MFMT for most stocks. The use

of an SPR proxy is appropriate for

MFMT but not for MSY, and NMFS has

disapproved the SPR proxies submitted

for MSY. Static SPR is an acceptable

proxy for the MFMT; however, SPR is

not biomass-based and is not indicative

of any particular stock size or yield.

Transitional SPR can be a useful

measure of the extent to which past

fishing mortality has distorted the age

structure of a stock, but it is not

sensitive to population size or biomass

31834 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

and, thus, is not an acceptable proxy for

MSY. The Council must provide

species-specific, biomass-based

estimates of MSY and MSST in addition

to the fishing-mortality-based proxies

provided.

Comment 8: Two environmental

groups commented that additional

measures are required to reduce bycatch

in the reef fish fishery. These groups

specifically raised concerns regarding

bycatch of Nassau grouper and jewfish

and requested that NMFS evaluate the

level of bycatch of these two species.

Response: The Marine Recreational

Fisheries Statistics Survey monitored

bycatch in the reef fish recreational

fishery. NMFS agrees that additional

measures to reduce bycatch and better

bycatch reporting measures in the

commercial fishery are required. NMFS

has disapproved the portions of the

amendment dealing with reducing

bycatch and bycatch reporting. The

Council has taken steps to improve

bycatch reporting, such as the

cooperative state-Federal program under

development by the Gulf States Marine

Fisheries Commission, but this program

is not yet fully implemented.

Furthermore, NMFS is developing a

bycatch reporting requirement in future

and current logbooks that will be

implemented on January 1, 2001. NMFS

intends to continue to evaluate the

effect of bycatch on the recovery of

overfished reef fish stocks and to

encourage the Council to take additional

steps to reduce bycatch and increase the

survival rates of fish caught and

released in the reef fish fishery as

needed. Thus, the Council has made

progress towards improved bycatch

monitoring in the Gulf, but several of

the measures are still in development.

The Council is also considering the

need for mandatory observers to

monitor bycatch in Gulf fisheries.

NMFS intends to continue to evaluate

the effect of bycatch on the recovery of

overfished reef fish stocks and to

encourage the Council to take additional

steps to reduce bycatch and increase the

survival rates of fish caught and

released in the reef fish fishery as

needed. NMFS recently published a

NOAA Technical Report assessing the

status of Nassau grouper and jewfish.

NMFS is currently monitoring numbers

of jewfish and Nassau grouper caught

and released in the recreational fishery.

Comment 9: One commercial industry

group commented that the proposed red

snapper overfishing targets and

thresholds were far too conservative.

Response: NMFS disapproved the

proposed red snapper overfishing

targets and thresholds but disagrees

with the assertion that the proposed

thresholds are overly conservative. The

proxies proposed for red snapper

overfishing targets and thresholds are

consistent with previous

recommendations of the reef fish stock

assessment panels that were available to

the Council at the time the SFA

amendment was prepared. NMFS

disapproved the overfishing thresholds

and the rebuilding period proposed for

red snapper because (1) the rebuilding

target specified is fishing-mortalitybased (26-percent SPR) rather than

biomass-based, (2) the 26-percent SPR

level specified as a proxy for MSY is

unlikely to reflect the fishing mortality

rate at MSY, according to the 1999

report of the Reef Fish Stock

Assessment Panel, and (3) the time to

rebuild in the absence of fishing

mortality was not estimated based on

rebuilding to biomass at MSY, as

required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act

and the national standard guidelines.

The Council must provide additional

biomass-based estimates of MSY and

MSST, in addition to the fishingmortality-based proxies provided, that

address the recommendations of the

Stock Assessment Panel and are

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens

Act and the national standard

guidelines. Biomass-based targets and

thresholds were included in the 1999

red snapper stock assessment and have

been reviewed by the Reef Fish Stock

Assessment Panel, but not yet by the

Council.

Comment 10: One commercial

industry group commented that the Gulf

shrimp fishery has already minimized

bycatch to the extent practicable. They

argued that BRDs do not reduce bycatch

mortality effectively and should not be

required.

Response: NMFS disagrees. Current

estimates of the effectiveness of BRDs

suggest that a reduction in red snapper

mortality of approximately 40 percent

has been achieved and that greater

reductions in 2000 are likely to result

from changes in the design of acceptable

BRDs, and from improvements in

industry’s ability to use BRDs effectively

as experience is gained. The 1999 Reef

Fish Stock Assessment Panel also

concluded that red snapper bycatch was

reduced about 40 percent in 1999. BRD

performance improved in 1999, in part,

because NMFS no longer allows the

BRD configuration in which the

elephant ear flap obstructs the opening

of the BRD.

