Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56157 

In addition, an element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. The Commission is unable at 

this time to define or quantify the 

criteria that would establish whether a 

specific television station is dominant 

in its field of operation. Accordingly, 

the estimate of small businesses to 

which rules may apply does not exclude 

any television station from the 

definition of a small business on this 

basis and is therefore over-inclusive to 

that extent. Also as noted, an additional 

element of the definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ is that the entity must be 

independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and our 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

The proposed rules may impose 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on a number of different 

entities. For example, the NPRM 

discusses whether video programming 

distributors should be required to 

submit reports to the Commission 

certifying that they are complying with 

monitoring and maintenance of 

equipment and signal transmissions. In 

addition the NPRM asks whether video 

programming distributors should be 

required to file compliance reports as to 

the amount of closed captioning they 

provide. These proposals may impose 

additional reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements on entities. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

possible burden these requirements 

would place on small entities. Also, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

a special approach toward any possible 

compliance burdens on small entities 

might be appropriate. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603(b)). The 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

it should indeed be the responsibility of 

the video programming distributor to 

monitor and maintain equipment and 

signal transmissions and asks if specific 

mechanisms should be in place and 

what would be the impact of such 

mechanisms on distributors. The NPRM 

notes that, alternatively, the National 

Cable and Telecommunications 

Association (NCTA) points out that a 

distributor’s responsibilities should not 

be unduly burdensome and invites 

comment on this matter. The NPRM also 

proposes providing a standardized 

captioning complaint form for 

consumers, which may be a useful tool 

to those filing complaints. In addition, 

the NPRM discusses allowing 

consumers to complain to video 

programming distributors via e-mail, 

phone or fax, which is aimed at 

providing easier options for consumers 

who have concerns regarding captioning 

problems and seek more immediate 

redress. The NPRM also points out that 

effective January 1, 2006, all nonexempt 

new English language programming 

must be captioned. Video programming 

distributors and providers will have to 

caption their programming. Generally, 

100% compliance is required; however, 

particular entities, and under certain 

circumstances small entities, may be 

exempt from the captioning 

requirements if they qualify for an 

exemption pursuant to § 79.1(d) of the 

Commission rules, which provides for 

exempt programs and providers meeting 

the particular qualifications cited in the 

rule, and/or if captioning presents an 

undue burden pursuant to § 79.1(f) of 

the Commission’s rule, which allows 

parties to file a petition with the 

Commission requesting an exemption 

from captioning upon a sufficient 

showing that captioning would pose 

significant difficulty or expense. 

F. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With, the 

Commission’s Proposals 

None. 

Ordering Clauses 

Pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r) and 

713 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 

713, this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 

The Commission’s Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–19161 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 050915240–5240–01; I.D. 

090905A] 

RIN 0648–AS66 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of 

Mexico Essential Fish Habitat 

Amendment 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this proposed 

rule to implement Generic Amendment 

3 to the Fishery Management Plans 

(FMPs) of the Gulf of Mexico (EFH 

Amendment 3) prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(Council). EFH Amendment 3 would 

amend each of the seven Council FMPs 

-shrimp, red drum, reef fish, coastal 

migratory pelagic resources, coral and 

coral reefs, stone crab, and spiny 

lobster- to describe and identify 

essential fish habitat (EFH); minimize to 

the extent practicable the adverse effects 

of fishing on EFH; and encourage 

conservation and management of EFH. 

This proposed rule would establish 

additional habitat areas of particular 

concern (HAPCs), restrict fishing 

activities within HAPCs to protect EFH, 

and require a weak link in bottom trawl 

gear to protect EFH. The intended effect 

of this proposed rule is to facilitate longterm protection of EFH and, thus, better 

conserve and manage fishery resources 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rule must be received no later 

than 5 p.m., eastern time, on November 

10, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposed rule by any of the 

following methods: 

• E-mail: 0648– 

AS66.Proposed@noaa.gov. Include in 

the subject line the following document 

identifier: 0648–AS66. 

56158 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Peter Hood, Southeast 

Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 

• Fax: 727–824–5308; Attention: Peter 

Hood. 

