67714 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 2004—Jet Routes

* * * * *

J–4 [Revised]

From Los Angeles, CA, via INT Los

Angeles 083° and Twentynine Palms, CA,

269° radials; Twentynine Palms; Parker, CA;

Buckeye, AZ; San Simon, AZ; Newman, TX;

Wink, TX; Abilene, TX; Ranger, TX; Belcher,

LA; Jackson, MS; Meridian, MS;

Montgomery, AL; INT Montgomery 051° and

Colliers, SC, 268° radials; Colliers; Columbia,

SC; Florence, SC; to Wilmington, NC.

* * * * *

J–21 [Revised]

From the INT of the United States/Mexican

Border and the Laredo, TX, 172° radial via

Laredo; San Antonio, TX; Austin, TX; Waco,

TX; Ranger, TX; Ardmore, OK; Will Rogers,

OK; Wichita, KS; Omaha, NE; Gopher, MN;

to Duluth, MN.

* * * * *

J–25 [Revised]

From Matamoras, Mexico, via Brownsville,

TX; INT of the Brownsville 358° and the

Corpus Christi, TX, 178° radials; Corpus

Christi; INT of the Corpus Christi 311° and

the San Antonio, TX, 167° radials; San

Antonio; Austin, TX; Waco, TX; Ranger, TX;

Tulsa, OK; Kansas City, MO; Des Moines, IA;

Mason City, IA; Gopher, MN; Brainerd, MN;

to Winnipeg, MB, Canada. The airspace

within Canada is excluded. The airspace

within Mexico is excluded.

* * * * *

J–33 [Revised]

From Humble, TX, via INT Humble 349°

and Ranger, TX, 135° radials; to Ranger.

* * * * *

J–42 [Revised]

From Delicias, Mexico, via Fort Stockton,

TX; Abilene, TX; Ranger, TX; Texarkana, AR;

Memphis, TN; Nashville, TN; Beckley, WV;

Montebello, VA; Gordonsville, VA;

Nottingham, MD; INT Nottingham 061° and

Woodstown, NJ, 225° radials; Woodstown;

Robbinsville, NJ; LaGuardia, NY; INT

LaGuardia 042° and Hartford, CT, 236°

radials; Hartford; Putman, CT; Boston, MA.

The portion of this route outside of the

United States is excluded.

* * * * *

J–52 [Revised]

From Vancouver, BC, Canada; via Spokane,

WA; Salmon, ID; Dubois, ID; Rock Springs,

WY; Falcon, CO; Hugo, CO; Lamar, CO;

Liberal, KS; INT Liberal 137° and Ardmore,

OK, 309° radials; Ardmore; Texarkana, AR;

Sidon, MS; Bigbee, MS; Vulcan, AL; Atlanta,

GA; Colliers, SC; Columbia, SC; RaleighDurham, NC; to Richmond, VA. The portion

within Canada is excluded.

* * * * *

J–58 [Revised]

From Oakland, CA, via Manteca, CA;

Coaldale, NV; Wilson Creek, NV; Milford,

UT; Farmington, NM; Las Vegas, NM;

Amarillo, TX; Wichita Falls, TX; Ranger, TX;

Alexandria, LA; Harvey, LA; INT of Grand

Isle, LA, 105° and Crestview, FL, 201°

radials; INT of Grand Isle 105° and Sarasota,

FL, 286° radials; Sarasota; Lee County, FL; to

the INT Lee County 120° and Dolphin, FL,

293° radials; Dolphin.

* * * * *

J–66 [Revised]

From Newman, TX; via Big Spring, TX;

Abilene, TX; Ranger, TX; Bonham, TX; Little

Rock, AR; Memphis, TN; to Rome, GA.

* * * * *

J–72 [Revised]

From Boulder City, NV, via Peach Springs,

AZ; Gallup, NM; Albuquerque, NM; Texico,

NM; to Wichita Falls, TX.

* * * * *

J–76 [Revised]

From Las Vegas, NV, via INT Las Vegas

090° and Tuba City, AZ, 268° radials; Tuba

City; Las Vegas, NM; Tucumcari, NM; to

Wichita Falls, TX.

* * * * *

J–87 [Revised]

From Humble, TX, via Navasota, TX; INT

of Navasota 342° and Cowboy, TX, 166°

radials; Cowboy; Tulsa, OK; Butler, MO;

Kirksville, MO; Moline, IL; Joliet, IL; to

Northbrook, IL.

* * * * *

J–105 [Revised]

From Ranger, TX; via McAlester, OK;

Razorback, AR; Springfield, MO; Bradford,

IL; to Badger, WI.

* * * * *

J–131 [Revised]

From San Antonio, TX, via INT San

Antonio 007° and Ranger, TX, 214° radials;

Ranger; Texarkana, AR; Little Rock, AR; to

Pocket City, IN.

* * * * *

J–181 [Revised]

From Ranger, TX; Okmulgee, OK; Neosho,

MO; INT Neosho 049° and Bradford, IL, 219°

radials; to Bradford.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

17, 1997.

Nancy B. Kalinowski,

Acting Program Director for Air Traffic

Airspace Management.

[FR Doc. 97–33761 Filed 12–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 622

[Docket No. 971009242–7308–02; I.D.

091997B]

RIN 0648–AJ14

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;

Amendment 15; OMB Control Numbers

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; extension of

effectiveness.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to

implement the approved measures in

Amendment 15 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Reef Fish

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP).

Amendment 15 and this rule replace the

current commercial red snapper

endorsement and trip limit system with

a system comprised of two classes of

transferrable red snapper licenses and

trip limits; split the red snapper

commercial fishing season into two time

periods, the first commencing February

1 with two-thirds of the annual quota

available and the second commencing

on September 1 with the remainder of

the annual quota available; open the red

snapper commercial fishery at noon on

the first of each month and close it at

noon on the 15th of each month during

the commercial season; prohibit the

possession of reef fish in excess of the

bag limit on a vessel that has on board,

or is tending, a trap other than a fish,

stone crab, or spiny lobster trap; limit

the harvest of greater amberjack to the

bag limit each year during March
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67715

through May; remove sea basses (black,

bank, and rock sea bass), grunts, and

porgies from the FMP; and remove

certain species from the aggregate bag

limit for reef fish. As approved in

Amendment 15, the increase in the

minimum size limit for vermilion

snapper, currently in effect as an

interim measure, is continued

indefinitely. In addition, this rule

excludes certain species from the

prohibition on their harvest using

powerheads in the stressed area and

corrects and clarifies the regulations.

Finally, NMFS informs the public of the

approval by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) of the collection-ofinformation requirements contained in

this rule, publishes the OMB control

number for these collections, and

corrects the list of control numbers

applicable to Title 50 of the Code of

Federal Regulations. The intended

effects of this rule are to conserve and

manage the reef fish resources of the

Gulf of Mexico. This rule also extends

indefinately the effectiveness of the

interim final rule regarding vermilion

snapper size limit, published September

11, 1997.

