Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62073 

the Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), and 

Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 

12866 directs agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). A regulatory impact analysis 

(RIA) must be prepared for major rules 

with economically significant effects 

($100 million or more in any one year). 

This rule does not reach the economic 

threshold and thus is not considered a 

major rule. 

The RFA requires agencies to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

entities. For purposes of the RFA, small 

entities include small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and 

government agencies. According to the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

approximately 53 percent of all SNFs 

and NFs generate revenues of $11.5 

million or less in a one year period, and 

are considered small entities. 

Individuals and States are not included 

in the definition of small entities. The 

only burden associated with this rule is 

the information collection burden 

associated with collecting and posting 

nurse staffing data. We are not preparing 

an analysis for the RFA because we have 

determined that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act 

requires us to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis if a rule may have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. This analysis must conform to 

the provisions of section 604 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, we define a small rural hospital 

as a hospital that is located outside of 

a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 

fewer than 100 beds. We are not 

preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) 

of the Act because we have determined 

that this final rule will not have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals because it applies only to 

SNFs and NFs. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule that may result in expenditure in 

any one year by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $110 million. The only 

burden associated with this rule is the 

information collection burden 

associated with collecting and posting 

nurse staffing data. This final rule will 

have no consequential effect on the 

governments mentioned or on the 

private sector. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirement costs on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

Since this regulation will not impose 

any costs on State or local governments, 

the requirements of Executive Order 

13132 are not applicable. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this regulation 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 483 

Grant programs-health, Health 

facilities, Health professions, Health 

records, Medicaid, Medicare, Nursing 

homes, Nutrition, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Safety. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services amends 42 CFR part 

483 as follows: 

PART 483—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

STATES AND LONG TERM CARE 

FACILITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 483 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 

1395hh). 

■ 2. Section 483.30 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 483.30 Nursing services. 

* * * * * 

(e) Nurse staffing information—(1) 

Data requirements. The facility must 

post the following information on a 

daily basis: 

(i) Facility name. 

(ii) The current date. 

(iii) The total number and the actual 

hours worked by the following 

categories of licensed and unlicensed 

nursing staff directly responsible for 

resident care per shift: 

(A) Registered nurses. 

(B) Licensed practical nurses or 

licensed vocational nurses (as defined 

under State law). 

(C) Certified nurse aides. 

(iv) Resident census. 

(2) Posting requirements. (i) The 

facility must post the nurse staffing data 

specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section on a daily basis at the beginning 

of each shift. 

(ii) Data must be posted as follows: 

(A) Clear and readable format. 

(B) In a prominent place readily 

accessible to residents and visitors. 

(3) Public access to posted nurse 

staffing data. The facility must, upon 

oral or written request, make nurse 

staffing data available to the public for 

review at a cost not to exceed the 

community standard. 

(4) Facility data retention 

requirements. The facility must 

maintain the posted daily nurse staffing 

data for a minimum of 18 months, or as 

required by State law, whichever is 

greater. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medicare—Hospital 

Insurance) 

Dated: April 21, 2005. 

Mark B. McClellan, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services. 

Approved: June 16, 2005. 

Michael O. Leavitt, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–21278 Filed 10–27–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 600 and 622 

[Docket No. 050729208–5267–02; I.D. 

060805B] 

RIN 0648–AP51 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; 

Comprehensive Amendment to the 

Fishery Management Plans of the U.S. 

Caribbean 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

implement a comprehensive 

amendment prepared by the Caribbean 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

to amend its Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, 

Queen Conch, and Coral Fishery 

Management Plans (FMPs). The 

comprehensive amendment is designed 

to ensure the FMPs are fully compliant 

with the provisions of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). This final rule redefines the 

fishery management units for the FMPs; 

establishes seasonal closures; imposes 

gear restrictions and requirements; 

62074 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

revises requirements for marking pots 

and traps; and prohibits the filleting of 

fish at sea. In addition, the 

comprehensive amendment establishes 

biological reference points and stock 

status criteria; establishes rebuilding 

schedules and strategies to end 

overfishing and rebuild overfished 

stocks; provides for standardized 

collection of bycatch data; minimizes 

bycatch and bycatch mortality to the 

extent practicable; designates essential 

fish habitat (EFH) and EFH habitat areas 

of particular concern (HAPCs); and 

minimizes adverse impacts on such 

habitat to the extent practicable. The 

intended effect of this final rule is to 

achieve optimum yield in the fisheries 

and provide social and economic 

benefits associated with maintaining 

healthy stocks. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 

regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 

and Record of Decision (ROD) are 

available from Dr. Steve Branstetter, 

NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 

13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 

33701; telephone 727–824–5305; fax 

727–824–5308; e-mail 

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Steve Branstetter, 727–824–5305; fax 

727–824–5308; e-mail 

Steve.Branstetter@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

fisheries for spiny lobster, queen conch, 

reef fish, and corals and reef-associated 

invertebrates in the exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ) off Puerto Rico and off the 

U.S. Virgin Islands are managed under 

the respective fishery management 

plans prepared by the Council. These 

fishery management plans are 

implemented under the authority of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act by regulations at 

50 CFR part 622. This final rule 

implements Amendment 2 to the FMP 

for the Spiny Lobster Fishery, 

Amendment 1 to the FMP for Queen 

Conch Resources, Amendment 3 to the 

FMP for the Reef Fish Fishery, and 

Amendment 2 to the FMP for the Corals 

and Reef Associated Plants and 

Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, known collectively as 

the Comprehensive Amendment to the 

FMPs of the Caribbean. 

NMFS published a notice of 

availability for the comprehensive 

amendment in the Federal Register on 

June 16, 2005, and requested public 

comment on the amendment (70 FR 

35053). On September 13, 2005, NMFS 

published the proposed rule to 

implement the comprehensive 

amendment and requested public 

comment on the proposed rule (70 FR 

53979). NMFS approved the 

comprehensive amendment on 

September 14, 2005. The rationale for 

the measures in the comprehensive 

amendment is provided in the 

amendment and in the preamble to the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

This final rule is implemented with no 

changes from the proposed rule. 

Comments and Responses 

NMFS received 17 comments on the 

comprehensive amendment and 

proposed rule. Following is a summary 

of the comments and NMFS’ responses. 

Biological Reference Points and Stock 

Status Determination Criteria 

Comment 1: The data underlying the 

calculations for maximum sustainable 

yield (MSY) do not comply with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to 

use the best scientific information 

available. In data-poor situations, it is 

appropriate to base estimates of MSY on 

catch levels, such as is done in the 

amendment. However, catch estimates 

derived from the Marine Recreational 

Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) are 

widely regarded as flawed and 

inconclusive. The Council needs to 

develop a more suitable tool for 

determining recreational catch levels. 

Estimates of MSY should be set more 

conservatively. 

Response: NMFS and the Council 

acknowledge there are data limitations 

regarding all Caribbean fisheries, but 

NMFS disagrees that the MRFSS data 

are flawed and inconclusive. The 

primary purpose of the MRFSS survey 

techniques is to produce regional (and 

possibly by state), annual estimates of 

recreational saltwater fishing effort, 

catch and participation. These methods 

have been peer-reviewed and found to 

be adequate or better for their intended 

purpose and scope. The MRFSS 

program began in Puerto Rico in 2000 

and routinely collects information on 

both catch and discards. Over 2,700 

field intercept angler observations were 

made in the year 2000, and sampling 

continues at a similar level. Under other 

actions in the amendment, more robust 

standardized reporting requirements are 

being established, and as additional data 

become available in the future, these 

catch estimates can be revised. Until 

such data become available, the 

amendment includes several processes 

intended to ensure quality control in the 

establishment of MSY for the various 

stocks. MSY is not simply defined as the 

long-term average catch. Equating MSY 

to just the average catch over time 

assumes that both biomass (B) and 

fishing mortality (F) are consistent and 

able to produce MSY. Additionally, the 

time period over which catches are 

averaged would need to be sufficient to 

observe trends in the fishery. 

Recognizing the data for the U.S. 

Caribbean do not meet these 

assumptions, the Council selected a 

proxy for MSY derived from recent 

catch (C), modified by estimates of the 

current biomass (B) and fishing 

mortality (F) ratios. This allows the 

Council to ensure that MSY reflects 

situations when B or F are above or 

below the level needed to produce MSY. 

The Council’s choice of targets and 

limit reference points is based on the 

recommendations of NMFS’ Technical 

Guidance on the Use of Precautionary 

Approaches to Implementing National 

Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Technical Guidance). The 

Technical Guidance states ‘‘in cases of 

severe data limitations, qualitative 

approaches may be necessary, including 

expert opinion and consensus-building 

methods,’’ which was the approach 

used by the Council. The Council 

depended heavily on the 

recommendations of its Sustainable 

Fisheries Act (SFA) Working Group, 

which consisted of Council staff, NMFS 

scientists, representatives from various 

U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico 

fishery management agencies, and 

representatives from several 

environmental organizations. This 

expert group offered its best 

professional judgment to the Council 

regarding appropriate values, based on 

the available scientific and anecdotal 

information. 

MSY values chosen for spiny lobster 

and reef fishes are the lowest values 

considered other than closing the 

fisheries and setting MSY at zero. MSY 

for queen conch is an intermediate 

value of the range of alternatives 

considered and provides a moderate 

level of fishing mortality on the stock. 

The Council chose to prohibit all take of 

queen conch in the exclusive economic 

zone (EEZ) except for a small area of 

Lang Bank, which will aid this species’

recovery from an overfished condition. 