Copies of EFH Amendment 3, which 

includes a Regulatory Impact Review 

(RIR) and an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analyses (IRFA), and the 

supporting Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) may be obtained from 

the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 

Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 

1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: 813–

348–1630; fax: 813–348–1711; e-mail: 

gulfcouncil@gulfcouncil.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Hood, telephone: 727–551–5728, 

fax: 727–824–5308, e-mail: 

peter.hood@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EFH 

Amendment 3 addresses fisheries under 

the FMPs for coral and coral reef 

resources, coastal migratory pelagics, 

red drum, reef fish, shrimp, spiny 

lobster, and stone crab. The FMPs were 

prepared by the Council, except for the 

FMPs for coastal migratory pelagics and 

spiny lobster that were prepared jointly 

by the South Atlantic and Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Councils. 

All of these FMPs, except the spiny 

lobster and stone crab FMPs, are 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 622. The Fishery 

Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic is implemented by regulations 

at 50 CFR part 640. The Fishery 

Management Plan for the Stone Crab 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is 

implemented by regulations at 50 CFR 

part 654. 

Background 

In 1998, the Council prepared a 

generic amendment for the seven 

Council FMPs to describe and identify 

EFH, minimize to the extent practicable 

the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, 

and encourage the conservation and 

enhancement of EFH, as required by 

section 303(a)(7) of the MagnusonStevens Act. A coalition of 

environmental groups subsequently 

initiated litigation challenging NMFS’

approval of the generic amendment. The 

court found that the environmental 

assessment for the generic amendment 

did not comply with the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and required NMFS to prepare 

a more thorough NEPA analysis. 

Consequently, NMFS entered into a 

Joint Stipulation with the plaintiff 

environmental organizations that 

required the Council to prepare an EIS. 

NMFS concluded the scope of the EIS 

should address all required EFH 

components as described in section 

303(a)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

To support the required description 

and identification of EFH and to address 

adverse fishing impacts on EFH related 

to all Council-managed fisheries, the 

Council undertook a detailed, two-year 

analysis of the physical environment; 

oceanographic features; estuarine, near 

shore, and offshore habitats; fishery 

resources; and marine mammals and 

protected species in the Gulf of Mexico. 

This analysis provided the basis for 

preparation of the EFH EIS addressing 

the seven Council FMPs. The Council 

used the EFH EIS as a decision-making 

tool in developing EFH Amendment 3, 

which this proposed rule would 

implement. 

Provisions of This Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would: establish 

new HAPCs; implement restrictions on 

fishing gear within the HAPCs to protect 

EFH, including coral reef habitat; and 

require that any bottom trawl fished in 

the Gulf EEZ include a weak link in the 

trawl’s tickler chain to minimize 

damage to EFH. A weak link is defined 

as a length or section of the tickler chain 

that has a breaking strength less than the 

chain itself and is easily seen as such 

when visually inspected. 

The proposed rule would establish 

new HAPCs for Pulley Ridge off the 

southwest coast of Florida and for 

Stetson Bank and McGrail Bank located 

in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The 

proposed rule would also expand the 

HAPCs for East Flower Garden Bank 

and West Flower Garden Bank by 9.56 

nm2 (32.79 km2) and 13.14 nm2 (45.07 

km2), respectively. Within these HAPCs, 

the use of bottom-tending gear (e.g., 

bottom longlines, bottom trawls, pots, 

traps, and buoy gear) and bottom 

anchoring by fishing vessels would be 

prohibited year-round. The coordinates 

for these proposed HAPCs are specified 

in § 622.34 of this proposed rule. 

Additional Provisions in EFH 

Amendment 3 

In addition to the measures discussed 

above, EFH Amendment 3 would 

describe and identify EFH for the 

fisheries in each of the Council’s seven 

FMPs. This newly defined EFH consists 

of areas of higher species density as 

determined based on the NOAA Gulf of 

Mexico species atlas and functional 

relationship analyses for red drum, reef 

fish, coastal migratory pelagics, shrimp, 

stone crab, and spiny lobster and based 

on known distributions for corals. The 

newly defined EFH would ensure that 

habitats most important to managed 

species (i.e., those shallower than 100 

fathoms (183 m)) would remain 

protected as EFH. 

EFH Amendment 3 also would 

identify numerous HAPCs in addition to 

those described under Provisions of 

This Proposed Rule above. These areas 

include: the Florida Middle Grounds; 

Madison-Swanson Marine Reserve; 

Tortugas North and South Ecological 

Reserves; and the individual reefs and 

banks of the Northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico (Sonnier Bank, MacNeil Bank, 

29 Fathom, Rankin Bright Bank, Geyer 

Bank, Bouma Bank, Rezak Sidner Bank, 

Alderice Bank, and Jakkula Bank). 