DATES: This rule is effective January 29,

1998, except that the amendments to 15

CFR 902 and §§ 622.4(d) and (p), and

622.7(b) are effective December 30,

1998, and § 622.34(l) is effective January

1, 1997. The interim final rule

published on September 11, 1997 (62 FR

47765), which became effective

September 14, 1997, through March 10,

1998, is to continue in effect

indefinitely.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA)

may be obtained from the Southeast

Regional Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive

Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL

33702. Comments regarding the

collection-of-information requirements

contained in this rule should be sent to

Edward E. Burgess, Southeast Regional

Office, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center

Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702, and

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), Washington, D.C. 20503

(Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Sadler, 813–570–5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef

fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is

managed under the FMP. The FMP was

prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery

Management Council (Council) and is

implemented under the authority of the

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations

at 50 CFR part 622.

On September 26, 1997, NMFS

announced the availability of

Amendment 15 and requested

comments on the amendment (62 FR

50553). On October 23, 1997, NMFS

published a proposed rule to implement

the measures in Amendment 15 and an

additional measure proposed by NMFS,

and requested comments on the rule (62

FR 55205). The background and

rationale for the measures in the

amendment and proposed rule are

contained in the preamble to the

proposed rule and are not repeated here.

On December 19, 1997, after considering

the comments received on the

amendment and the proposed rule,

NMFS partially approved Amendment

15. One measure was not approved,

namely, the exclusion of hogfish and

queen triggerfish from the aggregate bag

limit for reef fish.

Comments and Responses

Twenty public comments on

Amendment 15 and/or the proposed

rule, including a minority report signed

by two Council members, were received.

Comments in support of one or more

Amendment 15 measures were

submitted by 13 entities (including one

fishing association), one of which

submitted a petition signed by 42

persons. Comments in opposition to one

or more Amendment 15 measures were

submitted in the minority report and by

15 entities, including two fishing

associations.

Initial Allocation of Red Snapper

Licenses

Comment: The minority report and

one commenter objected to the initial

allocation provisions of the red snapper

license system on the basis that the

proposed 2-tier system did not

recognize the request of some of the

major producers (highliners) for an

alternative 3-tier system. That

commenter also stated that continuation

of the existing trip limits (instead of a

reduced trip limit for some vessels) does

not address excessive harvest capacity

in the red snapper fishery. Another

commenter supported trip limits and

endorsements but opposed issuance of

licenses. A third commenter, who

participates in multiple commercial

fisheries, opposed the initial red

snapper license allocation, since those

provisions preclude vessels without

endorsements on March 1, 1997, from

obtaining a Class 1 license and,

therefore, sufficient income to remain

profitable. The minority report

recommends that NMFS not approve

Amendment 15 until some solution to

resolving the perceived inequity

associated with the 2–tier system is

agreed upon.

One of the commenters also noted

that charter vessels with red snapper

licenses could fish commercially and,

thereby, continue to exploit the red

snapper resource during winter when

charter business is slow. That

commenter also claimed that the initial

allocation of Class 1 licenses gives an

unfair advantage to endorsement

holders because they would be allowed

to fish in other fisheries when the red

snapper commercial fishery is closed.

Another commenter opposed the initial

allocation of Class 1 licenses to all who

held endorsements on March 1, 1997,

because that criterion does not

specifically recognize various levels of

investment in red snapper vessels and

gear by the endorsement holders.

Response: NMFS disagrees with these

comments for the following reasons.

After much debate, the Council

concluded that its proposed 2–tier red

snapper commercial license limitation

system was the fairest and most

equitable of the alternatives considered

for meeting the objectives of

Amendment 15. The 2–tier license

system provides for equal trip limits for

all endorsement holders, as under the

endorsement and trip limits system. The

rejected 3-tier alternative was found to

be inequitable since that system would

have significantly reduced the landings

of many of the endorsement holders.

Regarding excessive harvest capacity,

Amendment 15 addresses this problem

by establishing a license limitation

system that caps participation in the

fishery and is expected to reduce the

number of vessels that can fish under

the 200–lb (91–kg) trip limit. The actual

level of harvest is controlled by an

annual quota.

NMFS also disagrees with the

comment opposing charter vessel

participation. The Council considered

historical fishing practices in, and

dependence on, the fishery, as required

by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and

chose not to exclude charter vessels

from an initial allocation. Amendment

15 recognizes that some charter vessels

traditionally target red snapper for

commercial harvest during the season

when charter business is slow. The

Council’s decision in this regard is

consistent with the FMP, which allows

charter income to count toward the

earned income requirement for

commercial vessel permits.

NMFS disagrees with the commenter

who claimed that the initial allocation

of Class 1 licenses gives unfair

advantage to endorsement holders, who

would receive Class 1 licenses, because

they will be allowed to fish in other
67716 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

fisheries when the commercial red

snapper fishery is closed. The license

limitation system makes no changes in

the provisions of the current

endorsement and trip limits system that

allow an endorsement holder to

participate freely in other fisheries,

regardless of whether the commercial

red snapper fishery is open. Also,

neither the endorsement and trip limits

system nor the license limitation system

differentiate between Class 1 and Class

2 license holders with regard to their

ability to participate in other fisheries.

Furthermore, all Class 1 license holders

must comply with the same trip limits

regardless of whether they participate in

other fisheries. Finally, NMFS believes

that Class 1 and Class 2 license holders

should be allowed equally to enter other

fisheries in compliance with applicable

regulations regardless of whether the

commercial red snapper fishery is

closed.

NMFS agrees with the comment that

the initial allocation criterion for a Class

1 license does not specifically address

the level of investment in gear or

vessels. However, to obtain a Class 1

license, an applicant must possess an

endorsement on March 1, 1997.

Eligibility for such an endorsement was

based on the level of historical

participation in the fishery, which

presumably reflects, to some degree,

varying levels of investment in the

fishery. Therefore, the Council and

NMFS determined that this criterion for

participation in the fishery was

appropriate.

Comment: Another commenter stated

that those individuals who will meet the

eligibility criteria for the initial

allocation of Class 1 licenses under

Amendment 15 constitute a different

group than those who would be

participating in a future referendum for

an individual fishing quota (IFQ)

program for red snapper on or after

October 1, 2000, under the provisions of

section 407(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. That commenter also questioned

whether the Amendment 15 criterion for

a Class 1 license (i.e., holder of a red

snapper endorsement on March 1, 1997,

or a qualified historical captain) is

consistent with Congressional intent

regarding who would be eligible to vote

in this referendum (section 407(c) limits

referendum voting eligibility to persons

who held a reef fish permit with a red

snapper endorsement on September 1,

1996, and to vessel captains who

harvested red snapper in a commercial

fishery using such endorsement in each

red snapper fishing season between

January 1, 1993, and September 1,

1996).

Response: The initial allocation

criteria for a Class 1 license under

Amendment 15 are not related, nor

intended to be related, to the universe

of persons that would be eligible to vote

in the IFQ referendum provided for

under section 407(c) of the MagnusonStevens Act. NMFS has determined that

the initial allocation provisions of

Amendment 15 are consistent with the

provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens

Act. Any subsequent Council or NMFS

consideration of IFQ programs for red

snapper will be consistent with section

407(c).

Comment: Three comments (one was

signed by two persons) supported the

initial allocation provisions as fair and

equitable.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Historical Captains

Comment: Two commenters opposed

initial allocations of red snapper Class

1 licenses to historical captains, based

on the belief that this allowance would

cause shorter seasons and lower red

snapper prices by allowing additional

fishermen to compete for the resource.