Comment 2: Most Caribbean snapper 

and grouper species and many grunt 

species are overfished or at risk of being 

overfished. Establishing a proxy B ratio 

of 0.75 is less conservative than an 

option assuming the stocks are more 

depressed by providing a B ratio of 0.50. 

Response: Only Snapper Unit 1 (4 

species), Grouper Unit 4 (4 species), and 

the parrotfishes (10 species) are 

considered to be at risk. Four species are 

identified as being overfished. The 

selections of B and F ratios for these 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62075 

species or species units follow the 

recommendations developed in the 

Technical Guidance for a default target 

control rule. Information is insufficient 

to determine a precise status for each 

species or species unit; establishing a 

more conservatively based B ratio could 

be unnecessarily restrictive. The 

Council is proposing several harvesting 

restrictions intended to reduce fishing 

mortality and improve the condition of 

these stocks. 

Comment 3: One commenter 

suggested that establishing optimum 

yield (OY) as the average yield 

associated with fishing at FOY, where 

FOY = 0.75 FMSY, was unduly punishing 

to resource users, and assumes the 

relationship between fishing effort and 

catch is linear. Conversely, one 

commenter suggested this selection was 

not conservative as it allows yields at 94 

percent of MSY. 

Response: As noted for Comment 1, 

the Council’s choice of targets and limit 

reference points is based on the 

recommendations of the Technical 

Guidance. The recommended default for 

a constant-F target strategy should 

restrain F to a level 20 to 30 percent 

below the maximum fishing mortality 

threshold. Establishing a target F at 75 

percent of FMSY results in yields of 94 

percent of MSY or higher and creates a 

biomass level of at least 125 percent of 

BMSY once the stock reaches 

equilibrium. This does not mean yields 

allowed on a depressed stock are 94 

percent of MSY. A constant-F approach 

is more conservative because it restricts 

F on the stock at any size, whereas a 

constant catch approach could allow 

excessive harvest under low MSY 

values and be too restrictive under a 

larger MSY. 

Comment 4: Establishing minimum 

stock size threshold (MSST) as BMSY(1–

c) where ‘‘c’’ is natural mortality (M) or 

0.50, whichever is smaller, is restrictive. 

Response: The Council’s choice for 

MSST follows the guidance for a default 

MSY control rule. Setting ‘‘c’’ equal to 

1–M or 0.50 is expected to allow a stock 

fished at FMSY to fluctuate its biomass 

around BMSY, allowing for variation in 

natural mortality. 

Comment 5: National Standard 8 of 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows 

managers to consider the potential 

socio-economic impacts as long as they 

are consistent with the primary goals of 

ending overfishing and rebuilding 

depleted populations. Nevertheless, the 

Council chose the most liberal 

alternative for maximum fishing 

mortality threshold (MFMT), citing the 

need to minimize short-term socioeconomic impacts as its justification. 

The priority in setting MFMT is 

conservation of resource. 

Response: The Council’s preferred 

alternatives to reduce F and end 

overfishing are consistent with the 

choices for stock status determination 

criteria. The Council’s proposed 

harvesting restrictions are intended to 

reduce F by as much as 30 percent, 

leading to improved conditions of these 

stocks. 

Reducing Fishing Mortality 

Comment 6: The Council should have 

selected the alternative requiring the 

establishment of a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between NMFS 

and the state governments to develop 

compatible regulations for all its 

managed species. 

Response: The Council did select 

alternatives to develop MOUs for 

Nassau grouper and queen conch. The 

Council continually recognized the 

importance of compatible state 

regulations, given the vast majority of 

harvest occurs in state-controlled 

waters. The U.S. Virgin Islands state 

representatives on the Council have 

agreed to pursue implementing state 

regulations to prohibit harvest of Nassau 

grouper, and the Council’s suite of 

preferred alternatives are based in large 

part on measures already in place in 

Puerto Rico. 

Comment 7: The Council’s choice of 

actions to reduce F through gear 

restrictions is not adequate. Gillnets 

would be prohibited in the EEZ, but 

continued limited use for non-managed 

baitfish would be allowed, thus 

contributing to bycatch. The Council 

rejected the alternative to prohibit fish 

traps--the dominant fishing gear used in 

the Caribbean. 

Response: The Council estimates the 

prohibition on the use of gillnets and 

trammel nets may provide an overall F 

reduction of about 10 percent, with F on 

species such as parrotfish reduced as 

much as 30 percent. Bycatch issues will 

additionally be addressed through the 

proposed action. Many gillnets in the 

EEZ are set on the bottom, and a 

secondary benefit to their prohibition is 

a reduction in physical damage to the 

habitat. The restricted use of surface 

gillnets for baitfish, such as ballyhoo, is 

species-specific. The requirement to 

constantly tend the nets will reduce 

bycatch and the potential for lost gear 

that could continue to ‘‘ghost’’ fish. 

Additionally, most of this effort occurs 

in shallow state waters. The allowable 

use of gillnets to catch surface fishes 

such as ballyhoo should not have 

impacts to habitat. 

The Council considered but rejected 

an alternative to ban fish traps in the 

EEZ. Such a ban could theoretically 

reduce F by 20 to 67 percent; however, 

the majority of fish trap effort occurs in 

state waters, and the actual reductions 

in F in the EEZ were likely to be much 

lower. Because there is limited fishable 

area for fish traps in the EEZ, the 

Council concluded a prohibition of this 

gear in the EEZ would likely transfer the 

limited effort in the EEZ to state waters, 

where more juveniles would be taken, 

thus negating any benefits of the Federal 

prohibition. 

Comment 8: Species-specific seasonal 

closures will not be as effective as area 

closures to protect spawning 

aggregations of Grouper Unit 4, 

parrotfish, and Snapper Unit 1. These 

species will continue to be caught while 

fishing for other species occurs. 

Response: The Council recognized 

there would be a regulatory discard 

issue when these species are taken 

during a closed season. However, 

closing specific areas would still allow 

the species to be taken in areas not 

closed to fishing. Allowing continued 

harvest would not reduce F as needed. 

A seasonal closure of the entire U.S. 

Caribbean during the peak spawning 

periods for each species group is 

necessary to achieve these reductions. 

Comment 9: It is unnecessary to close 

the EEZ to queen conch fishing. Catches 

in St. Thomas have never approached 1 

percent of MSY levels, whereas the 

fishery in St. Croix has landed queen 

conch in excess of MSY occasionally 

and in excess of OY consistently. 

Response: The status of the queen 

conch resource was determined for the 

U.S. Caribbean as a whole. The stock is 

considered overfished, and reductions 

in fishing mortality are necessary. 

NMFS estimates the EEZ comprises only 

14 percent of the fishable habitat of the 

U.S. Caribbean. Fishing for queen conch 

off Puerto Rico occurs almost entirely in 

state waters. Off the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

including state waters, landings are 

approximately 39,000 lb (17,690 kg). 

Because queen conch are generally 

harvested by hand, depth is another 

limiting factor, thus, most harvest 

occurs in inshore waters. 

Approximately 14,000 lb (6,350 kg) are 

harvested in the Lang Bank area off St. 

Croix, and only 22 percent of these 

landings are estimated to come from 

Federal waters. Given the importance of 

this area to the social and economic 

stability of St. Croix fishermen, the 

Council chose to allow fishing to 

continue in the small area known as 

Lang Bank. 

Rebuilding Strategies 

Comment 10: The Council chose the 

shortest rebuilding period for Nassau 

62076 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

and goliath grouper, and prohibited 

filleting fish at sea to help reduce illegal 

catches of these species. However, 

efforts should be made to protect sites 

in Federal waters where Nassau and 

goliath grouper aggregate to spawn. 

Response: NMFS agrees a prohibition 

of filleting fish at sea will reduce illegal 

harvest of prohibited or undersized 

species. Identifying areas in the EEZ 

where Nassau and goliath grouper 

aggregate to spawn would not further 

reduce F on these species. The harvest 

and possession of Nassau and goliath 

grouper in or from the entire Caribbean 

EEZ is already prohibited. 

Comment 11: The life history 

information used to develop the 

rebuilding schedules and recovery 

strategies is in error. The proposed 

rebuilding periods are longer than what 

is consistent with accepted life history 

information. 

Response: The Council considered 

three alternatives to each rebuilding 

strategy. For Nassau grouper, goliath 

grouper, and queen conch, the Council 

chose the rebuilding time frame 

recognizing the lower generation time 

for these species. For Grouper Unit 4, 

the Council chose the longest time 

frame (10 years) to reduce the social and 

economic impacts that would have 

occurred under shorter (2 and 6 years) 

schedules. Each of the rebuilding 

strategies was developed using the best 

available scientific information on each 

species. These data were reviewed by 

NMFS and the Council’s SFA Working 

Group comprised of representatives of 

NMFS, the Council, state agencies, and 

interested stakeholders. This Working 

Group provided technical guidance and 

recommendations to the Council during 

its deliberations, choosing the most 

appropriate time frame for each 

rebuilding strategy. 

Comment 12: In the case of overfished 

species, the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

requires managers to specify a 

rebuilding period that is ‘‘as short as 

possible.’’ Although the Council chose 

the shortest rebuilding period for 

Nassau and goliath grouper, of the 

alternatives considered, they chose the 

longest period (10 years) for Grouper 

Unit 4. 