Finally, EFH Amendment 3 would 

establish an education program for 

recreational and commercial fishermen 

regarding protection of coral reefs when 

using various fishing gears in coral reef 

areas. 

Additional background and rationale 

for the measures discussed above are 

contained in EFH Amendment 3, the 

availability of which was announced in 

the Federal Register (70 FR 54518, 

September 15, 2005). 

Classification 

At this time, NMFS has not 

determined that EFH Amendment 3, 

which this proposed rule would 

implement, is consistent with the 

national standards of the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable laws. 

In making that determination, NMFS 

will take into account the data, views, 

and comments received during the 

comment period on EFH Amendment 3 

and the comment period on this 

proposed rule. 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared an IRFA as required 

by section 603 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. The IRFA describes the 

economic impact this proposed rule, if 

adopted, would have on small entities. 

A description of the action, why it is 

being considered, and the legal basis for 

this action are contained at the 

beginning of this section in the 

preamble and in the SUMMARY section 

of the preamble. A summary of the 

analysis follows. 

This action would identify EFH, 

identify HAPCs, and establish gear and 

fishing restrictions to protect these 

habitats. The purpose of this action is to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

fishing impacts to EFH and HAPCs. The 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56159 

Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the 

statutory basis for the rule. 

No duplicative, overlapping, or 

conflicting Federal rules have been 

identified. 

Almost all commercial and for-hire 

fishing operations in the Gulf of Mexico 

could be affected by the proposed action 

either through directly altering their 

gear usage or fishing locations, or 

indirectly by affecting fishery-wide 

harvest patterns. These commercial 

fishing operations include the shrimp, 

reef fish, spiny lobster, and stone crab 

fisheries. Participation in multiple 

fisheries by individual entities is 

common. Fishing for pelagic species is 

conducted predominantly near the 

surface with virtually no impact on 

bottom habitat; therefore, pelagic 

fisheries would not be impacted by the 

effects of the proposed rule. However, 

operations that fish for both pelagic and 

bottom species will be captured in the 

following discussion. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines a small business as one 

that is independently owned and 

operated and not dominant in its field 

of operation, and has annual receipts 

not in excess of $3.5 million in the case 

of commercial harvesting entities or 

$6.0 million in the case of for-hire 

entities, or has fewer than 500 

employees in the case of fish processors 

or fewer than 100 employees in the case 

of fish dealers. 

The number of shrimp vessels 

operating in the Gulf of Mexico in the 

Federal shrimp fishery has historically 

been estimated to be as high as 3,500 to 

5,000 vessels, while the number of 

smaller shrimp boats operating in state 

waters has been estimated at about 

13,000. However, many of these shrimp 

fishing operations are not currently 

fishing due to poor economic conditions 

in the fishery, and less than 3,000 

vessels are currently permitted to 

operate in the Federal fishery. More 

precise numbers for state vessels are not 

available. Detailed economic and social 

information has not been collected from 

Gulf shrimp fishermen for over 10 years, 

although a socioeconomic survey of the 

shrimp fishery is presently underway. 

The historical estimate of average gross 

revenues for shrimp vessels is 

approximately $82,000. Given the 

economic conditions currently 

experienced by the fishery, present 

average revenues are likely substantially 

less. Although there are several 

businesses that operate a fleet of shrimp 

vessels, the actual size and number of 

such businesses is unknown. 

As of October 2003, there were 1,158 

active commercial reef fish permits for 

the Gulf of Mexico. An average vessel is 

estimated to generate revenues of 

approximately $65,000. Average 

revenue performance within the fleet 

varies, however, depending upon the 

gear utilized and the area fished, 

ranging from a low of approximately 

$24,000 for vertical line vessels fishing 

in the eastern Gulf to $117,000 for 

bottom longline vessels fishing Gulfwide. 

In 2001, 2,235 fishermen possessed a 

spiny lobster trap certificate. Total 

revenues in the 2001 fishery were 

approximately $15 million, or an 

average of less than $7,000 per 

fisherman. Landings in 2001 were 

markedly lower than historical 

performance. Using peak revenues of 

approximately $30 million in 1999 and 

the same number of fisherman results in 

average revenues of less than $14,000 

per participant. 