The Council is currently developing

options to address bycatch problems in

the shrimp fishery. These options

include BRDs in the eastern Gulf,

permits, logbooks, and observer

programs. NMFS believes that BRDs

have significantly reduced shrimp trawl

bycatch in the western Gulf but that

additional reductions are needed. NMFS

has disapproved the portion of the

amendment dealing with bycatch

reduction based on national standard 9,

except that portion addressing the

modifications in stone crab trap

construction. The Council has made

progress towards reducing bycatch in

the Gulf shrimp fishery by requiring

BRDs in the western Gulf, but the

Council has not adequately explained

why additional measures to reduce

bycatch are not practicable. Thus, it is

not clear that the Council has fulfilled

the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s mandate to

reduce bycatch to the extent practicable.

Bycatch in the shrimp fishery has a

substantial effect on many finfish

stocks, including red snapper. NMFS

has encouraged the Council to take more

aggressive action throughout the Gulf to

reduce shrimp trawl bycatch. Such

action could include extending the

requirement for BRDs into Federal

waters east of Cape San Blas, Florida,

effort reduction in the fishery, closed

areas, or seasonal closures. NMFS

believes that these actions may be

practicable and could reduce bycatch

substantially. NMFS has also notified

the Council that additional measures to

monitor bycatch in the shrimp fishery

are needed.

Comment 11: Two environmental

groups commented that more

conservative fishery management targets

and thresholds are needed for

hermaphroditic species (species that

change sex) such as groupers.

Response: NMFS agrees that a

precautionary approach to the

management of hermaphroditic species

is appropriate. Hermaphroditic species

may respond differently to fishing

mortality than typical nonhermaphroditic species do, and, in some

situations, hermaphrodites that change

sex from female to male may be more

sensitive to overfishing than nonhermaphrodites. The SFA amendment

proposes more conservative targets and

thresholds for grouper than those

currently approved. NMFS has

approved the SPR proxies proposed for

MFMT for hermaphroditic groupers but

has disapproved the SPR proxies

proposed for MSY, OY, and MSST for

hermaphroditic groupers based on

national standards 1 and 2, because they

are based on fishing mortality, are not

consistent with the best available

scientific information, and are not

adequate criteria for determining

whether OY can be achieved on a

continuing basis. The Council must

provide biomass-based estimates of

MSY, OY, and MSST; the estimates

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 31835

must be consistent with the national

standard guidelines in addition to the

fishing-mortality-based proxies

provided by the Council. The Reef Fish

Stock Assessment Panel will review

these biomass-based estimates and

evaluate their appropriateness for

promoting sustainable fisheries for

hermaphroditic species.

Classification

The Regional Administrator,

Southeast Region, NMFS, with the

concurrence of the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA,

determined that the approved measures

of the SFA Amendment are necessary

for the conservation and management of

the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and

that, with the exception of the

provisions that were disapproved, the

SFA Amendment is consistent with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act and other

applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of

the Department of Commerce certified

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration that the

proposed rule, if adopted, would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

No comments were received regarding

this certification. As a result, a

regulatory flexibility analysis was not

prepared.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 622

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Virgin Islands.

50 CFR Part 654

Fisheries, Fishing.

Dated: May 15, 2000

Andrew A. Rosenberg,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 654 are

amended as follows:

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH

ATLANTIC

1. The authority citation for part 622

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In § 622.48, paragraphs (c) and (d)

are revised, and paragraph (j) is added

to read as follows:

§ 622.48 Adjustment of management

measures.

* * * * *

(c) Coastal migratory pelagic fish. For

a species or species group: Agestructured analyses, target date for

rebuilding an overfished species, MSY

(or proxy), stock biomass achieved by

fishing at MSY (BMSY) (or proxy),

maximum fishing mortality threshold

(MFMT), minimum stock size threshold

(MSST), OY, TAC, quota (including a

quota of zero), bag limit (including a bag

limit of zero), size limits, vessel trip

limits, closed seasons or areas and

reopenings, gear restrictions (ranging

from regulation to complete

prohibition), reallocation of the

commercial/recreational allocation of

Atlantic group Spanish mackerel, and

permit requirements.