Response: National Standard 8 of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires 

managers to minimize socio-economic 

impacts as long as the actions are 

consistent with the primary goals of 

ending overfishing and rebuilding 

depleted populations. To that end, the 

National Standard Guidelines allow 

rebuilding strategies to be as long as 10 

years as long as pertinent factors, such 

as the status of the stock and the needs 

of fishing communities, are 

appropriately considered. Under the 

proposed stock status criteria, Grouper 

Unit 4 is slightly overfished, with a 

stock size at 91 percent of MSST. The 

seasonal closure on this Unit is 

anticipated to achieve a 24–percent 

reduction in F, recovering the stock 

from an overfished condition under any 

of the alternative schedules considered 

(2, 6, or 10 years). To reduce the 

economic impacts of the shorter 

rebuilding schedules, the Council chose 

10 years. 

Comment 13: During its deliberations 

on the actions to be selected in this 

amendment, the Council changed its 

preferred alternative from the largest 

closed area of Grammanik Bank (23.57 

square kilometers or 6.88 square 

nautical miles) to the smallest (1.50 

square kilometers or 0.44 square 

nautical miles). A more moderate choice 

would provide better protection for 

yellowfin grouper spawning 

aggregations. 

Response: The amendment also 

proposes to close the entire U.S. 

Caribbean EEZ to the harvest and 

possession of yellowfin grouper and 

other groupers in Grouper Unit 4 during 

February through April. However, such 

action does not preclude fishing in the 

EEZ for other species, whereby there 

will be incidental harvest and some 

mortality on yellowfin grouper and 

other grouper in Grouper Unit 4. Thus, 

the prohibition of all fishing on the 

Grammanik Bank is intended 

specifically to protect vulnerable 

aggregations of yellowfin grouper 

known to inhabit this distinct area 

during spawning season (February 

through April). 

Comment 14: The amendment fails to 

establish a standardized bycatch 

reporting methodology. The proposed 

actions depend, in part, on MRFSS data, 

which is widely known to be flawed 

and inconclusive. Other alternatives 

could include observers, dockside 

interviews, or at-sea intercepts. One of 

the preferred alternatives only states 

that the Council will consult with 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

to modify trip tickets into a 

standardized reporting mechanism. 

NMFS should require the Council to 

modify and update the trip ticket system 

to provide credible data. 

Response: NMFS and the Council 

acknowledge there are data limitations 

regarding all Caribbean fisheries, but 

NMFS disagrees the MRFSS data are 

flawed and inconclusive. The MRFSS 

program only began in Puerto Rico in 

2000, but it does routinely collect 

information on both catch and discards. 

Over 2,700 field intercept angler 

observations were made in the initial 

year, 2000, and sampling continues at a 

similar level. The proposed actions are 

intended to improve the existing 

databases in regard to both catch and 

bycatch in the Caribbean. Trip ticket 

programs are currently managed by the 

respective state agencies: the 

Department of Natural and 

Environmental Resources for Puerto 

Rico, and the Division of Fish and 

Wildlife for the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Currently, Puerto Rico has no bycatch 

data collection program, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands instituted their program 

in 2004. NMFS currently contributes 

$78,900 and $73,000 to commercial 

fisheries data gathering efforts in Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

respectively. The amendment 

establishes a standardized bycatch 

reporting methodology in partnership 

with both states. Both states have agreed 

to include standardized bycatch data 

collection within their trip ticket 

systems. 

Comment 15: To reduce bycatch, the 

Council considered only one option: to 

amend regulations regarding trap 

construction to require one escape panel 

instead of maintaining the existing twopanel requirement. 

Response: The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

defines bycatch as those fish which are 

harvested, but which are not sold or 

kept for personal use, and includes 

economic as well as regulatory discards. 

Data available for the Caribbean 

fisheries indicate that the vast majority 

of the catch is retained. Coupled to the 

preponderance of effort occurring in 

state waters, the Council concluded 

bycatch is a minor cause of fishing 

mortality in its fisheries. The Council 

did consider other options, such as 

increasing mesh size in fish traps and 

nets, but existing information indicates 

that even with increased mesh size, the 

quantity of discards remains the same. 

The Council is reverting to previous 

requirements to have only one escape 

panel based on public testimony. With 

two panels, there is a greater possibility 

of a panel breaking open during 

retrieval, losing the catch; thus, some 

fishermen are disabling the escape 

panels, negating any benefit of requiring 

two. The action to amend the escape 

panel requirement was agreed on by the 

fishermen, the state fishery management 

agencies, and the Council, and the states 

are interested in developing compatible 

regulations to reduce enforcement 

confusion. Therefore, the Council 

anticipates increased compliance with 

escape panel requirements, which will 

reduce bycatch mortality. In addition, 

many of the other actions in the 

amendment, such as seasonal closures, 

closed areas, and gear restrictions have 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62077 

an ancillary benefit of reducing bycatch 

and bycatch mortality. 

Comment 16: The designations of EFH 

are vague and overly broad. There is no 

consideration of designating EFH 

habitat areas of particular concern (EFHHAPCs) for the Spiny Lobster and 

Queen Conch FMPs. 

Response: The EFH regulations (50 

CFR 600.815) contain guidance 

regarding the types and levels of 

information that should be used for 

describing and identifying EFH. These 

range from distribution; habitat-related 

densities; habitat-related growth, 

reproduction, or survival rates; and 

production rates by habitat. Where 

higher level information is sparse, such 

as with many fish species in the U.S. 

Caribbean, information is to be used in 

a risk-averse fashion to err on the side 

of conservation. Therefore, NMFS 

acknowledges designations of EFH are 

broad, but it is also important to realize 

that the area designated as EFH in U.S. 

waters comprises the aggregate of 

separate EFH designations for each life 

stage of each managed species. Unlike 

EFH, EFH-HAPCs are not a mandated 

component of an FMP. Councils are 

encouraged to designate EFH-HAPCs in 

order to focus conservation priorities on 

specific habitat areas that play a 

particularly important role in the life 

cycles of federally managed fish species. 

An HAPC is expected to be a localized 

area of EFH that is especially 

ecologically important, sensitive, 

stressed, or rare when compared to EFH. 

Seven alternative methods were 

considered for designating EFH-HAPCs; 

the preferred alternative relied upon 

expert opinion regarding factors related 

to EFH-HAPC selection. A panel of 

experts recommended HAPC sites. To 

designate HAPC sites in an efficient 

manner, it was necessary to determine 

which FMP the sites would be 

designated under. Sites with 

predominantly coral habitat were 

aligned with the Coral FMP, while sites 

with predominantly mangrove habitat 

were aligned with the Reef Fish FMP. 

Comment 17: The amendment only 

generally states that anchors, pots/traps, 

gill/trammel nets, and bottom longlines 

have a potential adverse impact on EFH. 

This cursory evaluation does not cover 

all fishing activities undertaken in 

waters identified as EFH by the Council, 

nor does it adequately evaluate the 

impacts of fishing on EFH. We support 

the gear prohibitions and anchoring 

restrictions year round on Grammanik 

Bank, but do not believe these measures 

are sufficient to minimize adverse 

impacts on EFH. In addition, the 

amendment violates the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by 

failing to analyze a broad range of 

management alternatives to minimize 

the adverse impacts of fishing on EFH. 

Response: The impacts of fishing on 

EFH were analyzed in Sections 2.1.5, 

3.5.1, 4.3, and 4.5 of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Generic EFH Amendment to the FMPs 

of the U.S. Caribbean (EFH FEIS). The 

EFH FEIS was prepared, in part, as a 

supporting document to the 

comprehensive amendment and was 

incorporated by reference. The EFH 

FEIS was prepared separately from the 

comprehensive amendment pursuant to 

a process outlined in the Joint 

Stipulation and Order filed in American 

Oceans Campaign v. Evans, Civil No. 

99–982 (GK) (D.D.C. December 17, 

2001). The EFH FEIS analyzed, within 

each fishery, a range of potential 

alternatives to: (1) describe and identify 

EFH for the fishery; (2) identify other 

actions to encourage the conservation 

and enhancement of such EFH; and (3) 

identify measures to minimize to the 

extent practicable the adverse effects of 

fishing on such EFH. In addition to 

pots/traps, gill/trammel nets, and 

bottom longlines, the other allowable 

gears in Caribbean fisheries include 

hook-and-line, handline, dip net, slurp 

gun, spear, and hand harvest. The EFH 

FEIS identified and evaluated the effects 

of all fishing gears, including prohibited 

gear, on EFH (See Section 3.5.1 and 

Tables 3.15, 4.1 and 4.2). Alternatives 

were not developed for gears whose 

effects on habitat were considered 

below a minimal and temporary 

threshold as determined by habitat/gear 

sensitivity and fishing effort. Six 

alternatives for preventing, mitigating, 

or minimizing adverse effects of fishing 

on EFH were presented in the EFH FEIS. 

The alternatives consisted of specific 

management actions that progressively 

increased the amount of restriction 

affecting the use of fishing gears allowed 

under the Reef Fish FMP and the Spiny 

Lobster FMP. Gear used under the 

Queen Conch FMP (hand harvest only) 

is not considered to have adverse 

impacts, and no harvest of coral is 

allowed under the Coral FMP. The gear 

prohibitions and anchoring restrictions 

proposed in the comprehensive SFA 

amendment are applicable to a large 

number of EFH sites throughout the 

Caribbean, not just Grammanik Bank. 