From 1985–94, an average of 720 

fishing craft operated in the stone crab 

fishery. Of these craft, an average of 234 

were vessels greater than 5.0 net tons 

(4.5 metric tons), and 486 were smaller 

boats. More recent estimates are not 

available. The highest annual total exvessel revenues from stone crab 

landings were registered in 1997 at 

$31.9 million, or an average of 

approximately $44,000 per vessel. On 

the assumption that the majority of 

harvests are made by the larger vessels, 

if all landings are attributed to the 234 

average participating larger vessels, then 

the average gross revenue would 

amount to about $136,427. 

As of October 2003, there were 1,552 

active for-hire vessel permits in the Gulf 

of Mexico, encompassing both charter 

and headboat operations. On average, 

charter boats are estimated to generate 

gross revenues ranging from $58,000 in 

the eastern Gulf to $81,000 in the 

western Gulf, or an overall average of 

$64,000. Headboats are estimated to 

generate gross revenues ranging from 

$281,000 in the eastern Gulf to $550,000 

in the western Gulf, or an overall 

average of $400,000. 

Fish dealers may also be affected by 

the measures in this proposed 

amendment to the extent that the 

measures affect harvests. There are 142 

federally permitted dealers in the Gulf 

region. Average employment 

information per reef fish dealer is not 

known. Although dealers and 

processors are not synonymous entities, 

total employment in 1997 for reef fish 

processors in the Southeast was 

estimated at approximately 700 

individuals, both part- and full-time. It 

is assumed all processors must be 

dealers, yet a dealer need not be a 

processor. Further, processing is a much 

more labor-intensive exercise than 

dealing. Therefore, given the 

employment estimate for the processing 

sector, it is assumed that the average 

employment within the dealer sector 

would not surpass the SBA employment 

benchmark. 

Based on the SBA benchmark 

standards and the gross revenue and 

employment profiles presented above 

for the various fisheries, all commercial 

and for-hire fishing vessels and reef fish 

dealers potentially affected by the 

proposed regulations are considered 

small entities. 

None of the measures considered in 

this amendment would alter existing 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. None of the proposed 

compliance requirements would require 

additional professional skills. 

The proposed rule could directly or 

indirectly affect all commercial and forhire entities that operate in the Gulf of 

Mexico. All of these entities are 

considered small business entities. The 

proposed rule will, therefore, affect a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The outcome of ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ can be ascertained by 

examining two issues: 

disproportionality and profitability. The 

disproportionality question is, do the 

regulations place a substantial number 

of small entities at a significant 

competitive disadvantage to large 

entities? All the vessel operations 

affected by the proposed rule are 

considered small business entities, so 

the issue of disproportionality does not 

arise. 

The profitability question is: Do the 

regulations significantly reduce profit 

for a substantial number of small 

entities? The designation of EFH or 

HAPCs would not have any direct effect 

on fishing activity or profits because 

designation itself does not impose 

fishing restrictions. The anchoring 

prohibition would primarily affect 

vessels using vertical lines over the live 

coral areas of Pulley Ridge, the East and 

West Flower Gardens, and the McGrail 

Bank. Landings data do not provide 

precise harvest or fishing locations, and 

the proposed restricted areas generally 

lie within larger geographical statistical 

grids. Total harvests from the grid 

within which Pulley Ridge lies (NMFS 

Statistical Area 2) accounted for only 

3.1 percent of average annual total reef 

fish harvests from 2000–2002, and, 

although not quantified, similar results 

are expected for the other protected 

areas. Because Pulley Ridge--and, 

similarly, other protected areas--does 

not encompass the entirety of the 

statistical area within which it lies, any 

harvest reduction attributed to the 

anchoring restriction would be expected 

56160 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

to be less than the total area 

contribution. 

The prohibition on the use of bottom 

trawls, bottom longlines, and buoy gear 

would primarily affect fishermen using 

these gears in the coral areas of Pulley 

Ridge, Stetson Bank, and McGrail Bank. 

As previously stated, the coral areas 

within Pulley Ridge lie completely 

within the broader NMFS Statistical 

Area 2. Logbook data for the entire area 

show the value of all longline reef fish 

and shark landings from 2000 through 

2003 averaged $662,000, or 4.1 percent 

of the Gulf-wide total for these species. 