Another commenter stated that issuance

of two licenses (a license to a historical

captain and a license to the owner who

were involved in the operation of the

same vessel) would unfairly penalize

other types of participants who would

be issued one license (such as an owneroperator).

Response: Approximately seven

historical captains are expected to

obtain a Class 1 license. This would not

substantially increase the number of

licenses so as to significantly shorten

the season or unfairly penalize other

types of participants.

Comment: One comment supported

the historical captain provisions as

being fair and equitable.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Red Snapper License Transfers

Comment: A commenter opposed

providing for license transfers following

the initial allocation process, based on

the belief that this measure would cause

shorter seasons and lower red snapper

prices.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this

comment and supports providing for

license transfers. License transfers

simplify entry into, and exit from, the

fishery and thereby promote efficient

fishing operations. As a result, approval

of this measure will provide economic

benefits that should outweigh any costs

associated with decreases in red

snapper prices.

Limitation on Ownership of Red

Snapper Licenses

Comment: A commenter opposed the

Council’s preferred alternative regarding

ownership of licenses by one entity (i.e.,

no limitation on ownership by one

entity) on the grounds that no limitation

could lead to a monopoly in a very short

time.

Response: The Council fully

considered the question of whether

some limitation should be imposed to

try to prevent monopolies from

controlling the fishery, and determined

that, even in the absence of such

limitations, fishing operations linked to

individuals should continue to

dominate the fishery. NMFS believes

that other existing Federal laws are

adequate to address monopolies.

Annual Fishing Season Opening Dates

Comments: A commenter opposed the

September 1 starting date for the

commercial season, based on his belief

that September is the peak time for red

snapper aggregation and spawning. Two

other commenters preferred an October

1 start for the fall season.

Response: NMFS disagrees with the

comment that an October 1 starting date

should be used. NMFS stock

assessments indicate that the peak

aggregation and spawning period for red

snapper typically is June through

August. The Council selected the

September 1 date for opening the fall

season in part to afford fishermen higher

revenues when product demand is

relatively high. The Council’s selection

of the September 1 opening date, rather

than a later date, also considered the

ability of fishing vessels to operate in

more favorable weather conditions, thus

reducing vessel safety concerns. For

these reasons, NMFS approved the

opening date selected by the Council.

Comment: Three comments supported

this measure.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Red Snapper Harvest Periods

Comments: Two comments indicated

that the proposed 15-day red snapper

commercial harvest periods (15-day

harvest periods) would encourage

fishing in bad weather. Four

commenters indicated that the 15-day

harvest period in 1997 caused waste of

fish and reduced prices due to the

associated increases in rate of harvest

and, therefore, opposed the 15-day

harvest periods under Amendment 15.

One commenter recommended

alternatives that were considered under

Amendment 15 but rejected by the

Council. The minority report reiterated

the need for compatible state and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67717

Federal regulations and cooperative

state and Federal enforcement to

provide successful management results.

Response: The Council considered

available information pertinent to this

measure, including public comment and

NMFS analyses predicting that total

revenues generated by a series of miniderbies (during the 15-day harvest

periods) would be lower than generated

under continuous fishing without such

short, intermittent, harvest periods. The

Council voted for the 15-day harvest

periods to distribute landings over a

greater portion of the year, alleviating to

some extent the economic effects of a

derby fishery. Also, the closed fishery

periods between harvest periods will

allow for vessel repair and maintenance.

Such maintenance should improve

safety and avoid the higher repair costs

that can occur when normal, preventive

maintenance is postponed.

Comments opposing the 15-day

harvest periods are based on very

limited experience during the 1997

fishing year, which involved open

harvest periods of September 1–15 and

October 1–6. NMFS believes that this

experience is not an adequate basis for

evaluating the effectiveness of this

measure. NMFS has approved this

measure but will monitor its

effectiveness and, in cooperation with

the Council, will make future

adjustments if necessary. Regarding the

minority report’s concerns about

enforceability, NMFS and the Council

will request that the Gulf states issue

compatible regulations to aid in

enforcement.

Limitation of the Possession of Reef Fish

Caught in Traps That Are not Fish

Traps, Spiny Lobster Traps, or Stone

Crab Traps

Comment: Two comments supported

this measure.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Vermilion Snapper Minimum Size Limit

Comment: A fishing association,

representing 28 red snapper

endorsement holders, opposed the 10–

inch (25.4–cm) vermilion snapper

minimum size limit because of adverse

impacts expected from the associated

undersized fish release mortality.

Response: NMFS disagrees with this

comment, and supports this measure.

The measure responds to stock

assessment information that the

vermilion snapper resource, while not

currently overfished, is undergoing

overfishing based on decreasing trends

in overall catch, mean size of individual

fish, catch-per-unit-effort, and estimated

numbers of age–1 fish in the population.

The assessment considered the effects of

release mortality of undersized fish and

determined that the 10–inch (25.4–cm)

minimum size limit would reduce

fishing mortality, increase the vermilion

snapper spawning potential ratio (SPR),

and, thereby, improve the status of the

resource.

Comment: One comment supported

the vermilion snapper size limit

measure based on the belief that

vermilion snapper less than 10 inches

(25.4 cm) have low yield of meat. A

second comment supported the measure

as an appropriate measure to address

overfishing.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Removal of Sea Basses, Grunts, and

Porgies from the FMP

Comment: The minority report stated

that the Council acted to remove sea

basses (black, bank, and rock sea bass),

grunts, and porgies without regard to (1)

the Council’s Scientific and Statistical

Committee’s (SSC) recommendations

that these species should be under FMP

management, and (2) the SSC’s

statement that this measure is not based

on the best available scientific

information. A commenter opposed this

measure on the basis that there is no

substantive rationale for approval by

NMFS. The commenter noted that the

proposed removal of species from the

FMP would prevent timely

implementation of Federal management

measures to protect sea basses, grunts,

and porgies. The commenter asked that

these species be kept in the FMP even

though this action may make processing

of Amendment 15 more complicated.

Response: The SSC’s concerns appear

to be predicated on an assumption that

the removal of these species from the

FMP would result in no management or

in ineffective management. This is not

the case. Management would be

deferred to Florida. The Council fully

considered the SSC’s recommendations

prior to its vote on this measure.

Amendment 15 and the preamble to the

proposed rule provide a substantive

rationale for this measure and explain

that returning management of these

species to Florida poses minimal risk to

the resources. The Council concluded,

and NMFS agrees, that these species

would be most appropriately managed

by Florida. The Florida Marine Fisheries

Commission (FMFC) has expressed an

intent to manage the fisheries for these

species, which primarily occur off

Florida. NMFS acknowledges that

impacts to fishery resources due to

unrestricted harvest could occur during

the interim period (after sea basses,

grunts, and porgies are removed from

the FMP, and prior to Florida’s

management of those species). However,

since the interim period is expected to

be of very short duration, any such

impacts are not expected to be

substantial.

Although Florida cannot regulate outof-state vessels operating in the

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) unless

those vessels land fish in Florida, the

threat of overfishing these species by

vessels registered outside Florida is

minimal for two reasons. First, landings

of these species are insignificant outside

Florida. Second, given the relatively low

value of these species, the economic

incentive for harvest in the EEZ off

Florida by out-of-state vessels not

landing in that state is small. NMFS,

therefore, disagrees with the opposing

comments and approved the removal of

sea basses, grunts, and porgies from the

FMP as a rational management policy

decision.