(d) Gulf reef fish. (1) For a species or

species group: Target date for rebuilding

an overfished species, TAC, bag limits,

size limits, vessel trip limits, closed

seasons or areas, gear restrictions,

quotas, MSY (or proxy), OY, and

estimates of stock biomass achieved by

fishing at MSY (BMSY), minimum stock

size threshold (MSST), and maximum

fishing mortality threshold (MFMT).

(2) SMZs and the gear restrictions

applicable in each.

* * * * *

(j) Gulf red drum. Target date for

rebuilding an overfished species, MSY

(or proxy), stock biomass achieved by

fishing at MSY (BMSY), OY, TAC,

minimum stock size threshold (MSST),

maximum fishing mortality threshold

(MFMT), escapement rates for juvenile

fish, bag limits, size limits, gear harvest

limits, and other restrictions required to

prevent exceeding allocations or quotas.

PART 654—STONE CRAB FISHERY OF

THE GULF OF MEXICO

3. The authority citation for part 654

continues to read as follows:

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

4. In § 654.22, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 654.22 Gear restrictions.

(a) Trap construction requirements.

No person fishing for stone crab may

transport on the water or fish with any

trap which does not meet the following

requirements:

(1) Each trap must be constructed of

wood, plastic, or wire.

(2) A trap may be no larger in

dimension than 24 by 24 by 24 inches

(61 by 61 by 61 cm) or 8.0 ft3 (0.23 m3).

(3) The throats (entrances) to all wood

and plastic traps must be located on the

top horizontal section of the trap. If the

throat is longer in one dimension, the

throat size in the longer dimension must

not exceed 51⁄2 inches (14.0 cm) and in

the shorter dimension must not exceed

31⁄2 inches (9.0 cm). If the throat is

round, the throat size must not exceed

5 inches (12.7 cm) in diameter.

(4) In any wire trap used to harvest

stone crabs, each throat must be

horizontally oriented. The width of the

opening where the throat meets the

vertical wall of the trap and the opening

of the throat at its farthest point from

the vertical wall, inside the trap, must

be greater than the height of any such

opening. No such throat may extend

farther than 6 inches (15.2 cm) into the

inside of any trap, measured from where

the throat opening meets the vertical

wall of the trap to the throat opening at

its farthest point from the vertical wall,

inside the trap.

(5) A wire trap must have at least

three unobstructed escape rings

installed, each with a minimum inside

diameter of 23⁄8 inches (6.0 cm). One

such escape ring must be located on a

vertical outer surface adjacent to each

crab retaining chamber.

(6) A plastic or wire trap must have

a degradable panel.

(i) A plastic trap will be considered to

have degradable panel if it contains at

least one sidewall with a rectangular

opening no smaller in either dimension

than that of the throat. This opening

may be obstructed only with a cypress

or untreated pine slat or slats no thicker

than 3⁄4 inch (1.9 cm) such that when

the slat degrades, the opening in the

sidewall of the trap will no longer be

obstructed.

(ii) A wire trap will be considered to

have a degradable panel if one of the

following methods is used in

construction of the trap:

(A) The trap lid tie-down strap is

secured to the trap at one end by a

single loop of untreated jute twine, a

corrodible loop composed of non-coated

steel wire measuring 24 gauge or

thinner, or an untreated pine dowel no

larger than 2 inches (5.1 cm) in length

by 3⁄8 inch (0.95 cm) in diameter. The

trap lid must be secured so that when

the jute, corrodible loop, or pine dowel

degrades, the lid will no longer be

securely closed.

(B) The trap contains at least one

sidewall with a vertical rectangular

opening no smaller in either dimension

than 6 inches (15.2 cm) in height by 3

inches (7.6 cm) in width. This opening

may be laced, sewn, or otherwise

obstructed by—

(1) A single length of untreated jute

twine knotted only at each end and not

tied or looped more than once around

a single mesh bar;

31836 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 98 / Friday, May 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Untreated pine slat(s) no thicker

than 3⁄8 inch (0.95 cm);

(3) Non-coated steel wire measuring

24 gauge or thinner;

(4) A panel of ferrous single-dipped

galvanized wire mesh made of 24 gauge

or thinner wire; or

(5) A rectangular panel made of any

material, fastened to the trap at each of

the four corners of the rectangle by rings

made of non-coated 24 gauge or thinner

wire or single strands of untreated jute

twine. When the jute, untreated pine

slat(s), non-coated steel wire, wire mesh

panel, or corner fasteners degrade, the

opening in the sidewall of the trap must

no longer be obstructed.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–12669 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 980414095–8240–02; I.D.

