[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 14, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37292-37296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14528]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 622 and 640

[Docket No. 990621165-0151-02; I.D. 022599A]
RIN 0648-AL43


Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; 
Essential Fish Habitat for Species in the South Atlantic; Amendment 4 
to the Fishery Management Plan for Coral, Coral Reefs, and Live/Hard 
Bottom Habitats of the South Atlantic Region (Coral FMP)

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 4 to the 
Coral FMP. This final rule increases the size of the Oculina Bank 
Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) and incorporates two adjacent 
areas within the Oculina Bank HAPC. Within these areas, fishing with 
bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap is prohibited. 
Furthermore, fishing vessels may not anchor, use an anchor and chain, 
or use a grapple and chain in these areas. This final rule also 
implements regulatory changes to reflect the South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council's (Council's) proposed framework procedure for all 
its fishery management plans (FMPs) that allows for timely modification 
of definitions of essential fish habitat (EFH) and establishment or 
modification of EFH-HAPCs and Coral HAPCs. The intended effect is to 
protect, conserve, and enhance EFH.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 14, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 
prepared by NMFS may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office, 
NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Barnette, 727-570-5305, fax 
727-570-5583, e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84c9ede7ece5e1e8aac6e5f6eae1f0f0e1c4eaebe5e5aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b567278737a7e7735597a69757e6f6f7e5b75747a7a357c746d">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fisheries for shrimp, red drum, snapper-
grouper, coastal migratory pelagics, golden crab, spiny lobster, and 
coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitat of the South Atlantic 
are managed under the Council's FMPs, as approved and implemented by 
NMFS. These FMPs were prepared solely by the Council, except for the 
FMPs for coastal migratory pelagics and spiny lobster that were 
prepared jointly by the Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council. These FMPs are implemented under the authority of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, except for the FMP for 
spiny lobster that is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 640.
    On March 5, 1999, NMFS announced the availability of the 
Comprehensive Amendment Addressing Essential Fish Habitat in Fishery 
Management Plans of the South Atlantic Region (EFH Amendment) and 
requested comments on the EFH Amendment (64 FR 10612). Amendment 4 to 
the Coral FMP was included within the EFH Amendment. On June 3, 1999, 
NMFS approved the EFH Amendment. On July 9, 1999, NMFS published a 
proposed rule to implement the measures in Amendment 4 and requested 
comments on the rule (64 FR 37082). On November 2, 1999, NMFS published 
a supplement to the proposed rule due to the inadvertent omission of 
information from the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 
summary in the proposed rule classification section, and requested 
comments on this supplemental information (64 FR 59152). The background 
and rationale for the measures in the EFH Amendment and proposed rule 
are contained in the preamble to the proposed rule and are not repeated 
here.

Comments and Responses

    Thirteen comments and one group comment were received on the EFH 
Amendment, the proposed rule, and the supplement to the proposed rule. 
A summary of public comments and NMFS' responses follows.
    Comment 1: One commenter and a group comment asserted that the 
Council's economic assessment in the EFH Amendment failed to evaluate 
the impacts on the bottom longline fishery for shark, golden tilefish, 
and grouper, a necessary exercise when implementing the EFH Amendment's 
management measures (Actions 3A (expanded Oculina HAPC) and 3B (two 
satellite Oculina HAPCs)). Therefore, they believe these actions are in

[[Page 37293]]