The two alternatives, a no-action 

alternative and a total year-round 

prohibition on the use of the 

predominant bottom-tending gears, 

represent the minimum and maximum 

action that could be taken. Other 

alternatives would have been less 

restrictive. Therefore, NMFS believes 

the Council did adequately consider a 

broad range of alternatives. 

Classification 

The Administrator, Southeast Region, 

NMFS, determined that the 

comprehensive amendment is necessary 

for the conservation and management of 

the reef fish, spiny lobster, queen conch, 

and coral fisheries of the Caribbean and 

that it is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act and other applicable laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

NMFS prepared a final supplemental 

environmental impact statement (FSEIS) 

for this amendment. The FSEIS was 

filed with the Environmental Protection 

Agency on June 17, 2005. A notice of 

availability was published on June 24, 

2005 (70 FR 36582). In approving the 

comprehensive amendment on 

September 14, 2005, NMFS issued a 

ROD identifying the selected 

alternatives. A copy of the ROD is 

available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

NMFS prepared a FRFA that 

incorporates the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of 

the significant issues raised by the 

public comments in response to the 

IRFA, NMFS’ responses to those 

comments, and a summary of the 

analyses completed to support the 

action. A summary of the FRFA follows. 

Copies of the FRFA are available from 

NMFS (see ADDRESSES). 

The final rule will implement an 

integrated FMP amendment that will 

bring the Caribbean Council’s FMPs for 

spiny lobster, queen conch, reef fish, 

corals, and reef associated plants and 

invertebrates into full compliance with 

requirements added to the MagnusonStevens Act through the 1996 

Sustainable Fisheries Act. The 

objectives of the rule are to: (1) define 

fishery management units (FMUs) and 

FMU sub-units; (2) specify biological 

reference points and stock status 

determination criteria; (3) regulate 

fishing mortality; (4) rebuild overfished 

fisheries; (5) conserve and protect 

yellowfin grouper; (6) achieve bycatch 

mandates; and (7) achieve the essential 

fish habitat mandates. 

There were two comments that 

specifically addressed the economic 

impacts of the proposed rule. One 

comment implied that a regulatory 

flexibility analysis had not been 

conducted for the proposed rule. 

However, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis was conducted, and a summary 

of the IRFA was included in the 

published proposed rule. The second 

comment from a trade association stated 

that NMFS had not considered the 

62078 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

adverse economic impact of the 

proposed seasonal closure of an area of 

Grammanik Bank to all fishing, except 

highly migratory species, on small 

commercial fishers from St. Thomas. 

The association noted that the recent 

temporary rule, which prohibited 

fishing for or possession of any species, 

except highly migratory species, within 

an area of Grammanik Bank from 

February 1, 2005, through April 30, 

2005, had an adverse economic impact 

on the four St. Thomas fishers that 

operate in the area, and for one of these 

fishers, the impact was heavy. In the 

IRFA, NMFS evaluated the economic 

impact of the seasonal Grammanik Bank 

closure on all small commercial U.S. 

Virgin Island fishers and concluded that 

the seasonal Grammanik Bank closure 

could have a significant adverse 

economic impact on some of the small 

commercial fishers that operate in the 

EEZ. The impacts were not, however, 

separated by which island the fishers 

operated from. In response to this 

comment, the FRFA includes a 

statement that the seasonal closure will 

have an adverse economic impact on 

four commercial fishers from St. 

Thomas, and the impact will be large for 

one of the fishers. No changes, however, 

were made to the rule as a result of 

these comments. 

The final rule will affect commercial 

and recreational fishers and charter 

fishing services in Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. There are 

approximately 1,758 commercial fishers 

in Puerto Rico and 349 commercial 

fishers in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Approximately 50 entities offer yearround for-hire charter services in the 

U.S. Caribbean, with the majority 

located in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

NMFS expects that 88 Puerto Rican 

commercial fishers (5 percent), 35 U.S. 

Virgin Island commercial fishers (10 

percent), and 3 for-hire charter services 

(5 percent) operate in the EEZ and may 

be affected by this final rule. The Small 

Business Administration (SBA) size 

standards for the finfish, shellfish, and 

other marine fishing industries are $3.5 

million in annual sales. The SBA size 

standard for the charter fishing industry 

is $6.0 million in annual sales. NMFS 

assumes all of the entities that may be 

affected by this final rule are small 

businesses. Thus, NMFS expects a total 

of 123 small businesses in commercial 

fishing and 3 small businesses in charter 

fishing services will be affected by this 

final rule. The final rule will: (1) 

prohibit fishing for or possession of 

queen conch in the EEZ, with the 

exception of Lang Bank east of St. Croix; 

(2a) move aquarium trade species of 

Caribbean coral and reef fish from a 

management to a data collection only 

category; (2b) move all species of 

Caribbean conch, with the exception of 

queen conch, to a data collection only 

category, thereby removing fishery 

management restrictions on these 

species; (3) close the EEZ to the 

possession of red, black, tiger, 

yellowfin, and yellowedge grouper from 

February 1 through April 30 of each 

year; (4) close the EEZ off the west coast 

of Puerto Rico to the possession of red 

hind from December 1 through the last 

day of February each year; (5) close the 

EEZ to the possession of black, blackfin, 

vermilion, and silk snapper from 

October 1 through December 31 of each 

year; (6) close the EEZ to the possession 

of mutton snapper and lane snapper 

from April 1 through June 30 of each 

year; (7a) implement an immediate 

prohibition against the use of gill and 

trammel nets to fish for Caribbean reef 

fish or Caribbean spiny lobster in the 

EEZ; (7b) require gill nets used to fish 

for bait fish in the EEZ to be tended at 

all times; (8) prohibit the filleting of fish 

in the EEZ and require that fish 

captured or possessed in the EEZ be 

landed with heads and fins intact, with 

minor exceptions; (9) close an area of 

the Grammanik Bank to fishing for or 

possession of any species of fish, except 

highly migratory species, from February 

1 through April 30 of each year; (10) 

amend current requirements for trap 

construction such that only one escape 

panel is required, which could be the 

door; (11a) require at least one buoy that 

floats on the surface for all traps/pots 

fished individually for all fishing 

vessels that fish for or possess Caribbean 

spiny lobster or Caribbean reef fish 

species in or from the EEZ; (11b) require 

at least one buoy at each end of trap 

lines linking traps/pots for all fishing 

vessels that fish for or possess Caribbean 

spiny lobster or Caribbean reef fish 

species in or from the EEZ; (11c) 

prohibit use of pots/traps, gill/trammel 

nets, and bottom longlines on coral or 

hard bottom year-round in the existing 

seasonally closed areas and Grammanik 

Bank in the EEZ; and (11d) require an 

anchor retrieval system for all vessels 

that fish for or possess Caribbean reef 

fish species in or from the EEZ. In 

addition, consistent with the provisions 

of the comprehensive amendment, a 

standardized bycatch reporting 

methodology is being established in 

partnership with both states. Both states 

have agreed to include standardized 

bycatch data collection within their trip 

ticket systems. 

The queen conch fishery occurs 

primarily in state waters. 

Approximately 92 percent of queen 

conch harvested in Puerto Rico is 

reported to be obtained from state 

waters, while 60 percent of queen conch 

harvested in the U.S. Virgin Islands is 

reported to be taken from state waters. 

Only 18 fishers were reported to have 

harvested queen conch in the EEZ in 

1999 (2 from the U.S. Virgin Islands and 

16 from Puerto Rico). Together, the 18 

queen conch fishers represent 7 percent 

of the 260 U.S. Caribbean queen conch 

fishers, or less than 1 percent of all 

commercial fishing businesses in the 

U.S. Caribbean. The 16 queen conch 

fishers from Puerto Rico represent 8 

percent of the 209 queen conch fishers 

from that state, and the 2 from the U.S. 

Virgin Islands represent 4 percent of the 

51 queen conch fishers from that 

territory. NMFS expects that the 

prohibition against fishing for or 

possession of queen conch in the 

Caribbean EEZ, with the exception of 

Lang Bank east of St. Croix, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

queen conch fishers from Puerto Rico 

but will likely have a greater adverse 

economic impact on the U.S. Virgin 

Island queen conch fishers that harvest 

the species in the Caribbean EEZ. Any 

small business that harvests species of 

Caribbean conch, other than queen 

conch, or aquarium trade species of 

Caribbean coral or reef fish in the EEZ 

will benefit from the movement of these 

species to a data-collection-only 

category because this movement will 

eliminate existing Federal fishing 

restrictions on these species. However, 

as stated in the IRFA, because harvest of 

these species occurs primarily in state 

waters, NMFS expects that any 

economic benefit obtained will be 

negligible. 

The U.S. Caribbean reef fish fishery is 

essentially a multi-species fishery in 

that fishers catch multiple species of 

reef fish on any given trip. 