051200A]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Dealer Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of a 2-month

termination of the deferral of Interactive

Voice Response (IVR) System reporting

requirements for Atlantic cod

purchases.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is

terminating the current deferral of IVR

reporting requirements of Atlantic cod

for a 2-month period, beginning May 28,

2000, and ending July 31, 2000. One of

the management measures for Atlantic

cod includes two conditional 1-month

closures in the Gulf of Maine (GOM). If

the preliminary landings of GOM cod

from May 1, 2000, through July 31,

2000, indicate that the trigger of 1.67

million lb (759 mt) has been reached,

the closures would become effective.

This deferral will enable NMFS to

determine if the trigger has been

reached. Any dealer issued a Northeast

(NE) multispecies permit must submit,

through the IVR system, a weekly

summary of Atlantic cod purchased

from May 28, 2000, through July 31,

2000.

DATES: The 2-month termination of the

deferral of the IVR system reporting

requirements is effective May 28, 2000,

through July 31, 2000. Effective August

1, 2000, the IVR system reporting

requirement for Atlantic cod is deferred

until notification terminating the

deferral for Atlantic cod is published in

the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Arvilla, (978) 281–9255 or

Gregory Power, (978) 281–9304.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To

effectively monitor landings of quotamanaged species on a timely basis,

NMFS issued a final rule (63 FR 52639,

October 1, 1998) requiring federally

permitted dealers to submit a weekly

summary of purchases of quotamanaged species through the IVR

system within 3 days of the end of the

reporting week. To minimize the burden

of dealer reporting requirements, the

regulations implementing the use of an

IVR system authorize (§ 648.7(a)(ii)) the

Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS

(RA), to defer the IVR reporting

requirements for any species if landings

are not expected to reach levels that

would cause the applicable target

exploitation rate specified in the

applicable Fishery Management Plan

(FMP) for that species to be achieved,

resulting in specific management

changes. NMFS announced in the

Federal Register (63 FR 57931, October

29, 1998) the deferral of IVR reporting

requirements for Atlantic mackerel,

butterfish, and regulated NE

multispecies, which included Atlantic

cod.

To address the overfishing of Gulf of

Maine and Georges Bank cod, NMFS

recently published a final rule

implementing Framework Adjustment

33 to the NE Multispecies FMP (65 FR

21658, April 24, 2000). One of the

management measures under

Framework Adjustment 33 is the

conditional 1-month closure of two

areas, which would become effective if

preliminary landings from May 1, 2000,

through July 31, 2000, indicate that

more than 1.67 million lb (759 mt) of

GOM cod have been landed. As

specified in § 648.81(o), if the RA

determines that preliminary landings

through July 31, 2000, indicate that

more than 1.67 million lb (759 mt) has

been landed as of, or before, July 31,

2000, NMFS shall implement the

closures. The trigger (1.67 million lb

(759 mt)) is established at a level that is

50 percent of the total allowable catch

(TAC) level between the TACs

associated with F0.1 and Fmax.

In order to monitor effectively

Atlantic cod landings relative to the

trigger of 1.67 million lb (759 mt),

NMFS is requiring any dealer issued a

NE multispecies permit to submit,

through the IVR system, a weekly

summary of Atlantic cod purchases

made from May 28, 2000, through July

31, 2000. IVR reports must be submitted

within 3 days of the end of the reporting

week. Purchases of Atlantic cod

transacted July 30–31, 2000, must be

reported via the IVR system by

midnight, Eastern time, Tuesday,

August 8, 2000. Following submission

of IVR reports for Atlantic cod

purchases occurring from May 28, 2000,

through July 31, 2000, the IVR system

reporting requirements for Atlantic cod

will again be deferred until notification

terminating the deferral is published in

the Federal Register.

Dealers must continue to report

through the IVR system, their purchases

of the species specified in § 648.7(a) for

which IVR reporting requirements have

not been deferred. These species are

summer flounder, scup, black sea bass,

Illex squid and Loligo squid. If no

purchases of any quota-managed species

are made during the reporting week, a

negative report, so stating, must be

submitted.

As specified in § 648.7(a)(1), dealers

must continue to report purchases of all

species, including those species for

which IVR reporting has been deferred,

on the detailed written reports.

Classification

This action is authorized by 50 CFR

part 648 and is exempt from review

under E.O. 12866.

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

Dated: May 15, 2000.

Bruce Morehead,

Acting Director, Office of Sustainable

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–12668 Filed 5–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F