However, it is not anticipated that these 

landings and revenues would be 

removed from the fishery because it is 

expected that most, if not all, of this 

fishing effort will relocate to adjacent 

areas where fishing activity already 

exceeds that of NMFS Statistical Area 2. 

This relocation may have some minor, 

but unquantifiable, effect on fishing 

costs. Relocation of buoy gear fishing 

would similarly be expected to affect 

fishing costs. However, it is unknown 

how much, if any, buoy gear fishing 

occurs in the proposed protected areas. 

Similar effects would be expected 

regarding Stetson Bank and McGrail 

Bank. 

The prohibition on bottom trawls is 

not expected to affect fishing behavior 

because trawl fishermen are expected to 

currently avoid these areas because 

shrimp generally are not abundant over 

coral and the costs associated with gear 

entanglement and damage are 

prohibitive to efficient trawling activity. 

It is not anticipated that any trap 

fishermen (fish, lobster, or stone crab) 

would be impacted by the proposed 

measures because this gear is not 

believed to be utilized to any significant 

degree in the proposed restricted areas. 

The requirement for a weak link in 

the tickler chain of bottom trawls used 

over all habitats is expected to have 

minor impacts on gear costs and may 

reduce harvests and increase costs if 

gear is lost due to entanglement and link 

separation. Successful trawling 

operation encourages the avoidance of 

entanglements. A weak link may 

increase this behavior, potentially 

changing where trawling occurs, costs of 

operation, and harvest rates. It is not 

possible, however, to quantify these 

effects. 

Several alternatives were considered 

to the gear restrictions intended to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

fishing impacts on the EFH. The noaction alternative would have 

eliminated the potential adverse 

impacts of the proposed actions but 

would not have achieved the Council’s 

objectives. The second alternative to the 

gear restrictions would have prohibited 

bottom trawling over coral reefs, 

required aluminum doors on trawls, 

limited the length and deployment rate 

(number of sets per day) of bottom 

longline sets on hard bottom, required 

circle hooks on vertical lines and 

limited sinker weights, and required 

buoys on anchors. This alternative 

would not have sufficiently achieved 

the Council’s objectives for habitat 

protection and would have contained 

provisions that were either impractical 

in terms of conducting an economically 

viable fishery, e.g. limiting the 

deployment of gear, or increased the 

adverse economic impacts to fishery 

participants over those impacts in the 

proposed rule. 

In addition to the requirements of the 

second alternative, the third alternative 

would have limited tickler chains, 

headropes, and vessel length for trawl 

vessels, and prohibited trotlines when 

using traps or pots. Although this 

alternative would have increased the 

habitat protection over the second 

alternative, the adverse economic 

impacts of the second alternative would 

not have been reduced. 

The fourth alternative would have 

increased the headrope and vessel 

length restrictions of the third 

alternative and prohibited the use of 

tickler chains on all bottoms; prohibited 

the use of all traps, pots, bottom 

longline, and buoy gear on coral reefs; 

and prohibited the use of anchors on 

coral. This alternative would have 

increased the inefficiency of trawl gear 

and would have resulted in lower catch 

rates and lower economic returns, 

thereby increasing the adverse impacts 

to fishery participants. 

The fifth alternative would have 

prohibited the use of all gear and fishing 

activities that have adverse impacts on 

EFH in the EEZ. Although resulting in 

the greatest protection to the 

environment, the restrictions of this 

alternative were greater than the 

Council believed necessary to achieve 

the objectives of the action and would 

have imposed an excessive economic 

burden on fishery participants. 

The final alternative would have 

established restrictions applicable to 

fishing over live hard bottom and would 

have limited the length and deployment 

rate of bottom longline sets, prohibited 

trotlines when using traps or pots, 

prohibited all anchoring, and enacted a 

seasonal closure for shrimp trawl 

fishing. The longline and anchoring 

provisions of this alternative are 

impractical in terms of conducting an 

operationally and economically viable 

fishery, and the longline provisions 

could reduce the economic efficiency of 

vessels, thereby increasing adverse 

economic impacts without clearly 

demonstrable benefits. Further, a 

seasonal shrimp trawling closure to 

protect EFH and HAPCs is difficult to 

justify given (1) the inability to 

determine, absent vessel monitoring 

systems, exactly where fishing effort 

occurs and (2) the apparent low fishing 

pressure in the areas that are the most 

likely candidates for closure. Overall, 

this alternative would not meet the 

Council’s objectives as well as the 

proposed rule. 