Consequently, the harvest of any 

particular species likely represents a 

small proportion of total revenue and 

profit for any given trip. Up to 5.8 

percent of commercial fishers and 5.0 

percent of for-hire charter services will 

be affected by the ban on the possession 

of red, black, tiger, yellowfin, and 

yellowedge grouper in the EEZ from 

February 1 through April 30 of each 

year; the ban on the possession of red 

hind in the EEZ from December 1 

through the last day of February of each 

year; the ban on the possession of black, 

blackfin, vermilion, and silk snapper in 

the EEZ from October 1 through 

December 31 of each year; and the ban 

on the possession of mutton snapper 

and lane snapper in the EEZ from April 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62079 

1 through June 30 of each year. To 

mitigate any revenue and profit losses 

that may result from the seasonal 

closures, commercial fishers and charter 

fishing operations that fish for reef fish 

in the EEZ may intensify fishing before 

and after the seasonal closures and/or 

relocate to state waters. The mitigating 

effects of these behavioral changes 

cannot be forecast. Nonetheless, the 

combined seasonal closures may have a 

significant adverse impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

The immediate prohibition against the 

use of gillnets and trammel nets to fish 

for Caribbean reef fish or Caribbean 

spiny lobster will require the adoption 

of other gear, most likely traps/pots, to 

harvest these species. NMFS expects the 

prohibition will affect a small number of 

the 5 percent of Puerto Rican 

commercial fishers that operate in the 

EEZ because waters depths in the EEZ 

off Puerto Rico do not favor the use of 

gillnets or trammel nets. The 

prohibition will likely affect more U.S. 

Virgin Island commercial fishers 

because there is more fishable habitat 

that can be targeted by gillnets and 

trammel nets in the EEZ off the U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and the use of gillnets 

and trammel nets has increased among 

St. Croix fishers. Consequently, NMFS 

expects the immediate prohibition 

against the use of gillnets and trammel 

nets will have a greater adverse 

economic impact on the 10 percent of 

U.S. Virgin Island commercial fishers 

that operate in the EEZ. 

The immediate prohibition against the 

use of gillnets and trammel nets in the 

EEZ will not apply to the harvest of 

ballyhoo, houndfish, and flying fish, 

which are commonly found near the 

surface. When used to harvest these 

species in the EEZ, the nets must be 

tended at all times. Ballyhoo and 

houndfish are used as bait. At present, 

there is insufficient information to 

determine the economic impact on any 

small business that may currently 

harvest ballyhoo, houndfish, or flying 

fish in the EEZ by using untended 

gillnets and/or trammel nets. 

Since 1990 and 1993, there have been 

prohibitions against the harvest and 

possession of Nassau grouper and 

goliath grouper in the EEZ, respectively; 

however, anecdotal evidence suggests 

that illegal harvest and possession 

occur. Prohibiting the filleting of all 

species of fish in the U.S. Caribbean 

EEZ, except highly migratory species or 

species caught and used for bait or the 

crew’s own consumption, and requiring 

that all fish captured or possessed in the 

EEZ be landed with heads and fins 

intact will improve enforcement of 

existing prohibitions and result in 

reduced illegal revenues. At the same 

time, the prohibition may reduce legal 

revenues for those who fish in the EEZ 

and fillet their fish due to limited 

storage capacity. Because whole fish 

take up more space in a vessel than 

fillets, harvest per trip may be reduced. 

However, because the typical fishing 

vessel in the Caribbean EEZ does not 

have fish holds and, in many cases, does 

not use coolers, it is expected that a 

substantial number of the small 

businesses do not fillet their catches 

from the EEZ and will not experience a 

significant adverse economic impact. 

The final rule will prohibit fishing for 

or possession of any species of fish, 

except highly migratory species, within 

a 0.44 nm2 (1.5 km2) area of Grammanik 

Bank from February 1 through April 30 

of each year. NMFS expects the greatest 

adverse economic impact of the 3- 

month Grammanik Bank closure will be 

on fishers who harvest yellowfin 

grouper because the reported spawning 

aggregation of yellowfin grouper is 

centered within the closed area during 

this time. As previously discussed, the 

final rule will prohibit the possession of 

red, black, tiger, yellowfin, and 

yellowedge grouper in the U.S. EEZ 

from February 1 through April 30. The 

combined impact of the 3-month 

Grammanik Bank closure and the 3- 

month ban against the possession of the 

above species of grouper in the EEZ on 

yellowfin grouper fishers will be no 

revenues from yellowfin grouper fished 

for or possessed anywhere in the EEZ, 

which includes the closed area, for 3 

months. To mitigate losses due to the 

prohibitions, yellowfin grouper fishers 

and other commercial fishers may 

intensify fishing before and after the 

seasonal bans and/or move their fishing 

activities to state waters. Nonetheless, 

the adverse economic impact will be 

significant for some of the small 

commercial fishers that operate in the 

EEZ. According to one U.S. Virgin 

Island trade association, the seasonal 

closure will have an adverse economic 

impact on the four St. Thomas 

commercial fishers who operate in the 

area, and for one of them, the impact 

will be large. The one fisher represents 

25 percent of St. Thomas commercial 

fishers that operate in the area and 3 

percent of U.S. Virgin Island 

commercial fishers that operate in the 

EEZ. 

The final rule will require only one 

escape panel for traps and pots. This 

action relaxes the current requirement 

of two escape panels and therefore does 

not impose any adverse economic 

impact on small businesses. 

The use of traps and pots in the EEZ 

is expected to be infrequent because of 

water depth. Nevertheless, for those 

fishers who use traps and pots in the 

EEZ, the requirement to have at least 

one buoy that floats on the surface for 

all traps or pots fished individually and 

to have at least one buoy at each end of 

trap lines linking traps/pots is not 

expected to impose a significant adverse 

impact because the additional gear 

expenses should be minor. 

The year-round ban on the use of 

traps, pots, gillnets, trammel nets, and 

bottom longlines on coral or hard 

bottom habitat in currently existing, 

seasonally closed areas and the 0.44 

nm2 (1.5 km2) area of Grammanik Bank 

represents a prohibition against the use 

of traditional gear types in these areas. 

This prohibition could be especially 

burdensome to U.S. Virgin Islands 

commercial fishers from St. Croix 

because they have already lost fishing 

areas in state waters due to U.S. Virgin 

Island closures. The majority of fishable 

habitat off St. Croix is primarily 

restricted to Lang Bank and, currently, 

the eastern half of Lang Bank is closed 

to all fishing from December 1 through 

the last day of February of each year. 

The final rule will ban the use of 

traditional gear in an area that 

encompasses approximately the 

easternmost half of Lang Bank. 

Consequently, NMFS expects the ban 

will have a significant adverse economic 

impact on those St. Croix commercial 

fishers that currently use traps, pots, 

gillnets, trammel nets, and/or bottom 

longlines in the eastern half of Lang 

Bank. 

The final rule will require that the 

owner or operator of any fishing vessel, 

recreational or commercial, that fishes 

for or possesses Caribbean reef fish in or 

from the EEZ ensure that the vessel uses 

only an anchor retrieval system that 

recovers the anchor by its crown, 

thereby preventing the anchor from 

dragging along the bottom during 

recovery and damaging habitat. NMFS 

assumes that most commercial and 

charter fishing vessels that operate in 

the EEZ do not currently have an anchor 

retrieval system that meets the 

requirement. For those fishers that have 

a grapnel hook, this will require 

incorporating an anchor rode reversal 

bar that runs parallel along the shank. 

For those fishers that have a fluke or 

plow-type anchor, a trip line consisting 

of a line from the crown of the anchor 

to a surface buoy would be required. 

There is currently insufficient 

information to quantify the number of 

fishing vessels that use the different 

types of anchors and the costs of making 

necessary modifications. However, 

NMFS expects the cost will not 

62080 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

represent a significant adverse economic 

impact on small businesses. 

Although the current data collection 

system in the U.S. Caribbean, partially 

funded through Federal grants, does not 

require commercial fishers or charter 

fishing operations to report bycatch 

data, Puerto Rico has agreed to require 

that this information be reported, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands has incorporated 

some bycatch data into its reporting 

requirements and will be improving the 

data collection. Consistent with the 

provisions of the comprehensive 

amendment, NMFS will consult with 

Puerto Rico in an effort to add data 

fields to Puerto Rico’s existing 

mandatory landings reports in order to 

include consistent and standardized 

bycatch data. Consequently, the final 

rule does not directly impose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. However, the indirect 

economic impact of requiring additional 

reporting information will accrue to 

commercial fishing and charter fishing 

businesses in Puerto Rico through 

additional time to report bycatch 

information in the future. At present, 

there is insufficient information to 

quantify the amount of time necessary 

to report such information and how this 

might affect business operation; 

however, it is not expected to represent 

a significant adverse economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

businesses. 

Alternatives considered but rejected 

by the Council would have increased 

the adverse economic impact on small 

businesses. One alternative would have 

prohibited fishing for or possession of 

queen conch in the entire EEZ. Because 

the rejected alternative would have 

extended the prohibition to include 

Lang Bank east of St. Croix, it could 

have had a greater adverse economic 

impact on U.S. Virgin Island queen 

conch fishers. Alternatives to the 

seasonal bans on the possession of 

mutton snapper and lane snapper, red 

hind, and the respective snapper and 

grouper species would have banned the 

possession of all species managed by the 

Caribbean Council for 3 months, 6 

months, or a year. Such bans would 

have had greater adverse economic 

impacts than the final rule because each 

rejected alternative would have banned 

the possession of more species for an 

equal or a longer period of time. The 

Council considered, but rejected, 

alternatives to the immediate 

prohibition against the use of gillnets 

and trammel nets to fish for Caribbean 

reef fish or Caribbean spiny lobster 

because the adverse economic impacts 

of the alternatives on small businesses 

could have been much greater than the 

final rule. Specifically, the rejected 

alternatives included the immediate 

prohibition against the use of fish traps 

in the Caribbean EEZ, the immediate 

prohibition against the use of gillnets or 

trammel nets in the Caribbean EEZ to 

fish for any species, and closing various 

areas of the EEZ to fishing for or 

possession of all species. Alternatives to 

the 3-month prohibition against fishing 

for or possession of any species of fish, 

except highly migratory species, within 

a 0.44 nm2 (1.5 km2) area of Grammanik 

Bank would have closed larger areas of 

the Bank or added a year-round ban 

against fishing for or possession of 

yellowfin grouper in the EEZ and, 

therefore, would have had greater 

adverse economic impacts on small 

commercial fishers than the final rule. 