violation of national standard 8 (conservation and management measures 
shall take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing 
communities by providing for sustained community participation and 
minimizing adverse economic impacts).
    Response: NMFS agrees that the Council's economic assessment in the 
EFH Amendment does not address potential economic impacts to the bottom 
longline fishery. However, NMFS disagrees that these actions are in 
violation of national standard 8. Prior to initiating Secretarial 
review of the EFH Amendment, NMFS reviewed the available data 
(summarized in the IRFA and FRFA) and it reveals substantial catches of 
shark, golden tilefish, and grouper by bottom longline gear from 
statistical grids that encompass the Oculina Bank HAPC. The statistical 
grids are larger than the Oculina Bank HAPC and, therefore, precise 
catches of shark, golden tilefish, and grouper originating from within 
the HAPC are unknown. However, the bottom longline fishery could 
potentially be adversely affected by the expanded and satellite Oculina 
HAPCs.
    Comment 2: One commenter and a group comment commented that large 
portions of the proposed expansion of the Oculina Bank HAPC do not 
include areas identified as Oculina EFH and, thus, are in violation of 
national standard 2 (conservation and management measures shall be 
based on the best scientific information available). The commenters 
maintain that the proposed expansion consists of large areas of flat 
mud bottom devoid of Oculina coral, and that the proposed actions will 
not provide any Oculina coral protection.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that the proposed expansion of the 
Oculina Bank HAPC includes habitat areas aside from Oculina coral 
communities, but disagrees that it is in violation of national standard 
2. When delineating the boundaries for the expanded Oculina Bank HAPC, 
the Council used the best available information to identify vulnerable 
Oculina coral communities. However, the Council included habitat areas 
other than Oculina coral to address enforcement concerns and regulatory 
consistency issues to achieve the desired conservation goals. The 
expansion includes areas adjacent to the Oculina coral communities, 
such as flat mud bottom, to provide a buffer from accidental 
incursions. Furthermore, it was necessary for the expanded area to be 
large enough to allow for effective enforcement; the expanded HAPC 
allows enforcement to more easily identify an incursion and prevent 
potential damage to coral habitat. The expansion also provides 
regulatory consistency between the rock shrimp and calico scallop 
industries by establishing identical prohibited areas for the two 
fleets; presently, the calico scallop fleet is permitted to fish in 
areas closed to the rock shrimp fleet. Therefore, the Council used the 
best available information in expanding the Oculina Bank HAPC. However, 
relevant enforcement and regulatory issues that may have jeopardized 
the effectiveness of the expanded Oculina Bank HAPC also influenced the 
proposed boundaries.
    Comment 3: Two commenters requested an extension of the Notice of 
Availability comment period past May 4, 1999, based on their belief 
that the necessary documents were not available for distribution or 
review. Furthermore, they claim that the internet web sites that 
provide access to online versions of the documents were constantly 
malfunctioning.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. Copies of the EFH 
Amendment and the associated Habitat Plan were available during the 
subject comment period as reflected by numerous other comments received 
from other groups. Although the Council's supply of documents was 
temporarily depleted, there was sufficient time for the public to 
receive the documents and review and comment within the statutory 60-
day comment period. Furthermore, the EFH Amendment was available on the 
Council internet web site throughout the comment period. Claims that 
the internet web site was malfunctioning are unsubstantiated.
    Comment 4: Four commenters supported the conservation and 
management efforts of the Habitat Plan and the EFH Amendment, including 
the proposed measures to expand the Oculina Bank HAPC to protect EFH. 
However, all groups noted that EFH and EFH-HAPC identification should 
be improved to be species specific in subsequent amendments to FMPs.
    Response: NMFS agrees with these comments and believes the Council 
provided an exceptional source document on EFH in its Habitat Plan and 
is well on its way to improve EFH information.
    Comment 5: Two commenters stated that the Council has not 
identified and minimized all fishing gear impacts. Additionally, one 
commenter claimed that few if any management measures have been 
implemented to protect EFH from the effects of a number of gears, 
providing the example of bottom trawls. The commenter contended that 
while bottom trawls are prohibited in and around the Oculina Bank HAPC, 
they are allowed elsewhere in the South Atlantic exclusive economic 
zone (EEZ) where there is a potential to damage other hard bottom 
habitat areas.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. NMFS believes that the 
Council has done an adequate job minimizing fishing gear impacts to the 
extent practicable, as is required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 
Furthermore, NMFS disagrees with the comment that the Council allows 
bottom trawls in areas of hard bottom habitat elsewhere in the South 
Atlantic EEZ. Amendment 1 to the Fishery Management Plan for the 
Snapper Grouper Fishery in the South Atlantic Region (September 1988) 
prohibited the use of bottom tending (roller-rig) trawls in the snapper 
grouper fishery to prevent damage to sensitive hard and live bottom 
habitat.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that the EFH Amendment exceeds 
Congressional intent and is overly broad. They claimed that the 
Council's broad EFH description implies that EFH is not unique and that 
it detracts from the benefits of the EFH designation process. 
Furthermore, the commenter stated that an overly broad range of non-
fishing activities are identified as potential threats to EFH without 
adequate justification. The commenter also stated that the proposed 
rule, in particular the amended framework procedures, reflects the same 
problems.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The Magnuson-Stevens 
Act defines EFH as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for 
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. Therefore, the 
geographic scope of EFH must be sufficiently broad to encompass the 
biological requirements of the species. As for the comment regarding 
non-fishing activities, one of the stated purposes of the Sustainable 
Fisheries Act of 1996, which amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is to 
promote the protection of EFH through the review of projects, including 
non-fishing activities, conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or 
other authorities that have the potential to affect EFH adversely. 
NMFS' EFH-related recommendations to Federal agencies on non-fishing 
activities are advisory in nature. Federal agencies will be required to 
consult only on those activities that may adversely affect EFH, based 
on an assessment of the particular activity at issue.
    The amended framework procedures under the EFH Amendment are 
procedural in nature and do not have immediate substantive impacts. 
These