Comment: Two comments supported

this measure.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Greater Amberjack Seasonal Harvest

Restriction

Comment: A commenter representing

a commercial fishing association, a

commenter representing a fish house

and various fishery participants, and the

minority report opposed the greater

amberjack spawning seasonal harvest

restriction as unnecessary and

inconsistent with the NMFS stock

assessment, showing a 34–percent SPR.

Another commenter noted individual

Council member’s objections to this

measure, and provided biological

information on greater amberjack

migration and harvest patterns. The

minority report noted that the SSC

recommended that this measure be

deferred until FMP Amendment 16. The

minority report also stated that the

Council did not follow those

recommendations and, therefore, did

not use the best available information.

Response: Given the uncertainty

associated with the NMFS stock

assessment, and based on recent data

showing declines in average size and

landings of greater amberjack, the

Council and the Reef Fish Stock

Assessment Panel determined that the

stock assessment is overly optimistic.

The Council and NMFS believe the

greater amberjack spawning seasonal

harvest restriction is necessary to reduce

fishing mortality, ensure that

commercial effort does not negate stock

rebuilding resulting from the recent

recreational bag limit reduction, and

provide more equitable sharing of the

burden of stock rebuilding between the

recreational and commercial sectors.

This measure was found by the

Southeast Fisheries Science Center
67718 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(SEFSC) to be based on the best

available scientific information. The

Council properly considered the SSC’s

recommendations prior to its vote on

the greater amberjack spawning seasonal

harvest restriction. NMFS believes that

the biological information provided by

the commenter does not alter the need

for a spawning seasonal harvest

restriction. Accordingly, NMFS

disagrees with these comments and

supports this measure.

Comment: Six comments (including

one from a fishing association) support

this measure.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Removal of Species Not in the

Management Unit From the Aggregate

Bag Limit for Reef Fish

Comment: Three public comments

and the minority report opposed

removal of hogfish from the 20-fish

aggregate bag limit. The first public

commenter, a commercial fisherman

who also owns a wholesale fish house,

stated that hogfish is heavily targeted in

the recreational sector, primarily using

spear guns, and is one of the easiest

species to take with that gear. The

comment included trade journal data

that predicted a large increase in the

size of the diving/snorkeling industry.

The commenter concluded that hogfish

would be adversely impacted by

allowing unlimited recreational catches.

The commenter also stated that this

measure would encourage illegal sales

of reef fish caught under the recreational

bag limit.

A second commenter opposed

excluding hogfish and queen triggerfish

since those two species are overfished

and scarce. A third commenter

supported the Council’s rejected

Alternative 1 that would either (1)

remove pinfish and sand perch from the

aggregate bag limit, or (2) remove

pinfish and sand perch but make the

removal of other species subject to

review by the Reef Fish Stock

Assessment Panel.

Response: NMFS agrees with the

commenters who noted the possibility

of overfishing if hogfish and queen

triggerfish are removed from the

aggregate bag limit. Based on its review

of the three opposing comments, the

minority report, the SSC

recommendations, and other available

information, NMFS disapproved the

removal of hogfish and queen triggerfish

from the aggregate bag limit as a means

of helping to prevent overfishing of

these species, as discussed above.

Disapproval of the removal of hogfish

and queen triggerfish from the aggregate

bag limit is consistent with national

standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act

that requires conservation and

management measures to prevent

overfishing.

Comment: Three public comments

supported removal of sand perch and

dwarf sand perch from the 20-fish

aggregate bag limit.

Response: NMFS concurs.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

The implementation procedure for the

initial issue of red snapper licenses is

revised by changing ‘‘appeals’’ to

‘‘reconsideration’’ at § 622.4(p)(6)(ii).

The change in terminology is warranted

because the procedure describes the

means by which a person may have the

Regional Administrator reconsider his

initial determination of eligibility for

historical captain status or a Class 2

license. In addition, § 622.4(p)(6)(ii) is

reordered for clarity and to remove

redundancy. To provide adequate time

for an owner to collect and submit

information pertinent to his or her

eligibility for a red snapper license, the

deadline date for submission of a copy

of a legally binding agreement under

which an owner retained the landings

record of a previously owned vessel is

delayed to January 30, 1998. Similarly,

the deadline date for the submission of

a request for reconsideration of NMFS’

initial determination of eligibility for

historical captain status or for a Class 2

red snapper license is delayed until

February 10, 1998. However, a person

submitting such agreement or request

after January 6 and 13, respectively, will

not be assured of receiving a red

snapper license before the commercial

fishery for red snapper opens on

February 1, 1998.

Section 622.34(l) is revised to clarify

that, after the recreational quota for red

snapper is reached, during a seasonal

closure (i.e., during a mid- to end-ofmonth closure) of the commercial

fishery for red snapper, possession of

red snapper in or from the Gulf of

Mexico and in the Gulf of Mexico on

board a vessel for which a commercial

permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued,

without regard to where such red

snapper were harvested, is limited to

zero. This provision is in accordance

with the possession limit applicable to

the commercial fishery for red snapper

when a quota closure is in effect.

As discussed above, hogfish and

queen triggerfish are not excluded from

the aggregate bag limit for reef fish. A

change from the proposed rule is made

at § 622.39(b)(1)(v).

NMFS also is making the following

technical amendments, which were not

included in the proposed rule:

(1) In 15 CFR 902.1(b), in the listing

of sections in title 50 of the CFR where

information collection requirements are

located, the entry ‘‘622.10’’ is

redesignated to read ‘‘622.8’’ and the

entry for ‘‘641.4’’ is removed. There

currently are no regulations at 50 CFR

641.4.

(2) In 50 CFR 622.34(c), the reference

to Figures 1 and 2 to this part is

removed and, in 50 CFR 622.34(g), the

reference to Figures 3 and 4 to this part

is removed. The regulations do not

include Figures 1 through 4 to this part.

(3) In 50 CFR 622.43(a)(5), the

reference ‘‘§ 622.44(a),’’ applicable to

the trip limits for golden tilefish and

snowy grouper in the snapper-grouper

fishery off the southern Atlantic states,

is corrected to read ‘‘§ 622.44(c).’’

(4) For clarity, at 50 CFR

622.39(b)(1)(ii), NMFS is explicitly

excluding Nassau grouper from the bag

limit for groupers, combined, applicable

to the fishery for reef fish in the Gulf of

Mexico. As specified at 50 CFR

622.32(b)(2)(iii), a Nassau grouper in or

from the Gulf of Mexico exclusive

economic zone (EEZ) is a prohibited

species. As such, a Nassau grouper may

not be harvested or possessed in or from

the Gulf EEZ and, if caught in the Gulf

EEZ, must be released immediately with

a minimum of harm. Accordingly, the

exclusion of Nassau grouper from the

bag limit is not a substantive change in

the regulations.

Classification

The Regional Administrator,

Southeast Region, NMFS, with the

concurrence of the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA

(AA), determined that the approved

measures of Amendment 15 are

necessary for the conservation and

management of the reef fish fishery of

the Gulf of Mexico and that, with the

exception of the measure that was not

approved, Amendment 15 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 final regulatory

flexibility analysis (FRFA). The FRFA

concludes that a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities will result from implementation

of Amendment 15. A summary of the

FRFA follows.