Finally, the Council considered 

implementing a Federal permit system 

for commercial and charter fishing 

businesses that operate in the EEZ as an 

alternative to the recommendation that 

NMFS consult with Puerto Rico as the 

state modifies its mandatory landings 

reports; however, that alternative was 

rejected because it would have had a 

greater adverse economic impact than 

the alternative in the final rule. 

List of Subjects 

50 CFR Part 600 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing 

vessels, Foreign relations, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Statistics. 

50 CFR Part 622 

Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Virgin Islands. 

Dated: October 25, 2005. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR parts 600 and 622 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. 

§ 600.725 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 600.725, amend the table in 

paragraph (v), section V., as follows: 

a. Under the heading ‘‘1. Caribbean 

Spiny Lobster Fishery (FMP)’’, remove 

entry ‘‘C’’ from the first and second 

columns; redesignate entries ‘‘D’’ and 

‘‘E’’ as ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’, respectively, in the 

first and second columns; and remove 

the phrase ‘‘gillnet, trammel net’’ from 

the second column in the newly 

redesignated entry ‘‘D≥; and 

b. Under the heading ‘‘2. Caribbean 

Shallow Water Reef Fish Fishery 

(FMP)’’, remove entry ‘‘C’’ from the first 

and second columns; and redesignate 

entry ‘‘D’’ as ‘‘C’’ in the first and second 

columns. 

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. In § 622.2, the definition of 

‘‘Caribbean conch resource’’ is removed, 

and a definition of ‘‘Caribbean queen 

conch’’ is added in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 622.2 Definitions and acronyms. 

* * * * * 

Caribbean queen conch or queen 

conch means the species, Strombus 

gigus, or a part thereof. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In § 622.6, paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.6 Vessel and gear identification. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Caribbean EEZ. Traps or pots used 

in the Caribbean spiny lobster or 

Caribbean reef fish fisheries that are 

fished individually, rather than tied 

together in a trap line, must have at least 

one buoy attached that floats on the 

surface. Traps or pots used in the 

Caribbean spiny lobster or Caribbean 

reef fish fisheries that are tied together 

in a trap line must have at least one 

buoy that floats at the surface attached 

at each end of the trap line. Each buoy 

must display the official number and 

color code assigned to the vessel by 

Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

whichever is applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 622.31, paragraph (l) is added 

to read as follows: 

§ 622.31 Prohibited gear and methods. 

* * * * * 

(l) Gillnets and trammel nets in the 

Caribbean EEZ. A gillnet or trammel net 

may not be used in the Caribbean EEZ 

to fish for Caribbean reef fish or 

Caribbean spiny lobster. Possession of a 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62081 

gillnet or trammel net and any 

Caribbean reef fish or Caribbean spiny 

lobster in or from the Caribbean EEZ is 

prima facie evidence of violation of this 

paragraph (l). A gillnet or trammel net 

used in the Caribbean EEZ to fish for 

any other species must be tended at all 

times. 

■ 7. In § 622.32, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is 

revised, and paragraph (b)(1)(iv) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 622.32 Prohibited and limited-harvest 

species. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) No person may fish for or possess 

goliath grouper and Nassau grouper in 

or from the Caribbean EEZ. Such fish 

caught in the Caribbean EEZ must be 

released immediately with a minimum 

of harm. 

* * * * * 

(iv) No person may fish for, or possess 

on board a fishing vessel, a Caribbean 

queen conch in or from the Caribbean 

EEZ, except during October 1 through 

June 30 in the area east of 64°34′ W. 

longitude which includes Lang Bank 

east of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. In § 622.33, paragraph (a) 

introductory text is added and 

paragraph (a)(3) is revised, and 

paragraphs (a)(4) through (a)(7) are 

added to read as follows: 

§ 622.33 Caribbean EEZ seasonal and/or 

area closures. 

(a) Seasonal closures. In addition to 

the other restrictions specified in this 

paragraph (a), fishing with pots, traps, 

bottom longlines, gillnets or trammel 

nets is prohibited year-round in the 

closed areas specified in paragraphs 

(a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(3) Grammanik Bank closed area. (i) 

The Grammanik Bank closed area is 

bounded by rhumb lines connecting, in 

order, the following points: 

Point North lat. West long. 

A 18°11.898′ 64°56.328′ 

B 18°11.645′ 64°56.225′ 

C 18°11.058′ 64°57.810′ 

D 18°11.311′ 64°57.913′ 

A 18°11.898′ 64°56.328′ 

(ii) From February 1 through April 30, 

each year, no person may fish for or 

possess any species of fish, except 

highly migratory species, in or from the 

Grammanik Bank closed area. This 

prohibition on possession does not 

apply to such fish harvested and landed 

ashore prior to the closure. For the 

purpose of paragraph (a)(4) of this 

section, ‘‘fish’’ means finfish, mollusks, 

crustaceans, and all other forms of 

marine animal and plant life other than 

marine mammals and birds. ‘‘Highly 

migratory species’’ means bluefin, 

bigeye, yellowfin, albacore, and skipjack 

tunas; swordfish; sharks (listed in 

Appendix A to part 635 of this title); 

and white marlin, blue marlin, sailfish, 

and longbill spearfish. 

(4) Red, black, tiger, yellowfin, or 

yellowedge grouper. From February 1 

through April 30, each year, no person 

may fish for or possess red, black, tiger, 

yellowfin, or yellowedge grouper in or 

from the Caribbean EEZ. This 

prohibition on possession does not 

apply to such grouper harvested and 

landed ashore prior to the closure. 

(5) Additional red hind closure. From 

December 1 through the last day of 

February, each year, no person may fish 

for or possess red hind in or from the 

Caribbean EEZ west of 67°10′ W. 

longitude. This prohibition on 

possession does not apply to red hind 

harvested and landed ashore prior to the 

closure. 

(6) Vermilion, black, silk, or blackfin 

snapper. From October 1 through 

December 31, each year, no person may 

fish for or possess vermilion, black, silk, 

or blackfin snapper in or from the 

Caribbean EEZ. This prohibition on 

possession does not apply to such 

snapper harvested and landed ashore 

prior to the closure. 

(7) Lane or mutton snapper. From 

April 1 through June 30, each year, no 

person may fish for or possess lane or 

mutton snapper in or from the 

Caribbean EEZ. This prohibition on 

possession does not apply to such 

snapper harvested and landed ashore 

prior to the closure. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. In § 622.38, paragraphs (a), (d), and 

(f) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.38 Landing fish intact. 

* * * * * 

(a) The following must be maintained 

with head and fins intact: cobia, king 

mackerel, and Spanish mackerel in or 

from the Gulf, Mid-Atlantic, or South 

Atlantic EEZ, except as specified for 

king mackerel in paragraph (g) of this 

section; dolphin and wahoo in or from 

the Atlantic EEZ; South Atlantic 

snapper-grouper in or from the South 

Atlantic EEZ, except as specified in 

paragraph (h) of this section; finfish in 

or from the Caribbean EEZ, except as 

specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section; and finfish in or from the 

Gulf EEZ, except as specified in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

Such fish may be eviscerated, gilled, 

and scaled, but must otherwise be 

maintained in a whole condition. 

* * * * * 

(d) In the Gulf EEZ or Caribbean EEZ: 

(1) Bait is exempt from the 

requirement to be maintained with head 

and fins intact. 

(i) For the purpose of this paragraph 

(d)(1), ‘‘bait’’ means-- 

(A) Packaged, headless fish fillets that 

have the skin attached and are frozen or 

refrigerated; 

(B) Headless fish fillets that have the 

skin attached and are held in brine; or 

(C) Small pieces no larger than 3 in3 

(7.6 cm3) or strips no larger than 3 

inches by 9 inches (7.6 cm by 22.9 cm) 

that have the skin attached and are 

frozen, refrigerated, or held in brine. 

(ii) Paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section 

notwithstanding, a finfish or part 

thereof possessed in or landed from the 

Gulf EEZ or Caribbean EEZ that is 

subsequently sold or purchased as a 

finfish species, rather than as bait, is not 

bait. 

(2) Legal-sized finfish possessed for 

consumption at sea on the harvesting 

vessel are exempt from the requirement 

to have head and fins intact, provided—

(i) Such finfish do not exceed any 

applicable bag limit; 

(ii) Such finfish do not exceed 1.5 lb 

(680 g) of finfish parts per person 

aboard; and 

(iii) The vessel is equipped to cook 

such finfish on board. 

* * * * * 

(f) Queen conch in or from the 

Caribbean EEZ must be maintained with 

meat and shell intact. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. In § 622.40, paragraph (b)(1)(i) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.40 Limitations on traps and pots. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) A fish trap used or possessed in the 

Caribbean EEZ must have a panel 

located on one side of the trap, 

excluding the top, bottom, and side 

containing the trap entrance. The 

opening covered by the panel must 

measure not less than 8 by 8 inches 

(20.3 by 20.3 cm). The mesh size of the 

panel may not be smaller than the mesh 

size of the trap. The panel must be 

attached to the trap with untreated jute 

twine with a diameter not exceeding 1/ 

8 inch (3.2 mm). An access door may 

serve as the panel, provided it is on an 

appropriate side, it is hinged only at its 

62082 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

bottom, its only other fastening is 

untreated jute twine with a diameter not 

exceeding 1/8 inch (3.2 mm), and such 

fastening is at the top of the door so that 

the door will fall open when such twine 

degrades. Jute twine used to secure a 

panel may not be wrapped or 

overlapped. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. In § 622.41, paragraph (b) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 622.41 Species specific limitations. 