[[Page 37294]]

amended framework procedures of the Councils' FMP simply allow the 
Council and NMFS to undertake a more timely modification of EFH 
definitions and establishment or modification of existing EFH-HAPCs and 
coral HAPCs without requiring an amendment to the appropriate FMP. This 
framework procedure will involve assessment of all expected biological 
and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action and an opportunity for 
public comment prior to final agency action.
    Comment 7: One commenter commented that the EFH Amendment and 
Habitat Plan do not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), and the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA).
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment and believes that all 
requirements of these statutes were fully met. The Council prepared 
draft and final supplemental environmental impact statements (DSEIS and 
FSEIS) for the EFH Amendment; both the DSEIS and FSEIS contained all 
elements required by NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), and NOAA's 
Administrative Order 216-6 (Environmental Review Procedures for 
Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act). All proper NEPA 
procedures were followed and the DSEIS and FSEIS were filed with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for publication of notices of 
availability for public comment. EPA published a notice of the 
availability of the DSEIS on July 17, 1998 (63 FR 38643). EPA published 
a notice of availability of the FSEIS on April 9, 1999 (68 FR 17362). 
EPA cited no inadequacies of the DSEIS or FSEIS. Specific NEPA-related 
discussions of alternatives and expected environmental impacts and 
other NEPA analysis elements are contained in the EFH Amendment's 
Sections 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 8.0, and 9.0 and in the cover sheet 
(viii), table of contents (pages i-v), and summary of NEPA elements 
(page x).
    Section 4.8 of the EFH Amendment contains the Council's discussion 
intended to meet RFA requirements; additional discussion and 
information regarding impacts on small entities, as required by RFA, is 
provided in Sections 4.2.7.5 and 4.2.7.6. Also, NMFS determined, in 
conjunction with publication of the proposed rule for the EFH 
Amendment, that this action would have significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities and prepared an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) as required by the RFA. NMFS announced the 
availability of the IRFA for public comment in the proposed rule (64 FR 
37082; July 9, 1999) and in a supplement to the proposed rule (64 FR 
59152). This final rule announces the availability of the FRFA as 
prepared by NMFS.
    The Council did not propose any measures under the EFH Amendment 
that will involve increased paperwork or consideration under the PRA. 
The EFH Amendment provides for a voluntary vessel monitoring system 
(VMS) to be established as soon as possible for the rock shrimp fishery 
that would involve a collection-of-information requirement. NMFS 
approved this provision in approving the EFH Amendment. Since the 
voluntary VMS would involve only 2-3 vessels, this collection is not 
subject to the PRA.
    Comment 8: One commenter commented that the Habitat Plan fails to 
show any connection between silviculture activities and EFH, and it 
overemphasizes the importance of silviculture as a nonpoint source of 
water quality problems.
    Response: While the Habitat Plan does not illustrate any specific 
examples of direct EFH degradation or adverse impact, studies cited 
within the Habitat Plan indicate that there is a potential for adverse 
impacts on EFH from silviculture or from activities related to 
silviculture. The Council intended the Habitat Plan to provide a wide 
spectrum of background information to aid in management, conservation, 
and enhancement of EFH. Therefore, NMFS supports the Council's 
inclusion of this pertinent material.
    Comment 9: One commenter requested an extension of the comment 
period for the supplement to the proposed rule due to its inability to 
respond during the allotted time.
    Response: NMFS is unable to extend the comment period due to 
Magnuson-Stevens Act time requirements for issuing final rules to 
implement approved fishery management plan amendments.
    Comment 10: One commenter supported the proposed rule to expand the 
Oculina Bank HAPC and the establishment of the framework procedures in 
all fishery management plans.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this comment.
    Comment 11: One commenter commented that the expansion of the 
Oculina Bank HAPC would include areas of flat, mud bottom. The 
commenter states that this inclusion would not protect Oculina coral 
but would negatively impact bottom longline fisheries for tilefish, 
grouper, and shark. The commenter proposed a revised expanded area that 
was believed to offer better protection for Oculina coral while 
minimizing adverse economic impacts on longline fishermen.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that areas of flat, mud bottom are 
included in the Oculina Bank HAPC expansion. The rationale for 
including these areas is to facilitate enforcement and to implement 
regulations consistent with the South Atlantic Shrimp FMP. While the 
revised boundaries proposed by the commenter would isolate Oculina 
coral, it would create enforcement problems. Therefore, NMFS disagrees 
with this comment.
    Comment 12: One commenter requested that further details of the 
socioeconomic impacts on affected fisheries be documented, especially 
the cumulative impacts of a number of federal regulatory actions for 
highly migratory species, snapper/grouper species, and tilefish.
    Response: To the extent practicable, NMFS recognizes and considers 
cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of a series of 
management measures that affect the fishery in question. The analysis 
of the potential impacts of this particular action was conducted based 
on the status quo. Since the status quo takes all previous management 
actions into account, any analysis of the impacts of additional 
regulations implicitly incorporates impacts of previous management 
actions. Further details of this analysis are found in the Regulatory 
Impact Review, the IRFA, and the FRFA written to accompany this 
rulemaking process. Thus, NMFS made a good faith effort to assess the 
impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed actions on all 
affected entities.