The need for this rule is based on

several problems that provided the basis

for Amendment 15. The first is that the

existing endorsement system for

commercial red snapper fishermen

needs to be replaced with management

that complies with recent Congressional

action and also achieves the FMP’s

objectives.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67719

Other fishery problems include the

use by some persons of blue crab traps

to target reef fish in the EEZ off the Big

Bend area of Florida, the overfishing of

vermilion snapper under an 8–inch

(20.3–cm) minimum size limit, a need to

address the Council’s concern that

Florida’s management of sea basses,

grunts, and porgies would be more

effective than Federal management,

concerns about declines in the greater

amberjack abundance and inequitable

sharing of the burden of stock

rebuilding between the recreational and

commercial sectors, and the need to

remove certain species not in the

management unit from the aggregate bag

limit to relieve unintended burdens of

limiting species commonly used for

bait. NMFS found that overfishing

problems would exist with the proposed

removal of hogfish and queen triggerfish

from the aggregate bag limit.

The following summarizes issues

raised by public comments, summarizes

the agency’s response to such issues,

and describes any changes made in the

proposed rule as a result of such

comments:

A number of public comments

addressed negative economic impacts

that the commenters felt would occur as

a result of implementing the red

snapper license limitation program and

associated fishing season provisions.

The comments generally indicated that

those measures would not resolve

existing problems of excessive harvest

capacity, derby fishing, vessel safety,

lowered prices for red snapper, and a

high level of bycatch mortality. Several

commenters favored a three-tier red

snapper license limitation system rather

than a two-tier system. However, such a

system would provide highliners with

unjust economic benefits. NMFS

considered these comments and has

approved these measures to provide net

economic benefits (compared to status

quo).

Other comments opposed the greater

amberjack provision as unnecessary and

inconsistent with recent stock

assessment information. The Council

and NMFS disagree with these

comments and have approved this

measure, for the reasons previously

stated.

A commenter opposed removal of sea

basses, grunts, and porgies from the

FMP, which he felt prevents timely

implementation of appropriate Federal

management measures. NMFS reviewed

this issue and determined that Florida

intends to implement measures in a

timely manner that would be more

effective than the Federal management

regime. The interim period (after sea

basses, grunts, and porgies are removed

from the FMP, and prior to Florida’s

management of those species) is

expected to be of very short duration

and, therefore, should not adversely

impact the status of these species.

Two other comments support

disapproval of the provision for removal

of hogfish and queen triggerfish from

the aggregate bag limit. This disapproval

was recommended to prevent reported

overfishing. The Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) did not

address this issue.

Several comments also support

removal of the sand perch species from

the bag limit. NMFS agrees with the

public comments and similar concerns

expressed by the SEFSC. It has

approved the removal of dwarf sand

perch and sand perch from the aggregate

bag limit and disapproved the removal

of hogfish and queen triggerfish from

that measure.

Approximately 1,424 commercial reef

fish permit holders are active in the

fishery. All of these are expected to be

affected to some degree by each measure

in the final rule. The average small

business entity operates with a fishing

vessel that has a length of 38 ft (11.6 m),

has a current estimated resale value of

$52,817, provides $52,000 in annual

gross sales of reef fish and other species,

and produces an annual net income of

$12,000. Additionally, an estimated 838

small entities that operate charter vessel

businesses and an additional 92

headboat operations will be affected by

portions of the rule.

The public burden of compliance

associated with all aspects of this rule

is estimated to cost the industry $35,000

annually, but only a very small portion

of this amount would be associated with

changed reporting and recordkeeping

requirements. No additional

professional skills are required to

comply with the final rule.

Several alternatives were considered

as ways to meet the FMP objectives.

With respect to the license limitation

program, the status quo (i.e., no license

management system in 1998) is not

considered a viable alternative since

that would clearly result in major

adverse economic impacts on fishery

participants. The Council considered

various provisions to establish and

maintain the license limitation system.

The Council rejected between one to ten

alternatives for each preferred

alternative under these provisions. The

general finding of the IRFA and RIR was

that, while some of the implementation

alternatives would differ slightly in

terms of overall changes in economic

impacts, the distribution of impacts

would vary in all cases. However,

regarding the red snapper fishing

seasons, the Council considered

information that two rejected

alternatives were deemed superior, in

terms of economic impacts. Both of

these rejected alternatives would have

provided one continuous commercial

red snapper monthly period, as opposed

to the 15-day monthly seasons proposed

in Amendment 15. The Council

selected, and NMFS approved, the 15-

day seasons to provide an interval

between open periods for vessel repair

and preventive maintenance and,

thereby, enhance safety.

The Council rejected two alternatives

to the proposal to prohibit the

possession of reef fish in excess of the

bag limit that were harvested in a trap

other than a fish, stone crab, or spiny

lobster trap. One of these alternatives

would have specified an allowable

commercial catch of reef fish as a

percentage of the other target species on

board. The other rejected alternative is

status quo. Both of these alternatives

were rejected on the basis that neither

one resolves the problem described in

Amendment 15.

Regarding the vermilion snapper

minimum size limit (currently 10 inches

(25.4 cm) by interim rule), the

alternative 8–inch (20.3–cm) size limit

was determined to allow further

overfishing and, therefore, was rejected.

Another rejected alternative proposed a

12–inch (30.5–cm) size limit. This was

rejected based on the substantial

revenue reduction on both the

commercial vessels and for-hire vessels

which could lose as much as 25 percent

and 69 percent in landings.

The Council considered only status

quo as an alternative to removing sea

basses, grunts, and porgies from Federal

management. The Council rejected

status quo on the basis that Florida

could provide more effective

management of those species.

In regards to the greater amberjack

harvest restriction, both rejected

alternatives were less restrictive and

would have less adverse short-term

economic impacts on fishing

participants. The Council rejected those

alternatives as not sufficiently reducing

fishing mortality or ensuring that the

commercial harvest does not reverse the

stock rebuilding from the recent bag

limit reduction.

The rejected alternatives regarding the

exclusion of species from the aggregate

bag limit include the status quo (no

revision to the list of species subject to

the aggregate bag limit). Status quo was

rejected because it would not resolve

the unintended consequences of that

limit. In addition, a rejected alternative

specified that either (1) pinfish and sand
67720 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

perch be removed from the aggregate

bag limit, or (2) pinfish and sand perch

be removed, but the removal of other

species be subject to review by the Reef

Fish Stock Assessment Panel.

Amendment 15 indicates that this

alternative would have roughly the

same impact as the proposed measure.

NMFS has determined that removing

hogfish and queen triggerfish from the

aggregate bag limit would have provided

short-term revenue increases for a

number of persons who reportedly

would then harvest larger quantities of

those species. However, NMFS believes

that the removal of hogfish and queen

triggerfish from the aggregate bag limit

could lead to overfishing followed by a

relatively larger decline in net economic

benefits.

Copies of the FRFA are available (see

ADDRESSES).

Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, no person is required to respond

to nor shall a person be subject to a

penalty for failure to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

requirements of the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that

collection of information displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

This rule contains two new, one-time

collection-of-information requirements

subject to the PRA—namely, the

submission of copies of agreements

whereby the seller and purchaser of a

vessel agreed that a vessel’s record of

landings would not be transferred to the

purchaser and the submission of

requests for reconsideration of the

Regional Administrator’s initial

determination of eligibility for historical

captain status or a Class 2 red snapper

license. These collections of information

have been approved by OMB under

OMB control number 0648–0336. The

public reporting burdens for these

collections of information are estimated

at 15 and 45 minutes per response,

respectively, including the time for

reviewing instructions, searching

existing data sources, gathering and

maintaining the data needed, and

completing and reviewing the

collections of information. This rule

continues in effect the collection-ofinformation requirement associated

with the transfer or renewal of

commercial red snapper endorsements,

which would be applied to commercial

red snapper licenses under Amendment

15. This collection of information is

currently approved under OMB control

number 0648–0205. Send comments

regarding these burden estimates or any

other aspect of the data requirements,

including suggestions for reducing the

burden, to NMFS and OMB (see

ADDRESSES).

The technical amendments in this

rule, discussed under Changes From the

Proposed Rule, correct and clarify the

regulations and do not require any

changes in fishing practices.

Accordingly, the AA, under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), for good cause, finds that

providing prior notice and an

opportunity for public comment on the

technical amendments are unnecessary

in that they would serve no useful

purpose.

The current seasonal closures and trip

limits applicable to the commercial

fishery for red snapper expire December

31, 1997. Unless replaced in a timely

manner, the commercial fishery would

open on January 1, 1998, without trip

limits, thus subverting the intended

effects of the new seasonal closures and

trip limits, as discussed in Amendment

15 and in the preamble to the proposed

rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA,

for good cause, finds that it would be

contrary to the public interest to delay

for the full 30 days the effective date of

§ 622.34(l), which closes the commercial

fishery for red snapper from January 1

to noon on February 1. Accordingly,

§ 622.34(l) is effective January 1, 1998.

As explained in Amendment 15 and

in the preamble to the proposed rule,

the commercial red snapper license and

trip limit system will replace the current

endorsement and trip limit system,

which expires December 31, 1997.

Implementation of the new system

before the commercial fishery opens at

noon on February 1, 1998, requires

initiation of the application process for

red snapper licenses as soon as possible.

The procedures for initial

implementation of the license system

are at § 622.4(p). Directly related to

initial implementation are the fees for

applying for a commercial red snapper

license and the prohibition on falsifying

information on an application at

§ 622.4(d) and § 622.7(b), respectively,

and the OMB control numbers for the

two new, one-time collection-ofinformation requirements contained in

15 CFR 902.1(b). These sections

authorize NMFS to administratively

implement the commercial red snapper

license and trip limit system. The

regulations allow submission of

information regarding the retention of

landings records through January 30,

1998, and a request for reconsideration

of an initial eligibility determination

through February 10, 1998, thus

providing at least 30 days before

submissions are required. Under 5

U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the AA, for good cause,

finds that it would be unnecessary and

contrary to the public interest to delay

for 30 days the effective date of

§§ 622.4(d) and (p), 622.7(b), and 15

CFR 902.1(b). Accordingly, these

paragraphs and the amendments to 15

CFR 902.1(b) are effective December 30,

1997. To aid owners, operators, and

historical captains in obtaining red

snapper licenses prior to February 1,

1998, NMFS has already made its initial

determinations of eligibility for initial

red snapper licenses, based on NMFS’

records, and has advised owners,

operators, and potential historical

captains of such determinations, as

specified at § 622.4(p)(6)(i).

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

50 CFR Part 622

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Virgin Islands.

Dated: December 22, 1997.

David L. Evans,

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 15 CFR part 902 and 50 CFR

part 622 are amended as follows:

15 CFR Chapter IX

PART 902—NOAA INFORMATION

COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER

THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT:

OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

1. The authority citation for part 902

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Effective December 30, 1997, in

§ 902.1, paragraph (b) table, under 50

CFR, the entries for ‘‘622.4’’, ‘‘622.10’’,

and ‘‘641.4’’ are removed, and the

following entries are added in

numerical order to read as follows:

§ 902.1 OMB control numbers assigned

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

CFR part or section where the Current

OMB control

information collection number (all

numbers

requirement is located begin with

0648–)

* * * * * * *

50 CFR

* * * * * * *

622.4 –0205 and –0336

* * * * * * *

622.8 –0205

* * * * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67721

50 CFR Chapter VI

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH

ATLANTIC

3. The authority citation for part 622

continues to read as follows:

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

4. Effective December 30, 1997, in

§ 622.4, paragraphs (d) and (p) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 622.4 Permits and fees.

* * * * *

(d) Fees. A fee is charged for each

application for a permit, license, or

endorsement submitted under this

section, for each request for transfer or

replacement of such permit, license, or

endorsement, and for each fish trap or

sea bass pot identification tag required

under § 622.6(b)(1)(i). The amount of

each fee is calculated in accordance

with the procedures of the NOAA

Finance Handbook, available from the

RD, for determining the administrative

costs of each special product or service.

The fee may not exceed such costs and

is specified with each application form.

The appropriate fee must accompany

each application, request for transfer or

replacement, or request for fish trap/sea

bass pot identification tags.

* * * * *

(p) Gulf red snapper licenses—(1)

Class 1 licenses. To be eligible for the

2,000–lb (907–kg) trip limit for Gulf red

snapper specified in § 622.44(e)(1), a

vessel must have been issued both a

valid commercial vessel permit for Gulf

reef fish and a valid Class 1 Gulf red

snapper license, and such permit and

license must be on board.

(2) Class 2 licenses. To be eligible for

the 200–lb (91–kg) trip limit for Gulf red

snapper specified in § 622.44(e)(2), a

vessel must have been issued both a

valid commercial vessel permit for Gulf

reef fish and a valid Class 2 Gulf red

snapper license, and such permit and

license must be on board.

(3) Operator restriction. An initial

Gulf red snapper license that is issued

for a vessel based on the qualification of

an operator or historical captain is valid

only when that operator or historical

captain is the operator of the vessel.

When applicable, this operator

restriction is shown on the license.

(4) Transfer of Gulf red snapper

licenses. A red snapper license may be

transferred independently of a

commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef

fish. To request the transfer of a red

snapper license, complete the transfer

information on the reverse of the license

and return it to the RD.

(5) Initial issue of Gulf red snapper

licenses—(i) Class 1 licenses. (A) An

initial Class 1 license will be issued for

the vessel specified by the holder of a

valid red snapper endorsement on

March 1, 1997, and to a historical

captain. In the event of death or

disability of such holder between March

1, 1997, and the date Class 1 licenses are

issued, a Class 1 license will be issued

for the vessel specified by the person to

whom the red snapper endorsement was

transferred.

(B) Status as a historical captain is

based on information collected under

Amendment 9 to the Fishery

Management Plan for the Reef Fish

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP)

(59 FR 39301, August 2, 1994). A

historical captain is an operator who—

(1) From November 6, 1989, through

1993, fished solely under verbal or

written share agreements with an

owner, and such agreements provided

for the operator to be responsible for

hiring the crew, who was paid from the

share under his or her control;

(2) Landed from that vessel at least

5,000 lb (2,268 kg) of red snapper per

year in 2 of the 3 years 1990, 1991, and

1992;

(3) Derived more than 50 percent of

his or her earned income from

commercial fishing, that is, sale of the

catch, in each of the years 1989 through

1993; and

(4) Landed red snapper prior to

November 7, 1989.