* * * * * 

(b) Caribbean reef fish anchoring 

restriction. The owner or operator of any 

fishing vessel, recreational or 

commercial, that fishes for or possesses 

Caribbean reef fish in or from the 

Caribbean EEZ must ensure that the 

vessel uses only an anchor retrieval 

system that recovers the anchor by its 

crown, thereby preventing the anchor 

from dragging along the bottom during 

recovery. For a grapnel hook, this could 

include an incorporated anchor rode 

reversal bar that runs parallel along the 

shank, which allows the rode to reverse 

and slip back toward the crown. For a 

fluke- or plow-type anchor, a trip line 

consisting of a line from the crown of 

the anchor to a surface buoy would be 

required. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. In Appendix A to Part 622, Tables 

1 and 2 are revised, and Table 5 is 

added to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 622—Species 

Tables 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN CORAL REEF RESOURCES

I. Coelenterates—Phylum Coelenterata 

A. Hydrocorals—Class Hydrozoa 

1. Hydroids—Order Athecatae 

Family Milleporidae 

Millepora spp., Fire corals 

Family Stylasteridae 

Stylaster roseus, Rose lace corals 

B. Anthozoans—Class Anthozoa 

1. Soft corals—Order Alcyonacea 

Family Anthothelidae 

Erythropodium caribaeorum, Encrusting 

gorgonian 

Iciligorgia schrammi, Deepwater sea fan 

Family Briaridae 

Briareum asbestinum, Corky sea finger 

Family Clavulariidae 

Carijoa riisei 

Telesto spp. 

2. Gorgonian corals—Order 

Gorgonacea 

Family Ellisellidae 

Ellisella spp., Sea whips 

Family Gorgoniidae 

Gorgonia flabellum, Venus sea fan 

G. mariae, Wide-mesh sea fan 

G. ventalina, Common sea fan 

Pseudopterogorgia acerosa, Sea plume 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN CORAL REEF RESOURCES—Continued 

P. albatrossae 

P. americana, Slimy sea plume 

P. bipinnata, Bipinnate plume 

P. rigida 

Pterogorgia anceps, Angular sea whip 

P. citrina, Yellow sea whip 

Family Plexauridae 

Eunicea calyculata, Warty sea rod 

E. clavigera 

E. fusca, Doughnut sea rod 

E. knighti 

E. laciniata 

E. laxispica 

E. mammosa, Swollen-knob 

E. succinea, Shelf-knob sea rod 

E. touneforti 

Muricea atlantica 

M. elongata, Orange spiny rod 

M. laxa, Delicate spiny rod 

M. muricata, Spiny sea fan 

M. pinnata, Long spine sea fan 

Muriceopsis spp. 

M. flavida, Rough sea plume 

M. sulphurea 

Plexaura flexuosa, Bent sea rod 

P. homomalla, Black sea rod 

Plexaurella dichotoma, Slit-pore sea rod 

P. fusifera 

P. grandiflora 

P. grisea 

P. nutans, Giant slit-pore 

Pseudoplexaura crucis 

P. flagellosa 

P. porosa, Porous sea rod 

P. wagenaari 

3. Hard Corals—Order Scleractinia 

Family Acroporidae 

Acropora cervicornis, Staghorn coral 

A. palmata, Elkhorn coral 

A. prolifera, Fused staghorn 

Family Agaricidae 

Agaricia agaricities, Lettuce leaf coral 

A. fragilis, Fragile saucer 

A. lamarcki, Lamarck’s sheet 

A. tenuifolia, Thin leaf lettuce 

Leptoseris cucullata, Sunray lettuce 

Family Astrocoeniidae 

Stephanocoenia michelinii, Blushing star 

Family Caryophyllidae 

Eusmilia fastigiata, Flower coral 

Tubastrea aurea, Cup coral 

Family Faviidae 

Cladocora arbuscula, Tube coral 

Colpophyllia natans, Boulder coral 

Diploria clivosa, Knobby brain coral 

D. labyrinthiformis, Grooved brain 

D. strigosa, Symmetrical brain 

Favia fragum, Golfball coral 

Manicina areolata, Rose coral 

M. mayori, Tortugas rose coral 

Montastrea annularis, Boulder star coral 

M. cavernosa, Great star coral 

Solenastrea bournoni, Smooth star coral 

Family Meandrinidae 

Dendrogyra cylindrus, Pillar coral 

Dichocoenia stellaris, Pancake star 

D. stokesi, Elliptical star 

Meandrina meandrites, Maze coral 

Family Mussidae 

Isophyllastrea rigida, Rough star coral 

Isophyllia sinuosa, Sinuous cactus 

Mussa angulosa, Large flower coral 

Mycetophyllia aliciae, Thin fungus coral 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN CORAL REEF RESOURCES—Continued 

M. danae, Fat fungus coral 

M. ferox, Grooved fungus 

M. lamarckiana, Fungus coral 

Scolymia cubensis, Artichoke coral 

S. lacera, Solitary disk 

Family Oculinidae 

Oculina diffusa, Ivory bush coral 

Family Pocilloporidae 

Madracis decactis, Ten-ray star coral 

M. mirabilis, Yellow pencil 

Family Poritidae 

Porites astreoides, Mustard hill coral 

P. branneri, Blue crust coral 

P. divaricata, Small finger coral 

P. porites, Finger coral 

Family Rhizangiidae 

Astrangia solitaria, Dwarf cup coral 

Phyllangia americana, Hidden cup coral 

Family Siderastreidae 

Siderastrea radians, Lesser starlet 

S. siderea, Massive starlet 

4. Black Corals—Order Antipatharia 

Antipathes spp., Bushy black coral 

Stichopathes spp., Wire coral 

II. Sea grasses—Phylum Angiospermae 

Halodule wrightii, Shoal grass 

Halophila spp., Sea vines 

Ruppia maritima, Widgeon grass 

Syringodium filiforme, Manatee grass 

Thalassia testudium, Turtle grass 

Aquarium Trade Species in the Coral 

FMP—The following species are 

included for data collection purposes only. 

I. Sponges—Phylum Porifera 

A. Demosponges—Class Demospongiae 

Aphimedon compressa, Erect rope sponge 

Chondrilla nucula, Chicken liver sponge 

Cynachirella alloclada 

Geodia neptuni, Potato sponge 

Haliclona spp., Finger sponge 

Myriastra spp. 

Niphates digitalis, Pink vase sponge 

N. erecta, Lavender rope sponge 

Spinosella policifera 

S. vaginalis 

Tethya crypta 

II. Coelenterates—Phylum Coelenterata 

A. Anthozoans—Class Anthozoa 

1. Anemones—Order Actiniaria 

Aiptasia tagetes, Pale anemone 

Bartholomea annulata, Corkscrew 

anemone 

Condylactis gigantea, Giant pink-tipped 

anemone 

Hereractis lucida, Knobby anemone 

Lebrunia spp., Staghorn anemone 

Stichodactyla helianthus, Sun anemone 

2. Colonial Anemones—Order 

Zoanthidea 

Zoanthus spp., Sea mat 

3. False Corals—Order Corallimorpharia 

Discosoma spp. (formerly Rhodactis), 

False coral 

Ricordia florida, Florida false coral 

III. Annelid Worms—Phylum Annelida 

A. Polychaetes—Class Polychaeta 

Family Sabellidae, Feather duster worms 

Sabellastarte spp., Tube worms 

S. magnifica, Magnificent duster 

Family Serpulidae 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 62083 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN CORAL REEF RESOURCES—Continued 

Spirobranchus giganteus, Christmas 

tree worm 

IV. Mollusks—Phylum Mollusca 

A. Gastropods—Class Gastropoda 

Family Elysiidae 

Tridachia crispata, Lettuce sea slug 

Family Olividae 

Oliva reticularis, Netted olive 

Family Ovulidae 

Cyphoma gibbosum, Flamingo tongue 

B. Bivalves—Class Bivalvia 

Family Limidae 

Lima spp., Fileclams 

L. scabra, Rough fileclam 

Family Spondylidae 

Spondylus americanus, Atlantic thorny 

oyster 

C. Cephalopods—Class Cephalopoda 

1. Octopuses—Order Octopoda 

Family Octopodidae 

Octopus spp. (except the Common octopus, O. vulgaris) 

V. Arthropods—Phylum Arthropoda 

A. Crustaceans—Subphylum Crustacea 

1. Decapods—Order Decapoda 

Family Alpheidae 

Alpheaus armatus, Snapping shrimp 

Family Diogenidae 

Paguristes spp., Hermit crabs 

P. cadenati, Red reef hermit 

Family Grapsidae 

Percnon gibbesi, Nimble spray crab 

Family Hippolytidae 

Lysmata spp., Peppermint shrimp 

Thor amboinensis, Anemone shrimp 

Family Majidae, Coral crabs 

Mithrax spp., Clinging crabs 

M. cinctimanus, Banded clinging 

M. sculptus, Green clinging 

Stenorhynchus seticornis, Yellowline 

arrow 

Family Palaemonida 

Periclimenes spp., Cleaner shrimp 

Family Squillidae, Mantis crabs 

Gonodactylus spp. 