Classification

    The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined that the EFH 
Amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of the 
Council's FMPs and it is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
other applicable law.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    NMFS prepared a FRFA for this final rule implementing Amendment 4 
to the Coral FMP. The FRFA was based on the IRFA and public comments 
that were received on the IRFA. A summary of the FRFA follows:
    Except for EFH Amendment Actions 3A (expanded Oculina HAPC) and 3B 
(two satellite Oculina HAPCs), the

[[Page 37295]]

amendment does not contain measures that would result in immediate 
economic effects. Actions 3A and 3B would enlarge the existing Oculina 
Bank HAPC and prohibit fishing with bottom tending gear. The Council 
originally determined that these regulations would affect trawling for 
calico scallops to some degree, but concluded that there would not be a 
significant impact and did not prepare an IRFA. NMFS subsequently 
gathered additional information on the potential impacts and prepared 
an IRFA. During the public comment period on the proposed rule, 
fishermen commented that their catches of shark, grouper, and tilefish 
would also be affected. In response to these comments, NMFS looked at 
its catch data for shark, grouper, and tilefish. The data indicated the 
possibility that these fishermen may also be affected by the rule.
    The rule responds to the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements to 
identify EFH and to minimize any fishing related damage to EFH. The 
overall objective of the rule is to protect, conserve, and enhance EFH.
    NMFS received a number of comments on the possible economic effects 
of the rule. One commenter stated that the economic assessment failed 
to include any evaluation of the bottom longline fisheries for shark, 
golden tilefish, and grouper. NMFS agrees that the Council's EFH 
Amendment did not address those potential economic impacts. However, 
prior to initiation of Secretarial review of the EFH Amendment, NMFS 
determined that substantial catches of shark, golden tilefish, and 
grouper may be affected, resulting in adverse economic impacts.
    Another commenter stated that the EFH Amendment did not comply with 
NEPA, RFA, and the PRA. NMFS disagrees with this comment. The combined 
Council and NMFS efforts addressed all relevant requirements of NEPA 
(including preparation of a DSEIS and FSEIS) and RFA (including 
preparation of an IRFA and FRFA). The Council did not propose any 
measures under the EFH Amendment that will involve increased paperwork 
or consideration under the PRA.
    Another commenter indicated that the expansion of the Oculina Bank 
HAPC includes areas of flat, mud bottom and would negatively impact 
bottom longline fisheries for tilefish, grouper, and shark. NMFS 
acknowledges that areas of flat, mud bottom are included, but 
incorporating these areas into the closed area would facilitate 
enforcement and result in regulations consistent with the South 
Atlantic Shrimp FMP.
    One commenter suggested that further details of the socioeconomic 
impact to affected fisheries should have been documented, especially 
the collective impacts of Federal actions taken over a period of time. 
To the extent practicable, NMFS recognizes and considers cumulative 
impacts resulting from the implementation of a series of management 
measures that affect the fishery in question. The analysis of the 
potential impacts of this particular action was conducted based on the 
status quo. Since the status quo takes all previous management actions 
into account, any analysis of the impacts of additional regulations 