(ii) Class 2 licenses. (A) An initial

Class 2 license will be issued for the

vessel specified by an owner or operator

whose income qualified for a

commercial vessel permit for reef fish

that was valid on March 1, 1997, and

such owner or operator was the person

whose earned income qualified for a

commercial vessel permit for reef fish

that had a landing of red snapper during

the period from January 1, 1990,

through February 28, 1997.

(B) For the purpose of paragraph

(p)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, landings of

red snapper are as recorded in the

information collected under

Amendment 9 to the FMP (59 FR 39301,

August 2, 1994) for the period 1990

through 1992 and in fishing vessel

logbooks, as required under

§ 622.5(a)(1)(ii), received by the SRD not

later than March 31, 1997, for the period

from January 1, 1993, through February

28, 1997.

(C) A vessel’s red snapper landings

record during the period from January 1,

1990, through February 28, 1997, is

retained by the owner at the time of the

landings if the vessel’s permit was

transferred to another vessel owned by

him or her. When a vessel has had a

change of ownership and concurrent

transfer of its permit, the vessel’s red

snapper landings record is credited to

the owner of that vessel on March 1,

1997, unless there is a legally binding

agreement under which a previous

owner retained the landings record. An

owner who claims such retention of a

landings record must submit a copy of

the agreement to the RD postmarked or

hand delivered not later than January

30, 1998. However, an owner who

submits a copy of such agreement after

January 6, 1998, is not assured that a red

snapper license will be issued before the

opening of the commercial fishery for

red snapper on February 1, 1998.

(6) Implementation procedures—(i)

Initial notification. The RD will notify

each owner of a vessel that had a valid

permit for Gulf reef fish on March 1,

1997, each operator whose earned

income qualified for a valid permit on

that date, and each potential historical

captain of his or her eligibility for a

Class 1 or Class 2 red snapper license.

Initial determinations of eligibility will

be based on NMFS’ records of red

snapper endorsements, red snapper

landings during the period from January

1, 1990, through February 28, 1997, and

applications for historical captain status

under Amendment 9 to the FMP (59 FR

39301, August 2, 1994). An owner,

operator, or potential historical captain

who concurs with NMFS’ initial

determination of eligibility need take no

further action. Each owner, operator,

and historical captain who is initially

determined to be eligible will be issued

an appropriate license not later than

January 23, 1998.

(ii) Reconsideration. (A) An owner,

operator, or potential historical captain

who does not concur with NMFS’ initial

determination of eligibility for historical

captain status or for a Class 2 red

snapper license may request

reconsideration of that initial

determination by the RD.

(B) A written request for

reconsideration must be submitted to

the RD postmarked or hand delivered

not later than February 10, 1998, and

must provide written documentation

supporting the basis for reconsideration.

However, an owner who submits such

request after January 13, 1998, is not

assured that a red snapper license will

be issued before the opening of the

commercial fishery for red snapper on

February 1, 1998. Upon request by the

owner, operator, or potential historical

captain, the RD will forward the initial

determination, the request for

reconsideration, and pertinent records

to a committee consisting of the

principal state officials who are

members of the GMFMC, or their
67722 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

designees. An owner, operator, or

potential historical captain may request

to make a personal appearance before

the committee in his or her request for

reconsideration. If an owner, operator,

or potential historical captain requests

that his or her request be forwarded to

the committee, such a request

constitutes the applicant’s written

authorization under section 402(b)(1)(F)

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Conservation and Management Act (16

U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) for the RD to make

available to the committee members

such confidential catch and other

records as are pertinent to the matter

under reconsideration.

(C) Members of the committee will

provide their individual

recommendations for each application

for reconsideration referred to the

committee to the RD. The committee

may only deliberate whether the

eligibility criteria specified in paragraph

(p)(5) of this section were applied

correctly in the applicant’s case, based

solely on the available record, including

documentation submitted by the

applicant. Neither the committee nor

the RD may consider whether a person

should have been eligible for historical

captain status or a Class 2 license

because of hardship or other factors.

The RD will make a final decision based

on the initial eligibility criteria in

paragraph (p)(5) of this section and the

available record, including

documentation submitted by the

applicant, and, if the request is

considered by the committee, the

recommendations and comments from

each member of the committee. The RD

will notify the applicant of the decision

and the reason therefore, in writing,

within 15 days of receiving the

recommendations of the committee

members. If the application is not

considered by the committee, the RD

will provide such notification within 15

days of the RD’s receipt of the request

for reconsideration. The RD’s decision

will constitute the final administrative

action by NMFS on an application for

reconsideration.

5. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.4, paragraph (a) introductory text,

paragraph (a)(2) heading, and

paragraphs (a)(2)(ix), (g), and (i) through

(l) are revised to read as follows:

§ 622.4 Permits and fees.

(a) Permits required. To conduct

activities in fisheries governed in this

part, valid permits, licenses, and

endorsements are required as follows:

* * * * *

(2) Commercial vessel permits,

licenses, and endorsements.

* * * * *

(ix) Gulf red snapper. For a person

aboard a vessel for which a commercial

vessel permit for Gulf reef fish has been

issued to retain red snapper under the

trip limits specified in § 622.44(e)(1) or

(2), a Class 1 or Class 2 Gulf red snapper

license must have been issued to the

vessel and must be on board. See

paragraph (p) of this section regarding

initial issue of red snapper licenses.

* * * * *

(g) Transfer. A vessel permit, license,

or endorsement or dealer permit issued

under this section is not transferable or

assignable, except as provided in

paragraph (m) of this section for a

commercial vessel permit for Gulf reef

fish, paragraph (n) of this section for a

fish trap endorsement, or paragraph (p)

of this section for a red snapper license.

A person who acquires a vessel or

dealership who desires to conduct

activities for which a permit, license, or

endorsement is required must apply for

such permit, license, or endorsement in

accordance with the provisions of this

section. If the acquired vessel or

dealership is currently permitted, the

application must be accompanied by the

original permit and a copy of a signed

bill of sale or equivalent acquisition

papers.

* * * * *

(i) Display. A vessel permit, license,

or endorsement issued under this

section must be carried on board the

vessel. A dealer permit issued under

this section, or a copy thereof, must be

available on the dealer’s premises. In

addition, a copy of the dealer’s permit

must accompany each vehicle that is

used to pick up from a fishing vessel

reef fish harvested from the Gulf EEZ.

The operator of a vessel must present

the permit, license, or endorsement for

inspection upon the request of an

authorized officer. A dealer or a vehicle

operator must present the permit or a

copy for inspection upon the request of

an authorized officer.

(j) Sanctions and denials. A permit,

license, or endorsement issued pursuant

to this section may be revoked,

suspended, or modified, and a permit,

license, or endorsement application may

be denied, in accordance with the

procedures governing enforcementrelated permit sanctions and denials

found at subpart D of 15 CFR part 904.

(k) Alteration. A permit, license, or

endorsement that is altered, erased, or

mutilated is invalid.

(l) Replacement. A replacement

permit, license, or endorsement may be

issued. An application for a replacement

permit, license, or endorsement is not

considered a new application.