Lysiosquilla spp. 

Family Stenopodidae, Coral shrimp 

Stenopus hispidus, Banded shrimp 

S. scutellatus, Golden shrimp 

VI. Echinoderms—Phylum Echinodermata 

A. Feather stars—Class Crinoidea 

Analcidometra armata, Swimming 

crinoid 

Davidaster spp., Crinoids 

Nemaster spp., Crinoids 

B. Sea stars—Class Asteroidea 

Astropecten spp., Sand stars 

Linckia guildingii, Common comet star 

Ophidiaster guildingii, Comet star 

Oreaster reticulatus, Cushion sea star 

C. Brittle and basket stars—Class 

Ophiuroidea 

Astrophyton muricatum, Giant basket 

star 

Ophiocoma spp., Brittlestars 

Ophioderma spp., Brittlestars 

O. rubicundum, Ruby brittlestar 

D. Sea Urchins—Class Echinoidea 

Diadema antillarum, Long-spined urchin 

Echinometra spp., Purple urchin 

Eucidaris tribuloides, Pencil urchin 

Lytechinus spp., Pin cushion urchin 

Tripneustes ventricosus, Sea egg 

TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN CORAL REEF RESOURCES—Continued 

E. Sea Cucumbers—Class Holothuroidea 

Holothuria spp., Sea cucumbers 

VII. Chordates—Phylum Chordata 

A. Tunicates—Subphylum Urochordata 

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN REEF FISH

Lutjanidae—Snappers 

Unit 1 

Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus 

Blackfin snapper, L. buccanella 

Black snapper, Apsilus dentatus 

Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites 

aurorubens 

Unit 2 

Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus 

Wenchman, Pristipomoides aquilonaris 

Unit 3 

Gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus 

Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris 

Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis 

Dog snapper, Lutjanus jocu 

Schoolmaster, Lutjanus apodus 

Mahogany snapper, Lutjanus mahogani 

Unit 4 

Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus 

Serranidae—Sea basses and Groupers 

Unit 1 

Nassau Grouper, Epinephelus striatus 

Unit 2 

Goliath grouper, Epinephelus itajara 

Unit 3 

Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus 

Coney, Epinephelus fulvus 

Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis 

Graysby, Epinephelus cruentatus 

Creole-fish, Paranthias furcifer 

Unit 4 

Red grouper, Epinephelus morio 

Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus 

flavolimbatus 

Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus 

Tiger grouper, Mycteroperca tigris 

Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa 

Haemulidae—Grunts 

White grunt, Haemulon plumieri 

Margate, Haemulon album 

Tomtate, Haemulon aurolineatum 

Bluestriped grunt, Haemulon sciurus 

French grunt, Haemulon flavolineatum 

Porkfish, Anisotremus virginicus 

Mullidae—Goatfishes 

Spotted goatfish, Pseudupeneus maculatus 

Yellow goatfish, Mulloidichthys martinicus 

Sparidae—Porgies 

Jolthead porgy, Calamus bajonado 

Sea bream, Archosargus rhomboidalis 

Sheepshead porgy, Calamus penna 

Pluma, Calamus pennatula 

Holocentridae—Squirrelfishes 

Blackbar soldierfish, Myripristis jacobus 

Bigeye, Priacanthus arenatus 

Longspine squirrelfish, Holocentrus rufus 

Squirrelfish, Holocentrus adscensionis 

Malacanthidae—Tilefishes 

Blackline tilefish, Caulolatilus cyanops 

Sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri 

Carangidae—Jacks 

Blue runner, Caranx crysos 

Horse-eye jack, Caranx latus 

Black jack, Caranx lugubris 

Almaco jack, Seriola rivoliana 

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN REEF FISH—Continued 

Bar jack, Caranx ruber 

Greater amberjack, Seriola dumerili 

Yellow jack, Caranx bartholomaei 

Scaridae—Parrotfishes 

Blue parrotfish, Scarus coeruleus 

Midnight parrotfish, Scarus coelestinus 

Princess parrotfish, Scarus taeniopterus 

Queen parrotfish, Scarus vetula 

Rainbow parrotfish, Scarus guacamaia 

Redfin parrotfish, Sparisoma rubripinne 

Redtail parrotfish, Sparisoma chrysopterum 

Stoplight parrotfish, Sparisoma viride 

Redband parrotfish, Sparisoma 

aurofrenatum 

Striped parrotfish, Scarus croicensis 

Acanthuridae—Surgeonfishes 

Blue tang, Acanthurus coeruleus 

Ocean surgeonfish, Acanthurus bahianus 

Doctorfish, Acanthurus chirurgus 

Balistidae—Triggerfishes 

Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis sufflamen 

Queen triggerfish, Balistes vetula 

Sargassum triggerfish, Xanthichthys rigens 

Monacanthidae—Filefishes 

Scrawled filefish, Aluterus scriptus 

Whitespotted filefish, Cantherhines 

macrocerus 

Black durgon, Melichthys niger 

Ostraciidae—Boxfishes 

Honeycomb cowfish, Lactophrys polygonia 

Scrawled cowfish, Lactophrys quadricornis 

Trunkfish, Lactophrys trigonus 

Spotted trunkfish, Lactophrys bicaudalis 

Smooth trunkfish, Lactophrys triqueter 

Labridae—Wrasses 

Hogfish, Lachnolaimus maximus 

Puddingwife, Halichoeres radiatus 

Spanish hogfish, Bodianus rufus 

Pomacanthidae—Angelfishes 

Queen angelfish, Holacanthus ciliaris 

Gray angelfish, Pomacanthus arcuatus 

French angelfish, Pomacanthus paru 

Aquarium Trade—The following 

aquarium trade species are included for data collection purposes 

only: 

Frogfish, Antennarius spp. 

Flamefish, Apogon maculatus 

Conchfish, Astrapogen stellatus 

Redlip blenny, Ophioblennius atlanticus 

Peacock flounder, Bothus lunatus 

Longsnout butterflyfish, Chaetodon 

aculeatus 

Foureye butterflyfish, Chaetodon capistratus 

Spotfin butterflyfish, Chaetodon ocellatus 

Banded butterflyfish, Chaetodon striatus 

Redspotted hawkfish, Amblycirrhitus pinos 

Flying gurnard, Dactylopterus volitans 

Atlantic spadefish, Chaetodipterus faber 

Neon goby, Gobiosoma oceanops 

Rusty goby, Priolepis hipoliti 

Royal gramma, Gramma loreto 

Creole wrasse, Clepticus parrae 

Yellowcheek wrasse, Halichoeres 

cyanocephalus 

Yellowhead wrasse, Halichoeres garnoti 

Clown wrasse, Halichoeres maculipinna 

Pearly razorfish, Hemipteronotus novacula 

Green razorfish, Hemipteronotus splendens 

Bluehead wrasse, Thalassoma bifasciatum 

Chain moray, Echidna catenata 

62084 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 208 / Friday, October 28, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN REEF FISH—Continued 

Green moray, Gymnothorax funebris 

Goldentail moray, Gymnothorax miliaris 

Batfish, Ogcocepahalus spp. 

Goldspotted eel, Myrichthys ocellatus 

Yellowhead jawfish, Opistognathus aurifrons 

Dusky jawfish, Opistognathus whitehursti 

Cherubfish, Centropyge argi 

Rock beauty, Holacanthus tricolor 

Sergeant major, Abudefduf saxatilis 

Blue chromis, Chromis cyanea 

Sunshinefish, Chromis insolata 

Yellowtail damselfish, Microspathodon 

chrysurus 

Dusky damselfish, Pomacentrus fuscus 

Beaugregory, Pomacentrus leucostictus 

Bicolor damselfish, Pomacentrus partitus 

Threespot damselfish, Pomacentrus 

planifrons 

TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN REEF FISH—Continued 

Glasseye snapper, Priacanthus cruentatus 

High-hat, Equetus acuminatus 

Jackknife-fish, Equetus lanceolatus 

Spotted drum, Equetus punctatus 

Scorpaenidae—Scorpionfishes 

Butter hamlet, Hypoplectrus unicolor 

Swissguard basslet, Liopropoma rubre 

Greater soapfish, Rypticus saponaceus 

Orangeback bass, Serranus annularis 

Lantern bass, Serranus baldwini 

Tobaccofish, Serranus tabacarius 

Harlequin bass, Serranus tigrinus 

Chalk bass, Serranus tortugarum 

Caribbean tonguefish, Symphurus arawak 

Seahorses, Hippocampus spp. 

Pipefishes, Syngnathus spp. 

Sand diver, Synodus intermedius 

Sharpnose puffer, Canthigaster rostrata 

Porcupinefish, Diodon hystrix 

* * * * * 

TABLE 5 OF APPENDIX A TO PART

622—CARIBBEAN CONCH RESOURCES

Queen conch, Strombus gigas 

The following species are included 

for data collection purposes only: 

Atlantic triton’s trumpet, Charonia variegata 

Cameo helmet, Cassis madagascarensis 

Green star shell, Astrea tuber 

Hawkwing conch, Strombus raninus 

Milk conch, Strombus costatus 

Roostertail conch, Strombus gallus 

West Indian fighting conch, Strombus 

pugilis 

True tulip, Fasciolaria tulipa 

[FR Doc. 05–21559 Filed 10–25–05; 1:46 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S