implicitly incorporates impacts of previous management actions. Further 
details of this analysis are found in the Regulatory Impact Review, the 
IRFA, and the FRFA written to accompany this rulemaking process. Thus, 
NMFS made a good faith effort to assess the impacts, including 
cumulative impacts, of the proposed actions on all affected entities.
    Consideration of the public comments did not result in changes to 
the rule.
    The rule would apply to a total of 45-60 small business entities 
that engage in the harvest of calico scallops, sharks, tilefish, and 
grouper. The scallop fishermen utilize shrimp trawling vessels with 
modified gear and generate annual gross revenues of approximately 
$52,000 per vessel. Fishermen targeting sharks, tilefish, and grouper 
utilize fishing craft in the 30- to 49-ft (9.1- to 14.9-m) category, 
take trips that average 7 to 10 days, incur variable annual expenses of 
$3,683, generate annual gross revenues ranging from $5,954 to $7,145 
per trip, and realize annual returns to the owner, captain and crew 
that range from $34,000 to $51,000.
    No additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance 
requirements by small entities are contained in the rule.
    The Council considered two alternatives in addition to the proposed 
alterative (Actions 3A and 3B). The status quo obviously would have no 
impact on small business entities, and was rejected because it would 
not meet the objective of providing additional protection for EFH. The 
other alternative considered and rejected by the Council would expand 
the Oculina Bank HAPC by an area larger than in the preferred 
alternative. This option was rejected because it would result in the 
closure of a major portion of the known historic fishing grounds for 
calico scallops; the resulting negative economic impacts were deemed to 
be greater than the benefits that would accrue from the additional 
protection for EFH. Accordingly, the Council chose the alternative that 
would meet the objective of providing additional protection for EFH 
while attempting to minimize the economic impact on small entities.
    Copies of the FRFA are available (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 622

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

50 CFR Part 640

    Fisheries, Fishing, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 2, 2000.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 622 and 640 
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 Sec. 622.35, paragraph (g) is removed and paragraph (c) is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 622.35  South Atlantic EEZ seasonal and/or area closures.

* * * * *
    (c) Oculina Bank--(1) HAPC. The Oculina Bank HAPC encompasses an 
area bounded on the north by 28 deg.30' N. lat., on the south by 
27 deg.30' N. lat., on the east by the 100-fathom (183-m) contour, as 
shown on the latest edition of NOAA chart 11460, and on the west by 
80 deg.00' W. long.; and two adjacent areas: the first bounded on the 
north by 28 deg.30' N. lat., on the south by 28 deg.29' N. lat., on the 
east by 80 deg.00' W. long., and on the west by 80 deg.03' W. long.; 
and the second bounded on the north by 28 deg.17' N. lat., on the south 
by 28 deg.16' N. lat., on the east by 80 deg.00 W. long., and on the 
west by 80 deg.03' W. long. In the Oculina Bank HAPC, no person may:
    (i) Use a bottom longline, bottom trawl, dredge, pot, or trap.
    (ii) If aboard a fishing vessel, anchor, use an anchor and chain, 
or use a grapple and chain.
    (iii) Fish for rock shrimp or possess rock shrimp in or from the 
area on board a fishing vessel.
    (2) Experimental closed area. Within the Oculina Bank HAPC, the 
experimental closed area is bounded on