Copies of the IRFA are available (see 

ADDRESSES). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: September 21, 2005. 

John Oliver 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed 

to be amended as follows: 

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE 

CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH 

ATLANTIC 

1. The authority citation for part 622 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. In § 622.31, paragraph (l) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods. 

* * * * * 

(l) A bottom trawl that does not have 

a weak link in the tickler chain may not 

be used to fish in the Gulf EEZ. For the 

purposes of this paragraph, a weak link 

is defined as a length or section of the 

tickler chain that has a breaking strength 

less than the chain itself and is easily 

seen as such when visually inspected. 

3. In § 622.34, paragraphs (d) 

introductory text, (d)(1), and (j) are 

revised, and paragraphs (r), (s), and (t) 

are added to read as follows: 

§ 622.34 Gulf EEZ seasonal and/or area 

closures. 

* * * * * 

(d) Tortugas marine reserves HAPC. 

The following activities are prohibited 

within the Tortugas marine reserves 

HAPC: Fishing for any species and 

bottom anchoring by fishing vessels. 

(1) EEZ portion of Tortugas North. 

The area is bounded by rhumb lines 

connecting the following points: From 

point A at 24°40′00′′ N. lat., 83°06′00′′ 

W. long. to point B at 24°46′00′′ N. lat., 

83°06′00′′ W. long. to point C at 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 56161 

24°46′00′′ N. lat., 83°00′00′′ W. long.; 

thence along the line denoting the 

seaward limit of Florida’s waters, as 

shown on the current edition of NOAA 

chart 11434, to point A at 24°40′00′′ N. 

lat., 83°06′00′′ W. long. 

* * * * * 

(j) West and East Flower Garden 

Banks HAPC. The following activities 

are prohibited year-round in the HAPC: 

Fishing with a bottom longline, bottom 

trawl, buoy gear, dredge, pot, or trap 

and bottom anchoring by fishing 

vessels. 

(1) West Flower Garden Bank. West 

Flower Garden Bank is bounded by 

rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 27°55′22.8′′ 93°53′09.6′′ 

B 27°55′22.8′′ 93°46′46.0′′ 

C 27°49′03.0′′ 93°46′46.0′′ 

D 27°49′03.0′′ 93°53′09.6′′ 

A 27°55′22.8′′ 93°53′09.6′′ 

(2) East Flower Garden Bank. East 

Flower Garden Bank is bounded by 

rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 27°59′14.4′′ 93°38′58.2′′ 

B 27°59′14.4′′ 93°34′03.5′′ 

C 27°52′36.5′′ 93°34′03.5′′ 

D 27°52′36.5′′ 93°38′58.2′′ 

A 27°59′14.4′′ 93°38′58.2′′ 

* * * * * 

(r) Pulley Ridge HAPC. Fishing with a 

bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy 

gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring 

by fishing vessels are prohibited yearround in the area of the HAPC bounded 

by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 24°58′18′′ 83°38′33′′ 

B 24°58′18′′ 83°37′00′′ 

C 24°41′11′′ 83°37′00′′ 

D 24°40′00′′ 83°41′22′′ 

E 24°43′55′′ 83°47′15′′ 

A 24°58′18′′ 83°38′33′′ 

(s) Stetson Bank HAPC. Fishing with 

a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy 

gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring 

by fishing vessels are prohibited yearround in the HAPC, which is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 28°10′38.3′′ 94°18′36.5′′ 

B 28°10′38.3′′ 94°17′06.3′′ 

C 28°09′18.6′′ 94°17′06.3′′ 

D 28°09′18.6′′ 94°18′36.5′′ 

A 28°10′38.3′′ 94°18′36.5′′ 

56162 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 185 / Monday, September 26, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(t) McGrail Bank HAPC. Fishing with 

a bottom longline, bottom trawl, buoy 

gear, pot, or trap and bottom anchoring 

by fishing vessels are prohibited yearround in the HAPC, which is bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in order, the 

following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 27°59′06.0′′ 92°37′19.2′′ 

B 27°59′06.0′′ 92°32′17.4′′ 

C 27°55′55.5′′ 92°32′17.4′′ 

D 27°55′55.5′′ 92°37′19.2′′ 

A 27°59′06.0′′ 92°37′19.2′′ 

[FR Doc. 05–19169 Filed 9–23–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S