* * * * *

6. Effective December 30, 1997, in

§ 622.7, paragraph (b) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 622.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(b) Falsify information on an

application for a permit, license, or

endorsement or submitted in support of

such application, as specified in

§ 622.4(b), (g), or (p) or § 622.17.

* * * * *

7. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.7, paragraphs (a) and (c) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 622.7 Prohibitions.

* * * * *

(a) Engage in an activity for which a

valid Federal permit, license, or

endorsement is required under § 622.4

or § 622.17 without such permit,

license, or endorsement.

* * * * *

(c) Fail to display a permit, license, or

endorsement, as specified in § 622.4(i)

or § 622.17(g).

* * * * *

8. Effective January 1, 1998, in

§ 622.34, paragraph (l) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area

closures.

* * * * *

(l) Closures of the commercial fishery

for red snapper. The commercial fishery

for red snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ

is closed from January 1 to noon on

February 1 and thereafter from noon on

the 15th of each month to noon on the

first of each succeeding month. All

times are local times. During these

closed periods, the possession of red

snapper in or from the Gulf EEZ and in

the Gulf on board a vessel for which a

commercial permit for Gulf reef fish has

been issued, as required under

§ 622.4(a)(2)(v), without regard to where

such red snapper were harvested, is

limited to the bag and possession limits,

as specified in § 622.39(b)(1)(iii) and

(b)(2), respectively, and such red

snapper are subject to the prohibition on

sale or purchase of red snapper

possessed under the bag limit, as

specified in § 622.45(c)(1). However,

when the recreational quota for red

snapper has been reached and the bag

and possession limit has been reduced

to zero, such possession during a closed

period is zero.

9. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.34, in the last sentence of

paragraph (c), the phrase ‘‘and shown in

Figures 1 and 2’’ is removed; in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 67723

paragraph (g) introductory text, the

phrase ‘‘and shown in Figures 3 and 4’’

is removed; and a sentence is added to

the end of paragraph (g)(1) to read as

follows:

§ 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area

closures.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(1) * * * The provisions of this

paragraph do not apply to the following

species: dwarf sand perch, hogfish,

queen triggerfish, and sand perch.

* * * * *

10. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.36, the introductory text and

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are

redesignated as paragraphs (b)

introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), and

(b)(3), respectively, and paragraph (a) is

added to read as follows:

§ 622.36 Seasonal harvest limitations.

(a) During March, April, and May,

each year, the possession of greater

amberjack in or from the Gulf EEZ and

in the Gulf on board a vessel for which

a commercial permit for Gulf reef fish

has been issued, as required under

§ 622.4(a)(2)(v), without regard to where

such greater amberjack were harvested,

is limited to the bag and possession

limits, as specified in § 622.39(b)(1)(i)

and (b)(2), respectively, and such greater

amberjack are subject to the prohibition

on sale or purchase of greater amberjack

possessed under the bag limit, as

specified in § 622.45(c)(1).

* * * * *

11. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.39, paragraph (a)(2) introductory

text is republished, paragraph (a)(2)(iv)

is added, and paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and

(v) are revised to read as follows:

§ 622.39 Bag and possession limits.

(a) * * *

(2) Paragraph (a)(1) of this section

notwithstanding, bag and possession

limits also apply for Gulf reef fish in or

from the EEZ to a person aboard a vessel

that has on board a commercial permit

for Gulf reef fish—

* * * * *

(iv) When the vessel has on board or

is tending any trap other than a fish trap

authorized under § 622.40(a)(2), a stone

crab trap, or a spiny lobster trap.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Groupers, combined, excluding

jewfish and Nassau grouper—5.

* * * * *

(v) Gulf reef fish, combined,

excluding those specified in paragraphs

(b)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section and

excluding dwarf sand perch and sand

perch—20.

* * * * *

12. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.42, paragraph (a)(1)(i) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 622.42 Quotas.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Red snapper—4.65 million lb (2.11

million kg), round weight, apportioned

as follows:

(A) 3.06 million lb (1.39 million kg)

available at noon on February 1 each

year, subject to the closure provisions of

§§ 622.34(l) and 622.43(a)(1)(i).

(B) The remainder available at noon

on September 1 each year, subject to the

closure provisions of §§ 622.34(l) and

622.43(a)(1)(i).

* * * * *

§ 622.43 [Amended]

13. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.43(a)(5), the reference to

‘‘§ 622.44(a)’’ is removed and

‘‘§ 622.44(c)’’ is added in its place.

14. Effective January 29, 1998, in

§ 622.44, paragraph (e) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 622.44 Commercial trip limits.

* * * * *

(e) Gulf red snapper. (1) The trip limit

for red snapper in or from the Gulf for

a vessel that has on board a valid

commercial permit for Gulf reef fish and

a valid Class 1 red snapper license is

2,000 lb (907 kg), round or eviscerated

weight.

(2) The trip limit for red snapper in

or from the Gulf for a vessel that has on

board a valid commercial permit for

Gulf reef fish and a valid Class 2 red

snapper license is 200 lb (91 kg), round

or eviscerated weight.

(3) The trip limit for red snapper in

or from the Gulf for any other vessel for

which a commercial permit for Gulf reef

fish has been issued is zero.

(4) As a condition of a commercial

vessel permit for Gulf reef fish, as

required under § 622.4(a)(2)(v), without

regard to where red snapper are

harvested or possessed, a vessel that has

been issued such permit—

(i) May not possess red snapper in or

from the Gulf in excess of the

appropriate vessel trip limit, as

specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through

(3) of this section.

(ii) May not transfer or receive at sea

red snapper in or from the Gulf.

* * * * *

Appendix A to Part 622 [Amended]

15. Effective January 29, 1998, in

Table 3 of Appendix A to part 622, the

family Haemulidae—Grunts and the

three species and scientific names

thereunder are removed; under the

family Serranidae, the species Bank sea

bass, Rock sea bass, and Black sea bass

and their scientific names are removed

and the family name is revised to read

Serranidae—Groupers; and the family

Sparidae—Porgies and the six species

and scientific names thereunder are

removed.

[FR Doc. 97–33887 Filed 12–24–97; 10:06

am]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–F

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 970103001–7001–01]

RIN 0648–XX79

Point Reyes/Farallon Islands National

Marine Sanctuary

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves

Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management (OCRM),

National Ocean Service (NOS), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), Department of

Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Correction to final regulation.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the final regulation which

was published on January 27, 1997 (62

FR 3788). That regulation changed the

name of the Point Reyes/Farallon

Islands National Marine Sanctuary to

the Gulf of the Farallones National

Marine Sanctuary. This document

corrects the January 27, 1997 final

regulation by instructing that all uses of

the acronym ‘‘PRNMS’’ are changed to

‘‘GFNMS’’ within part 922 of title 15 of

the Code of Federal Regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 30, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Moore at (301) 713–3141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The name

of the Point Reyes/Farallon Islands

National Marine Sanctuary (PRNMS)

was changed to the Gulf of the

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary

(GFNMS) on January 27, 1997 (62 FR

3788). Regulations for the GFNMS are

found in part 922 of title 15 of the Code

of Federal Regulations. In the January

27, 1997 final regulations, NOAA

overlooked the need to also replace the

acronym ‘‘PRNMS’’ with ‘‘GFNMS’’

throughout Part 922. This document

corrects the January 27, 1997 final

regulation by officially replacing