[[Page 37296]]

the north by 27 deg.53' N. lat., on the south by 27 deg.30' N. lat., on 
the east by 79 deg.56' W. long., and on the west by 80 deg.00' W. long. 
No person may fish for South Atlantic snapper-grouper in the 
experimental closed area, and no person may retain South Atlantic 
snapper-grouper in or from the area. In the experimental closed area, 
any South Atlantic snapper-grouper taken incidentally by hook-and-line 
gear must be released immediately by cutting the line without removing 
the fish from the water.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec. 622.48, the introductory text and paragraphs (c), (f), 
(g), and (h) are revised; and paragraphs (k) and (l) are added to read 
as follows:
* * * * *


Sec. 622.48  Adjustment of management measures.

    In accordance with the framework procedures of the applicable FMPs, 
the RA may establish or modify the following items:
* * * * *
    (c) Coastal migratory pelagic fish. For a species or species group: 
Age-structured analyses, target date for rebuilding an overfished 
species, MSY (or proxy), stock biomass achieved by fishing at MSY 
(B<INF>MSY</INF>) (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, permit requirements, definitions of essential 
fish habitat, and essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.
* * * * *
    (f) South Atlantic snapper-grouper and wreckfish. For species or 
species groups: Biomass levels, age-structured analyses, target dates 
for rebuilding overfished species, MSY, ABC, TAC, quotas, trip limits, 
bag limits, minimum sizes, gear restrictions (ranging from regulation 
to complete prohibition), seasonal or area closures, definitions of 
essential fish habitat, and essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral 
HAPCs.
    (g) South Atlantic golden crab. Biomass levels, age-structured 
analyses, MSY, ABC, TAC, quotas (including quotas equal to zero), trip 
limits, minimum sizes, gear regulations and restrictions, permit 
requirements, seasonal or area closures, time frame for recovery of 
golden crab if overfished, fishing year (adjustment not to exceed 2 
months), observer requirements, authority for the RA to close the 
fishery when a quota is reached or is projected to be reached, 
definitions of essential fish habitat, and essential fish habitat HAPCs 
or Coral HAPCs.
    (h) South Atlantic shrimp. Biomass levels, age-structured analyses, 
BRD certification criteria, BRD specifications, BRD testing protocol, 
certified BRDs, nets required to use BRDs, times and locations when the 
use of BRDs is required, definitions of essential fish habitat, and 
essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.
* * * * *
    (k) Atlantic coast red drum. Definitions of essential fish habitat 
and essential fish habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.
    (l) South Atlantic coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom 
habitats. Definitions of essential fish habitat and essential fish 
habitat HAPCs or Coral HAPCs.

PART 640--SPINY LOBSTER FISHERY OF THE GULF OF MEXICO AND SOUTH 
ATLANTIC

    4. The authority citation for part 640 continues to read as 
follows:

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


    5. Section 640.25 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 640.25  Adjustment of management measures.

    In accordance with the framework procedure of the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and 
South Atlantic, the RA may establish or modify the following items: 
definitions of essential fish habitat, Essential Fish Habitat-Habitat 
Areas of Particular Concern, Coral-Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, 
biomass levels, age-structured analyses, limits on the number of traps 
fished by each vessel, construction characteristics of traps, 
specification of gear and vessel identification requirements, 
specification of allowable or prohibited gear in a directed fishery, 
specification of bycatch levels in non-directed fisheries, changes to 
soak or removal periods and requirements for traps, recreational bag 
and possession limits, changes in fishing seasons, limitations on use, 
possession, and handling of undersized lobsters, and changes in minimum 
size.

[FR Doc. 00-14528 Filed 6-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>